# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Optometry vs Opticianry......Why does it have to be WAR?

## Judy Canty

But Ive had it with the bickering, back-biting, smarter-than-you attitudes in this industry.  I believe the reason behind our inability to communicate with each other across professional lines is simply that we dont want to.  Opticians seem to like the bottom of the optical food chain.  



As a group, we dont support college-based education in any meaningful way, because we dont make it a prerequisite for hiring nor do we encourage co-workers or employees to seek it.  After all, requiring that level of competency usually means higher salaries.  



More than half of us dont support state licensure, because more than half of the states dont require it.  Wed have to work together with state and national organizations to achieve it and thats just asking too much. Most of our professional organizations represent only a fraction of the Opticians in their respective states. Too many of us see licensure as just another income source for state governments rather than an indication to the consumer that there is some level of skill and knowledge required to practice.



Many Optometrists and Ophthalmologists support the concept of college-educated and licensed Opticianry.  However, the actions of their respective state and national organizations and even their own hiring practices belie their words.  If a college-educated, licensed professional is good for your practices, then require it and pay accordingly.  If state licensure is important to your practices then support efforts to achieve it, even if it means associating with Opticians.



My bottom line is this:  If you want to fight, then fight.  If you want to want to be the smartest one in the room, fine.  Ill afford you as much professional courtesy and respect as Im given, but nothing more.  At the end of the day, all any of us want is to have a meaningful profession, a modicum of respect and a decent lifestyle for our families and ourselves.

----------


## GOS_Queen

Well put!  I think you've summed it up very well.

----------


## hcjilson

In a thread recently closed, the question of the animosity between Optometry and Opticianry came up. I wondered How and why it started? and Why does it continue to this day? What can be done to end the war?


In the spirit of Professionalism and with the knowledge that Optiboarders from outside the professions are watching, keep this thread civil.

----------


## NC-OD

I went until my mouse finger got tired of clicking:
-------------------------------------------------------

Rule #2 of the optical business: "The Doctor is always right!"
no matter what that fool says. 


The problem ODs have is that they have an identity crisis ..You are NOT A REAL Physician. You are a wanna be right? 


.... do your self a favor and to your poor patients and become an MD if your treating eye disease t an inferior level...and yes do the pinhole test at least as CYA kinda thing. 


Does it bother anyone else that Optometry is practicing medicine witout a license? 


Recently in Colorad, Optometry used the Sunset Review Process to make changes in their statutes, which included the unsupervised treatment of glaucoma, Iritis and the use of oral antiviral medications.

Dentists are required to drill into and cut into tissues as a part of their education whereas OD's are not trained to perform Lasik nor are they taught to incize soft tissues, or to understand the interaction of medications or what to do if a bad result should occur. Their training and expertise is all topical, but again what an OD can do leaglly is up to the law, but I'm afraid I wouldn't let an OD cut my nails. 


The fact is that their degree is not MD. Frankly a retinal tomography is no big deal. It will be interesting how the ODs manage to milk this technology in the management of glaucoma.


OD's practice medicine under the guise of the law but not with a license in medicine. 


ODs are NOT physicians by any stretch of imagination or definition. In states where the use of the term has been legislated, it is simply a function of their strong political lobby and legislators who are not intelligent enough to know the difference. Nurse practicioners are much closer to the definition of physician than optometrists. 


Actually I think it is a dichotomy for OD's, on one hand to pretend that they have the public health and welfare in mind when they protect their position, and then to pretend to be physicians in order to confuse the public to gain customers. The only real common thread is these two positions is pretention. 


Optometrist's refract (I don't see a problem with OD's dilating; however, punctal plugs may be going too far.) 


I can think of no circumstance where an Optometrist should be allowed to prescribe narcotics. 


OD's can dispense medications as well and I can't stop them from doing so since they have a legal right to do this, but I would never let an OD dispense medications to me (personally). For this I would consult an MD first (again personal preference). 


The point here is that optometry has successfully played upon ignorance of the public, leading them to believe that they are just another specialist in the medical community. 


Of course optometry did not buy the right to obtain DPA or TPA privilages, they presented their case and by and large the lesislators saw it only as a turf battle among medical doctors because EVEN THEY do not know the difference! A case of mistaken identy from which optometrey has now receive the windfall profits of American consumer ignorance. 


I have great respect for what an OD does but the fact of the matter remains an OD does not complete medical school and therefore (IMO) should not be dispensing medications of any kind and should not be removing foreign bodies from the eye. 


What I am saying is that the reality is that OD's are practicing medicine and this is by legislation rather than qualifying for a traditionally accepted medical degree. 


While people know much more about the difference between psychiatrrists and psychologists than they do OD and OMD, presenting ones self as a physician knowing that this is a traditionally medical term and knowing that the public is unknowing is like presenting onself as a physic physician or healer. It is more an attempt at very clever deception than education. 


It is a sign of our times when optometrists who have worked so hard in working the legislatures to expand their scope of practice....without attending medical school... dont get the needed respect that a physician gets. A real doctor some say must attend medical school. 


Rare is the OD who is a good dispenser of the products he / she prescribes. If you took away the wholesale lab babysitters who often walk OD's through dispensing difficulties you would have a lot of OD's getting out of the eyewear dispensing business.

I have never seen an OD Rx that prescribed a slab-off.


*Optometrists* are primarily concerned with vision. While they can detect disease, and in some states treat disease, they can't do surgery. If they have their own dispensary, they may know something about glasses, but it's rare for an OD to be as expert as an optician. 


There is a lot more to fitting contact lenses than reading the label on a box, doctors do it that way. 


Please note that all these ethical discussions are aimed at the ophthalmological/optician relationship. This is not relevant to O.D.'s and O.D. ethics or lack of same is whole other subject. 


.In many ways (in my humble assesment), The job of an OD is a bit redundant(that is if LDO's could refract). If there is any major eye problems, they refer on to the MD's. As it stands now the only reason that we can't refract is the OD's dont want to share the money! 


Now as an addenum I do know that some states forbid the above practices (with laws bought and paid for by O.D. lobbies in thier own behalf). 


O.D.'s are making every effort to "become more doctor like," precribe medicine, try to perform non-invasive surgery, treat disease (including glaucoma, and other disease that is mostly treated by super-subspecialist [cornea or retina M.D.'s]. This from a group that just a few years ago was forbidden [on paper but not in practice] from calling themselves "doctor" or representing themselves as physicians. 


An Optometrist is basically an optician that can refract anyway. Anytime a major concern arises they send you off the the Opthalmologist anyway! 


How many times have you heard a patient say "Oh, I won't get my eyes examined here. I go to a real doctor".


And of course the guy doing this could't call himself "Doctor" but then , O.D.'s could not legally until recently. 


It would be an honor to hire an OD and call him optometric physician or what ever he want to call himself as long as he works for ME! you Optometric gods. I would love to set his fees, force him to really work arrive early leave late 15 minute morning and afternnon break and 30 minutes lunch....


Are optometrists that treat glaucoma really giving the patient all the options available.? Do they offer LTPs etc to their patients? or only rely in the prescribing authority that they have on certain drugs? 


I know some ODs that are epilation happy! They do not need a phoropter to this or 4 years of schooling but it pays well.... 


O.D.'s should have to refer all patient's who could not be refracted to 20/30 or better to an O.M.D.

----------


## Judy Canty

This was in answer to what question?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I wondered How and why it started? and Why does it continue to this day? What can be done to end the war?*


Absolutely nothing. This has gone on in North America probably longer than I know of it ...................which would put it around 1961.

This war has been going on in Canada as well as the USA and and there will be no end to it as very well stated in above postings.

The funny part is that there are no similar wars going on in European and other countries it is a North American exclusive.

*So my suggestion is, to look into the fact why in other parts of the globe there is a lot more harmony in this matter, and a more civilized behaviour. We could learn a lot from countries like the UK, Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland as well as many more.*

----------


## NC-OD

> This was in answer to what question?


Me?

These quotes were in response to my implication that every "turf bashing" thread on optiboard was started by one of the regular posters. They bash ODs. An OD replies back civily trying to give the facts and it becomes a yelling match with people throwing insults to the Optometrist and the posts are eventually closed. This is the standard.

I do not see ODs bashing Opticians on optiboard and if someone could post those quotes, I'll be happy to take back this statement.

Optiboard is a very OD-unfriendly forum most times...........or at least it ends up that way.  And it shouldn't be--- but for a few instigators.

----------


## Judy Canty

So, I'll ask again.  What question in this thread are you addressing?  If you've come here to continue a pointless argument, I'll shut it down.  If you have something constructive to add, by all means do so.

----------


## hcjilson

I think, Judy, that was a feeble attempt to escalate the war. NC OD is not interested in the expansion of "scope of practice" anywhere else but in Optometry. 

He said: " I've said many times that I highly respect most every optician I have ever met." He has a strange way to show it.

I wonder which of his unattributed quotes above led him to the conclusion that Opticianry should roll over and play dead while Optometry continues to try and legislate it out of existance?

----------


## NC-OD

Wow. I guess I give up. I thought I was being completely clear. I think someone asked in the other thread (maybe I'm wrong) why I was irritated (or something to that effect). I'm am trying to post why. It is the relentless Optometry bashing that goes on here. I am in no way trying to flame the fire.......just pointing out what is obvious to me. If no one can see it except me, I'll accept that and move on. I've posted examples of the hundreds of inflammatory remarks above and all I get is a threat to close the post. How about "yes, I agree these remarks are uncalled for, unprofessional and inflammatory and should have been deleted long ago". That might be appropriate.

As to the expanding role of Opticianary. I'm all for it. I've said it many times before. Get a basic-level education program for all opticians and go for it. I, for one, will never stand in anyone's way to expand their education or abilities. I actually think a refracting role for opticians is a good idea. It would save us all alot of headaches and remakes. And I reminded the bashers-- the way to advance is not by trying to put others down.  You've NEVER seen me post anything derogatory about ANY optician or the profession, have you?

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

NC-OD I just want to let you know as an optician that I understand what you are going through as an OD because my girlfriend is going to be one as well.  She dislikes the idea the idea that the public and OMDs disparrage the education she has gone through or have this perception that the refraction is all she does.  I know that this is not true.  I think OMDs and ODs are essentially similar except in their roots and of course the surgery issue.  While Optometrists were prescribing opticians, they had a richer background in optics which is why despite the inability to use cycloplegics for an eye exam (in the past), used simple optical principles to fog the patient and the get a valid Rx.  ODs have learned the body through the eyes. The OMDs on the other hand have a different approach which is _initially_ more biological in nature than optical.  ODs also have made strides in vision therapy which the OMDs have ignored for whatever reason.  I think there is a place for everybody.  OMDs do not place that much emphasis on refraction as optometrists do and I have to say that whenever I get an Rx from an OMD it is almost always a remake and there is one OMD that I will simply state to patients that "we are not a Dr. X approved place, please find out from your doctor where you can go with your Rx."  I do this to avoid bad mouthing people because a) I really don't know him or her b) Just because his or her refractions aren't consistently good doesn't mean that the Dr X is a bad Doctor, usually far from it (I have heard of these same people as being excellent surgeons) it just means that the doctor may be a bad refractionist or they have a bad tech (The tech thing bothers me though).  With that said, I really enjoy picking the brain of an OMD.  They are some of the brightest people I have ever met.  I think it is inevitable that ODs will expand their scope of practice because there aren't enough OMDs to go around and opticians will expand their scope of practice because of the lack of ODs to go around too. A little overlap isn't bad.

There are some things I would like to see on an Rx though.  The slab off thing is something I can figure out on my own or I could use dissimilar segs, but I would love to see a vertex distance on higher Rxs > 10 D.  I keep hearing that there is a standard of 12 mm, but you get that one person who has the phoropter set at 13, 14 or 15 (with good intent since 13-14 mm is where most eyeglasses end up) and screws up the whole thing :).  Another thing would be the Visual Acuity with glasses on if worse than 20/20.  Many patients don't remember if they have a catract or some other condition and worse still many don't believe that such conditions as diabetes will change the Rx.  Some will automatically believe I'm phishing for excuses for poor wormanship than legitmate troubleshooting so a VA would be nice.

----------


## NC-OD

Thanks for your comments. Everything you say is true, I believe. I always try to put the pts BCVA on the Rx (and I do give out spec and CL rx-unasked- to everyone because it's the right thing to do). Thanks for reminding me about documenting vertex distance. I do forget that sometimes. I just had a -15.00 guy that took his rx to Walmart. I didn't put down the vertex distance (he is my best friend and was talking too much:) ). They didn't call to ask either. Hope is gets what he wants with those $39 glasses :shiner:

----------


## QDO1

The actual argument ought to be about why de-regulation allows a 2 tier system for dispensing - qualified Opticians, and totally unqualified dispensers

the majoritory of the worlds dispensings are done by the latter... sounds friggin scary to me.

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Thanks for your comments. Everything you say is true, I believe. I always try to put the pts BCVA on the Rx (and I do give out spec and CL rx-unasked- to everyone because it's the right thing to do). Thanks for reminding me about documenting vertex distance. I do forget that sometimes. I just had a -15.00 guy that took his rx to Walmart. I didn't put down the vertex distance (he is my best friend and was talking too much:) ). They didn't call to ask either. Hope is gets what he wants with those $39 glasses :shiner:


I work for a National Vision which are inside many Walmarts.  We are limited in what we can handle and trying to convince our labs that a certain course of action is preferred is extremely time consuming (iseikonic lenses are almost always impossible).  I hope he gets the proper care.  I've dispensed some amazing stuff here so don't be too frightened.  :)

----------


## NC-OD

> I work for a National Vision which are inside many Walmarts. We are limited in what we can handle and trying to convince our labs that a certain course of action is preferred is extremely time consuming (iseikonic lenses are almost always impossible). I hope he gets the proper care. I've dispensed some amazing stuff here so don't be too frightened. :)


Yea, I'm more concerned for the optician than the patient (my friend).  He's a real PIA. Will really drive you crazy.  He was set to have a phakic IOL performed but the surgeon wisely decided against it.  My friend demands 20/10 vision :D

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> The actual argument ought to be about why de-regulation allows a 2 tier system for dispensing - qualified Opticians, and totally unqualified dispensers
> 
> the majoritory of the worlds dispensings are done by the latter... sounds friggin scary to me.


And that's the crux of the issue.  In NJ, our state board is ever more vigilant while in PA (not even an hour from me), there is no board to monitor the field.  I know of many who have certified themselves voluntarily in PA, but it isn't fair to those who get certified if the cashier at JCPennies becomes an optician and can get hired to perform the same function (and poorly I might add) at a lower price.  If the corporation, and it is mainly the corporations who do this, do not percieve any value in the certifications and or education attained, then we will only get more of the same.  What I want to see is more access to education with monetary assistance to opticians and finally get some of these states licensed or at least on their way to a better field environment that is more homogenous across the states.  I would also like to see the AOA and other organizations to back us too (legislatively or at least not oppose any legislation) which translates to rank and file ODs to contact their organizations on our behalf.  Will it happen, I have no idea, but I have my suspicians it will be yes as it dawns on most of us that many corps are simply acting in an irresponsible manner and taking away all of our ethical responsibilities to our patients.  This is one of the Noblest professions I have ever had the pleasure in working in and I would like it to remain that way.

----------


## chip anderson

Actually NC:  The lab I was working in that had rule #2 posted was a CL mfg. company: "Serving the Medical Profession Exclusively."    The company didn't even speak to O.D.'s.

----------


## Judy Canty

Chip, I'll ask you the same thing.  What question in this thread are you addressing?

----------


## QDO1

chucks the boxing gloves into the ring...

----------


## AWTECH

This battle of optician vs. OD's as Chris Ryser points out is an obvious result of governmental regulations and industry control not working properly.

I am neither an optician or an OD but work in the industry with both, mostly opticians.

Another north american only problem is our system of personal credit. Something like 80% of individuals have inaccuracies on their credit reports.  This information almost always creates problems of some kind for the consumer.  On top of these inaccuracies it is up to the consumers to pay money and take a great deal of time to correct inaccuracies which they had no part in.  Identity theift is huge in the US in Europe it is almost non-existant.  I believe the problem is with the appearance of industry regulation and the different degrees of regulation from state to state.

In general I would say most OD's are more quaified than most opticians for their field than most opticians, however I would not say that the optiboard members in general seem very knowledgable and passionate about their field.

There are many reasons for the variance in the qualification levels of optians.  I would say it is equal to a current high school public education today.  You can find a high school graduate who can't do even do simple math, and you can also find a high school graduate who will go on to graduate from M.I.T., (very knowledgable in math).  Opticans are similar with different states requiring such different skill levels.  I am sure many optiboard member opticans who have worked with other marginal opticians.  And I doubt that they would not let anyone they knew use this marginal optician for fitting new glasses.

My opionion is that the problem between opticians in general and OD's in general, is that the skill level of opticians is so broad that the OD's have to deal with, that they are never sure if their patient is seeing a really good optician or a marginal optician. 

Now think about the average eyewear patient.  They don't know the difference by title between the three O's in many cases.  They also assume that these experts they are seeing are qualified.  If a patient moves from one state to another I doubt that one of the considerations is to check on the optician licensing requirements.  The fact is they can move from a state where there is a 90% chance of having a good optican see them to a state that has 50% or less of the opticians who could qualify to work in the previous state.

I think the debate is real however the solution revolves around the regulatory factors.  If no states had any requirement for being licensed, at least the consumers would know this.  Now the assumption is that an Optician is an expert in their field and there is not one nationally recognized standard that 90% of opticians can point to with confidence that says "THIS OPTICIAN IS QUALIFIED".  In some locations they can find an optician by finding breathing person to hire and say "Now you are an Optician"  I don't think the same can be said for an OD.

This is not an Optician or OD bashing so please don't take it as one.  It is my opinion, trying to objectively report the big picture.  Comments welcome, just don't accuse me of bashing one or the other.

----------


## chip anderson

Judy:  I was addressing NC's list.   The first thing on the list was mine but it did not have a reference to O.D.'s.   M.D.'s were the target.

----------


## chip anderson

Now Judy:  Why there is a war.   O.D.'s have for the past 80 years or so attempted to legislate themselves into a positon of monopoly in the optical business.   We complain of "Unlicensed States".  The reason they are unlicensed is O.D. opposition or unwanted help in obtaining licenseing.   By unwanted help, O.D.'s in our state have ammended bills (when we actually thought we had a chance of getting one through) to state that   we could not determine seg. ht.'s, P.D.'s,  bifocal types or "touch a contact lens."    In other states they have attempeted to apply thier drug "ability" to apply to flouresene so that opticians could not use it.    

Is it any wonder that animostiy (rampant amoung the older set who can remember when M.D.'s thought it was unethical to dispense and O.D.'s didn't have a slit-lamp and most of them were afraid of contact lenses?

Chip

----------


## Judy Canty

Chip,
If it were up to me, NC-OD's post would have been deleted.  I viewed it as an attempt to restart a dead issue.

Either we all start looking for common ground or the consuming public will do it for us as evidenced by the huge increase in consumer-posed questions on this board.  The professionalism of all three O's is on the line and we are doing little if anything to shore it up.

----------


## NC-OD

> Chip,
> 
> Either we all start looking for common ground or the consuming public will do it for us as evidenced by the huge increase in consumer-posed questions on this board. The professionalism of all three O's is on the line and we are doing little if anything to shore it up.


Exactly. And this is why LIES should not be tolerated on this forum. Saying ODs can only prescribe some topical drops and OTC allergy meds is simply a LIE. It does not serve the public well. What if one of my patients read it? Would they think I was practicing outside my scope? Would they seek care elsewhere without telling me?  Would they attempt to report me to the Board of Optometry?  It should not be tolerated. Am I the only one that cares about the TRUTH?

----------


## fjpod

Judy,

I'm not sure how to end the war. I've been an OD for 28 years and had no idea how much the profession of opticianry hated optometry (or it seems like many of the regulars on this board do). I guess I've been living in a vacuum...???

In numerous threads, I have done nothing more than offer technical advice and have received a bashing, and then the tread deteriorates from there. 

NC-OD is right. This board is OD unfriendly. Anti-optometry statements and remarks are rampant without provocation. It just seems to be part of the lexicon. Yet, I have never seen a post by an OD who made an anti-optician remark unless provoked. (I have to include myself in this group since I lost it when Dannyboy posted his anti-optometry diatribe.) The Dude has said the most level-headed and sensible things I have heard here so far.

A recurring theme I hear here is that organized optometry tries to supress opticianry. While this is true, the same is true of ophthalmology against optometry. Optometry has gotten ahead in spite of it, or maybe even because of it. I'm not sure why opticianry hasen't gotten further, but I suspect it is the lack of licensure in all states and lack of an educational standard. And, I hear from a lot of opticians on the board that they fear higher educational standards might lock them out of a job or license.,,so they want to be left alone.

I'm sure there are opticians who will take exception to my last paragraph ...which is OK, but to make derogatory statements about my profession is an unacceptable way to respond. 

Another recurring theme I hear on the board is that ODs can't possibly be ethical if they dispense the glasses they prescribe. Yet OMDs provide the surgery they recommend, and opticians provide upgraded goods when it may not have been necessary...so why are only ODs unethical? I would like someone to explain this to me. 

Anyway, after getting an education on Optiboard during the last month or so, I fear the war will never end. Each of the three Os is going to have to take responsibility for their own success or failure.

----------


## QDO1

The answer to this question is more to do with the motivation, rather than the actions

I suggest to my coleages in the USA that they take a step back for a few days to contemplate this, before re-posting tit-for-tat replies

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Now Judy:  Why there is a war.   O.D.'s have for the past 80 years or so attempted to legislate themselves into a positon of monopoly in the optical business.   We complain of "Unlicensed States".  The reason they are unlicensed is O.D. opposition or unwanted help in obtaining licenseing.   By unwanted help, O.D.'s in our state have ammended bills (when we actually thought we had a chance of getting one through) to state that   we could not determine seg. ht.'s, P.D.'s,  bifocal types or "touch a contact lens."    In other states they have attempeted to apply thier drug "ability" to apply to flouresene so that opticians could not use it.    
> 
> Is it any wonder that animostiy (rampant amoung the older set who can remember when M.D.'s thought it was unethical to dispense and O.D.'s didn't have a slit-lamp and most of them were afraid of contact lenses?
> 
> Chip


I don't think that Optometrists as a matter of policy are trying to destroy Opticianry.  Right now Optometric leadership, which is not static, is  hampering many of us opticians and despite the fact that we may have met ODs, and OMDs who are jerks, a blanket statement that all Optometrists or OMDs are jerks or are suppressing opticians really doesn't hold.  I think it's called the fallacy of composition.  So all those ODs who are in fact pro-optician, I would ask you to join us in helping opticians gain licensure by contacting your leadership.  This really is the only way I can think of at the moment that can help "stop the war," because I'm sure that much of the leadership is only concerned with expanding scope and protecting turf because many ODs haven't chimed in with their leadership.  My girlfriend who will be an OD this coming May is one of those people who doesn't believe the leadership stance and many others, I'm sure, are the same way.  The doctor I work with now is not part of the AOA for that same reason.  The OD I work with is awesome.  Then again I'm in a licensed state and our respective boards are relatively cordial with each other.   NC-OD would you be opposed/ are opposed to opticians in your state  from taking heights, PDs and making recomendations on eyewear based off of your RXs?  If I remember correctly, you aren't even opposed to opticians refracting right?

----------


## NC-OD

> NC-OD would you be opposed/ are opposed to opticians in your state from taking heights, PDs and making recomendations on eyewear based off of your RXs? If I remember correctly, you aren't even opposed to opticians refracting right?


Absolutely.  NC is a licensed state for opticians.  To my knowledge, they are doing all you say as well as fitting contact lenses.  I go against the grain with most of my OD colleagues I suppose stating that opticians should be allowed to refract (possibly with limitations).  I have no problem whatsoever with an optician 'tweaking' my refractions. So what if a patient needs an extra -0.25 to get clear acuity. I don't want to see them again.  I'd love for an optician to be able to hold a loose lens in front of the Rx or put them in front of a phoropter to 'fine-tune' the Rx.

Health assessment is the question.  But my view is that people should be aware of who they are seeing and should be able to make the decision to see a 'sight tester' or go a step further for full health exam.  Disease will be missed but as long as people understand what they are getting, it's their business who they go to.

----------


## AWTECH

The answer may lie in the amount of money budgeted nationally and by state for each, and more importantly the use of the budgeted $

My best guess is that the optician side has more than 75% of its lobby efforts paid for by large chains.  This lobbying would call for less regulatory requirements.  I am sure they believe that they can train some to perform the duties of an optician.  This way they are able to combined limited needed optician skills with sales training.  The goal would be something like "Certified Optician, ABCCSOS" (a graduate of ABC Chain Store Optician School, with no regulatory oversight, only company internal controls for the do's and don'ts)  There goal is to keep there employee costs low and push for technology that can replace the actual need for opticians along the way.

My best guess on the OD side, is that this is funded for the protection of the OD's as Medical Professionals.  To keep standards high for the publics own protection.

Anyone know of who lobbys for who and how these efforts are funded?
"Follow the money" as they say.

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Absolutely.  NC is a licensed state for opticians.  To my knowledge, they are doing all you say as well as fitting contact lenses.  I go against the grain with most of my OD colleagues I suppose stating that opticians should be allowed to refract (possibly with limitations).  I have no problem whatsoever with an optician 'tweaking' my refractions. So what if a patient needs an extra -0.25 to get clear acuity. I don't want to see them again.  I'd love for an optician to be able to hold a loose lens in front of the Rx or put them in front of a phoropter to 'fine-tune' the Rx.
> 
> Health assessment is the question.  But my view is that people should be aware of who they are seeing and should be able to make the decision to see a 'sight tester' or go a step further for full health exam.  Disease will be missed but as long as people understand what they are getting, it's their business who they go to.


Wow, that was fast :).  Now the finer points would need to be argued, but would you agree that most ODs do not fear the independent status of opticians if they are relegated to all things eye-wear (heights, PDs, recommending eyewear, owning their own shops or even hiring an OD [we can't hire an OD yet in NJ but I think it is being worked on])?  Do you think that your colleagues would agree?  If not, are they afraid of the slippery slope should opticians become licensed in other states?

edit: correcting my spelling

----------


## rbaker

Judy, Judy, Judy . . . . Just what is it about human nature that you dont understand. At its roots its all about money and prestige  mine is bigger than yours and I have more of them than you do. 

Specifically, as Chip pointed out, Optometry would just as soon see us all go away. And more to the point they have done something to make that happen. They successfully influenced legislation in their favor but more importantly they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and turned a six month training program at the Rumplestilskin School of Optics into a quite respectful graduate level academic program at some of the leading universities in the country. Way to go guys. In the eyecare field, yours is truly bigger than mine. 

Now back in the good old days, when MDs were not merchants and didnt dispense eyewear there was room for us opticians. In fact it was often said, back in those days that we existed at the whimsy of the ophthalmologist. Well, times have changed. The ophthalmologist saw that he could have more if he took over the dispensing function. Well, ethics aside, good work Doc. Yours too, is also bigger than mine and now you have just about all of them.

And, whats happened to the optician while all of this was going on. Well, we have been getting dumber and dumber  more and more fragmented  till we now have the smallest one of the bunch and count our tatty little blessing if we still have one to count.

Judy, we blew it. It aint never going to get any better than it is today, in fact, its getting worse every day. So, either take care of your little corner of the eyecare vineyard or find something else to do. If what you are doing aint leading you toward your intended goal in life  what are you doing it for? And, above all dont get caught up in the mine is bigger than yours, it just leads to insomnia and dyspepsia. And, it is just possible that while you may not have more of them, you may have enough.

----------


## Judy Canty

Well, that was helpful.

----------


## fjpod

> I don't think that Optometrists as a matter of policy are trying to destroy Opticianry. Right now Optometric leadership, which is not static, is hampering many of us opticians and despite the fact that we may have met ODs, and OMDs who are jerks, a blanket statement that all Optometrists or OMDs are jerks or are suppressing opticians really doesn't hold. I think it's called the fallacy of composition. So all those ODs who are in fact pro-optician, I would ask you to join us in helping opticians gain licensure by contacting your leadership. This really is the only way I can think of at the moment that can help "stop the war," because I'm sure that much of the leadership is only concerned with expanding scope and protecting turf because many ODs haven't chimed in with their leadership. My girlfriend who will be an OD this coming May is one of those people who doesn't believe the leadership stance and many others, I'm sure, are the same way. The doctor I work with now is not part of the AOA for that same reason. The OD I work with is awesome. Then again I'm in a licensed state and our respective boards are relatively cordial with each other. NC-OD would you be opposed/ are opposed to opticians in your state from taking heights, PDs and making recomendations on eyewear based off of your RXs? If I remember correctly, you aren't even opposed to opticians refracting right?


Dude,

You sound like a very sensible person. I wish it were that easy to solve opticianry's problems.

OMD's didn't go to bat FOR optometry, they took a swing AGAINST us every channce they got. While I would like to say that optometry can help you, and it should be a no brainer...I can't. Opticianry is going to have to decide for itself what it wants, and go for it...logically, educationally, ethically, and yes, legislatively. 

While I do sympathize with many of the concerns of opticians, including licensure, educational standards, and, yes, refraction, I don't like the "baiting" and "misinformation tactics" that are often seen on this board. 

Judy, if you are the moderator, I would propose that in order to "de-escalate" the war, posts which contain misinformation about a profession be deleted, and after three strikes, the poster should be out.  Misinformation is easier to determine than opinion.

----------


## hcjilson

If posts are made containing misinformation or are misleading in any way, they should be reported as such, to the moderator(s) of the forum.They can be dealt with very quickly.

----------


## Judy Canty

fjpod, all moderators try to do just that.  We debate long and hard before deleting posts of any kind in order to preserve our concept of free and open discussion.  Had I deleted posts in this thread alone, the hue and cry across the professional optical spectrum would have been deafening.  I will continue to comment on posts that are inflamatory or otherwise unhelpful.  I will not, nor will any other Moderator, tolerate personal attacks, however thinly veiled.  Those posts will be deleted and their authors reprimanded accordingly.   

I will ask all of you not to rise to any inflammatory nonsense posted anywhere on OptiBoard.  We're better than that.

----------


## fjpod

> If posts are made containing misinformation or are misleading in any way, they should be reported as such, to the moderator(s) of the forum.They can be dealt with very quickly.


HC, Judy,

Will do.

HC,

I've often wondered...how can you tell if a bomb technician is running towards or away from a bomb?

----------


## Framebender

and am an old Optician.  My father ingrained some of my prejudice, or at least the prespective of how I look at things.  I personally don't want to refract.  I would as soon leave that to the OD's.  My main beef comes years of being told I don't deserve more money because I didn't go to college.  That they could train a receptionist to do what I do.  That they were the Doctor and how dare I question their knowledge.

Not once but many many times.  Now I might be the only one that's had experiences like that, but I don't think so.  Within the last month I had an OD curse at me because I suggested they use a lens clock to determine slab rather than trying to read it in an autolensometer. 

I come from a generation of Opticians that were not only expected to know optics, but also how to make money.  I'm proud to be an Optician and I've never really wanted to do anything else.  I believe that our best and our brightest are here on this board.  If they want to refract I will do whatever is within my power to help them.

In my opinion the easiest way to stop the war is to quit working for them.  Alot of them would go belly up.  Let them train that rectionist on how to cut their cost of goods.  See what their bottom line looks like then.

----------


## hcjilson

A bomb technician NEVER runs toward a Bomb!

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Dude,
> 
> You sound like a very sensible person. I wish it were that easy to solve opticianry's problems.
> 
> OMD's didn't go to bat FOR optometry, they took a swing AGAINST us every channce they got. While I would like to say that optometry can help you, and it should be a no brainer...I can't. Opticianry is going to have to decide for itself what it wants, and go for it...logically, educationally, ethically, and yes, legislatively. 
> 
> While I do sympathize with many of the concerns of opticians, including licensure, educational standards, and, yes, refraction, I don't like the "baiting" and "misinformation tactics" that are often seen on this board. 
> 
> Judy, if you are the moderator, I would propose that in order to "de-escalate" the war, posts which contain misinformation about a profession be deleted, and after three strikes, the poster should be out.  Misinformation is easier to determine than opinion.


I do understand the history, but I believe that those of us who really want to make this field into its potential will do so to the best of their ability.  You are right that education holds the key, but we have to make it as  accessible as possible.  Maybe start offering scholarships and the like so that education in opticianry becomes pervasive throughout the US.  All I'm asking of OD Leadership is to consider getting out of the way of legitimate legislation that establishes what Opticians have always been.  And I believe that we can through the help of many ODs (by molding their leaderships opinion) establish a baseline for opticians so that the field in those states doesn't degrade to the perception of a glorified cashier in a white coat.  The second point I'm trying to make is that not all ODs oppose opticians and what they do.  Optometry has been attacked since day one which explains some of the militancy and suspician found among some of them.  We are also not learning from them as a group.  *Education holds the key.*  Without it licensure or scope of practice issues will never move forward.

----------


## rep

Judy, 

As you well know, in a previous position I assisted states with the intoduction of numerous legislative bills for licensure and educational requirements in numerous states. Every one of them failed and were opposed by three groups; 

1. National and State Optometric paid legislative lobbiest.

2. NAOO - Large chain lobbying organization. 

3. Influential Independent Firm owners. 

It is disingenuous for posters on this board to preach licensing and education for refracion and opticianry advancements when their national associations and state associations have opposed every licensing and every educational initative introduced for the last 40 years. 

It has always come down to money and scope of practice. All three groups have agendas that do not include the licensing and education of opticians because it might cost them an increase in labor cost and or it threatens what their leaders consider their scope of practice.

Finally opticianry itself is not ready to be licensed in every state. Dr. Jim Sheedy in a speech in the late 90's at a state leadership conference outlined distinctly why opticianry has failed. One of his prime points is that opticians had rather argue with each other than join together to get anything accomplished. Optometrist argue with each other all the time. But when the national association takes a position, every Optometrist falls in line for the good of Optometry. Eight years later, and that still has not changed with Opticianry and I don't see any indication that it will change in my lifetime. 


Rep

----------


## Judy Canty

Thank you rep.  I was there and remember Dr. Sheedy's words very well.  What keeps me going is the idea that some where, some how we'll remove our hands from each others throats and learn to work toward the common good.

----------


## fjpod

> Judy, 
> 
> As you well know, in a previous position I assisted states with the intoduction of numerous legislative bills for licensure and educational requirements in numerous states. Every one of them failed and were opposed by three groups; 
> 
> 1. National and State Optometric paid legislative lobbiest.
> 
> 2. NAOO - Large chain lobbying organization. 
> 
> 3. Influential Independent Firm owners. 
> ...


I am not trying to be disingenious here...
If you substitute the word Optometric to Ophthalmologic in item 1, you could apply the same list to everything optometry ever tried to do to establish or advance it's profession.

There has tobe other factors here besides optometry's opposition.

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> I am not trying to be disingenious here...
> If you substitute the word Optometric to Ophthalmologic in item 1, you could apply the same list to everything optometry ever tried to do to establish or advance it's profession.
> 
> There has tobe other factors here besides optometry's opposition.


That's an important point too.  I don't know of any single place or book that has the history of eyecare.  I don't think this issue is purely linear (a cause B causes C etc...).  I think optmetrists know that sticking together has worked for them.  Opticians need to learn this.  Despite disagreements there is a baseline that we all agree with.  Lets find that and foster it wherever possible.

----------


## fjpod

> That's an important point too. I don't know of any single place or book that has the history of eyecare. I don't think this issue is purely linear (a cause B causes C etc...). I think optmetrists know that sticking together has worked for them. Opticians need to learn this. Despite disagreements there is a baseline that we all agree with. Lets find that and foster it wherever possible.


Fact:
There are parallels in other professions like medicine and dentistry...psychology and psychiatry...even medicine and and nursing.  They have all battled each other.

Opinion:
I think what makes the optometry/opticianry "war" unique is the fact that optometry was derived from opticianry.  Optometrists were once opticians, who split into two groups...those who wanted to refract, and those who didn't.  The rest is history.  Maybe history has to repeat itself?

----------


## chip anderson

The only problem with the sticking together concept is.  The O.D.'s have many more numbers, more money, and opticians cannot exist  without someone writing the Rx, thereby giving the precriber power over the optician.  And I can certianly be a prime example of someone who can tell you it doesn't pay to get the precribers P.O.'d.    Now that OMD's are joining with O.D.'s for surgery referrals and "follow-up" care the alliance that opticians once had with OMD's is all but gone.

O.D.'s can move to a small town, be the only precriber in the area and be "loved" because he precribed my glasses right.   An optician can't just move out in to the hinterland without a precriber, preferably a friendly one.  O.D.'s can even get support from thier organisation to be elected to the state legislature where they can sneak by any number of "bill attachments" which hurt opticianry.
I have never known an optician to get rich and powerfull enough to be elected to anything.

The cards are stacked and playing yours can make you a pariah.

Chip

Bottom line:  We ain't got a snowball's chance in Hell and all we can do is b***** and we don't dare do that too loud.

----------


## fjpod

> The only problem with the sticking together concept is. The O.D.'s have many more numbers, more money, and opticians cannot exist without someone writing the Rx, thereby giving the precriber power over the optician. And I can certianly be a prime example of someone who can tell you it doesn't pay to get the precribers P.O.'d. Now that OMD's are joining with O.D.'s for surgery referrals and "follow-up" care the alliance that opticians once had with OMD's is all but gone.
> 
> O.D.'s can move to a small town, be the only precriber in the area and be "loved" because he precribed my glasses right. An optician can't just move out in to the hinterland without a precriber, preferably a friendly one. O.D.'s can even get support from thier organisation to be elected to the state legislature where they can sneak by any number of "bill attachments" which hurt opticianry.
> I have never known an optician to get rich and powerfull enough to be elected to anything.
> 
> The cards are stacked and playing yours can make you a pariah.
> 
> Chip
> 
> Bottom line: We ain't got a snowball's chance in Hell and all we can do is b***** and we don't dare do that too loud.


Chip, you make some good points in this post. Maybe the historical split between optometry and opticianry should have occured at the point where we all did refractions, but it didn't. Even if it were to happen today, there would still be two kinds of opticians...those who dispense only, and those who refract and dispense. Today's problems would be likely to repeat themselves. I don't have the soultion.

----------


## Judy Canty

> The O.D.'s have many more numbers,...


Most documentation I've seen, and I'll admit that it's a bit dated, indicates that there are many more people who identify themselves as Opticians than are OD's or OMD's.  Current stats in VA identify 1300 licensed OD's and 1800 licensed Opticians.  It's not a numbers game, its a game of will.

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Fact:
> There are parallels in other professions like medicine and dentistry...psychology and psychiatry...even medicine and and nursing.  They have all battled each other.
> 
> Opinion:
> I think what makes the optometry/opticianry "war" unique is the fact that optometry was derived from opticianry.  Optometrists were once opticians, who split into two groups...those who wanted to refract, and those who didn't.  The rest is history.  Maybe history has to repeat itself?



Exactly, I think scope of practice issues resemble more like growing pains then anything.  Again, the fact is most states are not licensed and do not have any homogenous educational standards are a problem and I strongly believe that this is where any reforms should start.  I think that those who want to be educated should be able to get a reasonable education at a very modest price and we all can help with this.   




> Chip, you make some good points in this post. Maybe the historical split between optometry and opticianry should have occured at the point where we all did refractions, but it didn't. Even if it were to happen today, there would still be two kinds of opticians...those who dispense only, and those who refract and dispense. Today's problems would be likely to repeat themselves. I don't have the soultion.


I think the solution lies in what we actually do agree with.  Traditionally opticians did much if not all of the spectacle preperation and adjustments even if that didn't include refraction.  If we just start with this, I think we will be well on our way to bettering the field.  Disagreements will happen forever and to wait for everyone to agree is very unrealistic.  What we need is a majority to agree not everyone.

I just heard this quote today, and thought it might apply.
"Pessimism is the seed of failure"
-the Dalai Lama

edit: bad grammar

----------


## William Walker

This thread is long enough that I'm not sure many will read this far in, but I do get bothered by topics like this.  I haven't been around long enough to offer anything original on the history of the 'beef' between all the big O's.  But, no one's brought up thoughts similiar to my own on it's current state, so I felt compelled to chime in.

When I started studying social psychology, the course went in to the differences between one's feelings and actions when by themself, versus them in a group, or social structure.  I think that if asked, by themself, no matter which of the big O's asked, the majority would have no problem happily coexisting if MDs focused on their medical specialty, ODs focused solely on eye exams (and maybe also contact lens fits), and LDOs focused on eyewear. 

However, what throws off this synergy for me is when I see a patient coming back from the doctor (OD or MD) on rechecks with notes like 'match material and BC to old glases'.  I call, not having made the original, last year's model, and ask what that material and BC is.  The doctor says he doesn't know.  So, this patient has been told, by the Dr., that yes the patient can't see, but my Rx is right, and the glasses, although I don't know how, are just wrong.  I leave the situation feeling like my toes are stepped on.  These type of situations happen enough in every optical around the country to form these general stereotypes that everyone is out to get me.  

Believe me, I get just as fed up with the dumbasses in my own field (Opticianry), so all I can do is try to distinguish myself as much as possible, and educate opticians whenever the opprotunity arrises.  I'm looking within the next few years to possibly be an adjunct proffesor for Opticianry students in the northern half of FL.  

I appreciate what Costco, and other companies like it have done in regards to hiring.  Although they don't use us to our fullest extent, they will only hire licensed opticians in licensed states, and only ABO and NCLE opticians in nonlicensed states.  I like that model enough to want to carry that idea over in my own optical (much later down the road).

The last thought I wanted to offer up is the whole concept of why this 'war' occurs here so distinctly.  Our nation is an induvidualist culture, where focus is on the self, instaed of a collectivist culture, where focus is on the group.  I don't see much compassion accross the board, and although it does bother me at times, I treat it just like any other situation in life - I try to be the better person, ask myself WWJD, and move on.  I have the great fortune of now working at an optical with every staff member fully qualified (and with more experience than myself), and a great OD who asks for our input on patients, and I could quote a number of times as saying, 'Hey we all work together...'  

I think if we all, on our own, without finger pointing, decided that we were all above this whole 'beef', it might not fix the problem 100%, but it sure might help.

:::climbs off his soap box:::

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> ...
> 
> However, what throws off this synergy for me is when I see a patient coming back from the doctor (OD or MD) on rechecks with notes like 'match material and BC to old glases'. I call, not having made the original, last year's model, and ask what that material and BC is. The doctor says he doesn't know. So, this patient has been told, by the Dr., that yes the patient can't see, but my Rx is right, and the glasses, although I don't know how, are just wrong. I leave the situation feeling like my toes are stepped on. These type of situations happen enough in every optical around the country to form these general stereotypes that everyone is out to get me. 
> 
> Believe me, I get just as fed up with the dumbasses in my own field (Opticianry), so all I can do is try to distinguish myself as much as possible, and educate opticians whenever the opprotunity arrises. I'm looking within the next few years to possibly be an adjunct proffesor for Opticianry students in the northern half of FL.
> 
> ...


This is a common experience and it if it happens enough to me I simply tell them politely that we can't do it [their Rx] here.  Patients also tend to be finicky and uncooperative sometimes in the seat, so I can't really blame refractionists either.  But like you, I want to be able to teach soon.

----------


## rep

> I don't know of any single place or book that has the history of eyecare. I don't think this issue is purely linear (a cause B causes C etc...). I think optmetrists know that sticking together has worked for them.


The best place to understand how Optometry got to the position they are today is a book called "Legal aspects of Optometry' by John C Classe'. Giving credit where credit is due I was given this reference by Roy Fergerson. 

It is the best reference I have seen on how step by step they advanced their scope of practice despite efforts by the MD's who had more money, but did not have the legislative capital Optometry had developed over the years and still have today. 

One table in the book shows Optometry's increase in median income as technical advanced (tonometry) and other historical milestones were accomplished. 

Earnings of Optometrist 1929-1987

1929 $3750
1944 $5950
1958 $9970
1968 $20926
1977 $37403
1987 $57190*

*Mean net Income

I read with interest ( but not wanting to get into the fray) the other thread about Canada's refractometry initative. I can assure you that this is very old news. Thanks to our friends north, the initial conceptual development work for the ABO refractometry examination and the OAA refractometry courses was born from discussion with Canadian opticians and educators who were willing to share their experience and knowledge. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who shared this knowledge. 

I believe everyone who took those courses was, and is, a better optician after taking the courses than before, even if they never refracted a single patient or took the Refractometry Examination. 

Rep

----------


## jediron1

> Well, that was helpful.


 
Well Judy i don't know what your problem is but striking at chip and the OD's was uncalled for. I thought the OD's both made there points and so did Chip, but you blew them off becuase they did not agree with you. So What? Every body is intitled to there opinion or is it only yours that matters? I thought this was a free and open forum to voice your opinions for or against not a totalitarian forum
where only the ruling elites can voice there opinions. :finger:

----------


## Judy Canty

???...just when the voices of reason and civility could be heard.

----------


## fjpod

Judy, I'm with you.  You're not totalitarian, you are civil.  Open debate is fine as long as both sides can back up their facts.  Spreading misinformation is totalitarian, and many political elite in history have proven this.

----------


## cinders831

Am I the only Optician (skilled and certified)  that practices happily with a pretty super fantastic Dr?  I feel I am compensated fairly and he values my opinion, asks for it even.  I read this and while I am saddened for the difficult relationships out there I am blessed for my working environment. BTW I thought I should mention that I am not just in the honey moon faze....I have been with my office for 61/2 years.  Any one else out there just appreciateing working with a great Dr and other great opticians?

----------


## William Walker

"I have been with my office for 61/2 years."

Isn't that he same as 30.5 years?  (j/k :p )

----------


## cinders831

I stand corrected  6.5 years Thanks William

----------


## Graduate

> Well Judy i don't know what your problem is but striking at chip and the OD's was uncalled for. I thought the OD's both made there points and so did Chip, but you blew them off becuase they did not agree with you. So What? Every body is intitled to there opinion or is it only yours that matters? I thought this was a free and open forum to voice your opinions for or against not a totalitarian forum
> where only the ruling elites can voice there opinions. :finger:


I was about to say same thing as jediron1.

Judy now you sound to me anti-optician. :o

----------


## ikon44

In the UK we have unqualified dispensers, however they are restricted as to who they can dispense ( no children under 16 or Hospital prescriptions )A Dispensing Optician can only describe themselfs as that if they have taken and passed the PQEs of The Association of British Dispensing Opticians.It is a tough course which takes 3 years to pass, here is a typical 3 year syllabus: 


*1st Year Dispensing Diploma Course*



._Sample Syllabus_ 
The eye and the way it works 
Errors of refraction and their correction 
Refractive index: Laws of refraction 
Laws of reflection 
Critical angle: Total internal reflection 
Refraction at a single curved surface: Vergence 
Refraction: Lens power 
Graphical constructions 
Thin lenses: Conjugate foci 
Thin lenses: Image formation: Magnification 
Effectivity: Compound systems: Step-along 
Sph-cyl lenses: Neutralisation: Sign convention 
Sph-cyl lenses: Transposition 
Sph-cyl lenses: Transposition [continued] 
Toric lenses: Transposition 
Curvature: Lens thickness 
Curvature: Lens measure 
Line foci formation from astigmatic lenses 
Lens media 
Curved mirrors 
Prisms: Dispersion: Colour: UV: IR: Chr. Ab.: Optical density 
Prisms: Minimum deviation 
Ophthalmic prisms: Tangent scale 
Prisms and decentration 
Wave motion: Pinhole camera: Shadows and eclipses 
Photometry 
Spectacle frame measurements 
Frame materials 
Facial measurements 
Frame adjustments 
Practical dispensing 
Compounding and resolving prisms 

second year
_Sample Syllabus_ 
Objectives of Communication 
Communication in Dispensing - oral and written 
Communication in Selling 
The Animal Cell 
Graphical Constructions 
Muscle Tissue & Nerve Supply 
Effectivity 
Central Nervous System 
The Skull & Orbit 
Cardinal Point of Lenses 
The Cornea, Limbus & Sclera 
The Uvea 
Monochromatic Aberrations 
The Retina 
The Aqueous, Vitreous, Lens 
Chromatic Aberration 
The Eyelids, Conjunctiva 
Angular Magnification 
Visual Pathways 
Optical Instruments 
Extrinsic Muscles 
Polarisation 
The Orbital Blood & Nerve Supply 
Interference 
Pathological Conditions 
Diffraction 
Pharmacology, Drugs, Solutions   

third year

Schematic eyes, ametropia 
Revision of basic theory 
Spectacle correction, blurred retinal images 
Cylindrical lenses 
Corrected retinal image sizes, SM, RSM 
The prismatic effects of decentration 
Visual acuity, test-charts, resolution acuity 
Decentrations to produce prismatic effects 
Accommodation & hypermetropia 
Thick lenses 
Accommodation & presbyopia 
The routine eye examination, retinoscopy 
High power lenses 
Subjective refraction 
Fields of view 
Ophthalmoscopes & ophthalmoscopy 
Tinted & protective lenses 
Optometers 
Bifocal lenses 
Visual fields, tonometry 
Purkinje-Sanson images, keratometry 
Multifocal lenses 
Eye movements, accommn. & convergence 
Special lenses 
Normal binocular vision 
Oblique astigmatism, Curvature of field 
Abnormal binocular vision, heterophoria 
Point Focal & Percival Lenses, MT error lenses 
Aspheric Lenses 
Depth perception, retinal receptive fields 
The light sense, induction, intensity coding 
Colour & colour vision, effects of radiation 
SM in thick lenses, aphakia, anisometropia 
Amblyopia, contrast sensitivity 
Occupational vision, glare, flicker, LVA 
Obliquely crossed cyls. 
Ocular astigmatism 

As you can see it is fairly comprehensive, and every Dispensing Optician in the UK has to take this exam.
This means that we are recognised as eye care professionals,any organisation employing an ABDO graduate knows that they are getting someone who has been educated to a certain standard,also DOs have certain responsibilities when it comes to dealing with patients,e.g . we are expected to recognise certain optical defects and abnormalities,if we miss them we can be struck from the register for failing to act to the correct professional standard.
As a result of this most optometrists and Ophthalmologists recognise and respect the training and abilities of a Dispensing Optician, indeed the ideal business model shows a practice to be most succesful when an Optometrist and a Dispensing Optician work together. In the UK Optometrists can employ DOs but DOs can also employ optometrists.
There also has been set up by the General optical council a career path for those who want to progress in their optical career e,g
A Dispensing assistant can become ABDO qualified
once ABDO qualified they can then choose to become a qualified contact lens optician by taking that course(you cant fit lenses as a DO unless you have this ).
If they are drawn to the management side of things there is also a degree level course in optical management open to them. As well as this there is now available a fast track (12 month ) course open to contact lens qualified Dispensing Opticians which enables them to take an optometry degree  and become optometrists,this has proven a popular course with older experienced DOs who perhaps did not have the time,finances or educational qualifications when they started their careers.
I think that if opticians in the US  want the respect and cooperation of their peers they have to bite the bullet and introduce a course similiar to the ABDO 
one, it has to be applied nationwide and recognised nationwide.It will not stop unregistered dispensing, but at least an OD or Optometrist could say go visit someone with this qualiification,knowing that they have a certain level of knowledge.

----------


## Darryl Meister

Several years ago, Jim Sheedy (a professor at Ohio State's College of Optometry) wrote an excellent paper describing the challenges of opticianry as a profession -- past, present, and future. I agree with the vast majority of Jim's points, and consider his paper to be the "definitive" analysis on the subject.

Opticianry at a Crossroads

----------


## drk

You want to know what I think?  Ok, well here it is, then, anyway: 

Any profession should look to the public to get its identity.  What role you serve in society comes before prestige and income.

OD's, IMO, have gained in the recent past because they've served a public health need fairly well.  We've been alloted a commensurate degree of remuneration and respect.

What can opticianry do to better serve the public?  

When the public beats a path to your door, you have _real_ power.

----------


## Judy Canty

> I was about to say same thing as jediron1.
> 
> Judy now you sound to me anti-optician. :o


Really?  I am anti-status-quo, anti-apathy, anti-just-settling-for-what-filters-to-the-bottom-of-the-food-chain.  But anti-Optican, hardly.  It's been my chosen profession for almost 34 years and I love what I do.  I am grateful to the OD and other Opticians who took the time to educate and train me.  I try to honor their memories by pushing for more education, more training and more respect for an old and honorable profession.

----------


## stephanie

Wow, what a discussion we have going on here. Judy, we are definately on the bottom of the food chain. That is for sure. One of my best friend's is an OD and we just had a major discussion on this very subject. It is ashame she and I won't move or we could have a great bond of optian/od relationship. Unfortunately, where I work, we rely on outside rx's. We are also a small discount chain which really po's a lot of places around. Instead of being mature adults when a problem occurs, we are blamed. We had a pt the other day first time PAL wearer...had been wearing ft28...picked up her gls...can't see. I explained to her exactly how to use them, told her to give them some time (you guys know the drill). Well she went back to OD very next day, and he told her I put her in too small of a frame for PAL and that is why she couldn't see!!!  :Mad:  He didn't bother to tell her he changed her RX!!! Now I am human I can and do make mistakes, but I know when a frame is too small for a PAL, and this one so was not!! I guess it was just easier to blame me for his mistake. We get this all the time, AND have to eat the cost for the mistake. Not to mention having to put up with the pt thinking it was us who did it. Ah the abuse we take!! It is not right. Why can't we all just get along??? We all need each other in this business that is obvious!! I really think we need national licensure. I am not sure what that would do to remedy the relationship, but it would certainly make our profession stronger. That is just my two cents..


Steph

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Well Judy i don't know what your problem is but striking at chip and the OD's was uncalled for. I thought the OD's both made there points and so did Chip, but you blew them off becuase they did not agree with you.


No, she just noted that this kind of statement was counterproductive to a civil discussion.




> I thought this was a free and open forum to voice your opinions


Nevertheless, insults and personal attacks have never been acceptable, and are a violation of the posting guidelines.




> Judy now you sound to me anti-optician


She has simply been an optician long enough to know better.

----------


## jediron1

> Really? I am anti-status-quo, anti-apathy, anti-just-settling-for-what-filters-to-the-bottom-of-the-food-chain. But anti-Optican, hardly. It's been my chosen profession for almost 34 years and I love what I do. I am grateful to the OD and other Opticians who took the time to educate and train me. I try to honor their memories by pushing for more education, more training and more respect for an old and honorable profession.


 

Judy maybe you didn't read my post. You sure came across as a strong handed 
toward the two Doc's and Chip and from what I just read I was not the only one who thought so. I was not commenting on you being anti-optician or that you have 34 years in. I was making a comment on your blasting of the Doc's when they were only trying to get a point across and the same for Chip. Where you came with your anti this and that is beyond me but then again so is astrophysics.  :Cool:

----------


## Judy Canty

That was not only somewhat less than helpful, it was inaccurate as well.

----------


## fjpod

> Wow, what a discussion we have going on here. Judy, we are definately on the bottom of the food chain. That is for sure. One of my best friend's is an OD and we just had a major discussion on this very subject. It is ashame she and I won't move or we could have a great bond of optian/od relationship. Unfortunately, where I work, we rely on outside rx's. We are also a small discount chain which really po's a lot of places around. Instead of being mature adults when a problem occurs, we are blamed. We had a pt the other day first time PAL wearer...had been wearing ft28...picked up her gls...can't see. I explained to her exactly how to use them, told her to give them some time (you guys know the drill). Well she went back to OD very next day, and he told her I put her in too small of a frame for PAL and that is why she couldn't see!!!  He didn't bother to tell her he changed her RX!!! Now I am human I can and do make mistakes, but I know when a frame is too small for a PAL, and this one so was not!! I guess it was just easier to blame me for his mistake. We get this all the time, AND have to eat the cost for the mistake. Not to mention having to put up with the pt thinking it was us who did it. Ah the abuse we take!! It is not right. Why can't we all just get along??? We all need each other in this business that is obvious!! I really think we need national licensure. I am not sure what that would do to remedy the relationship, but it would certainly make our profession stronger. That is just my two cents..
> 
> 
> Steph


We can all tell stories here about a dumb or unethical optician, optometrist or ophthalmologist regardless of which side of the fence we are on. It doesn't help in dismantling the fence.

----------


## Leo Hadley Jr

> Am I the only Optician (skilled and certified) that practices happily with a pretty super fantastic Dr? I feel I am compensated fairly and he values my opinion, asks for it even. I read this and while I am saddened for the difficult relationships out there I am blessed for my working environment. BTW I thought I should mention that I am not just in the honey moon faze....I have been with my office for 61/2 years. Any one else out there just appreciateing working with a great Dr and other great opticians?


 
I have worked and became great friends with many O.D.s. Without them, I dont know where I would be. I have found that by treating everyone with respect, I get that same respect in return. Yes, many O.D.s do not know how to calculate prism thinning and reject it as unprescribed prism. On the other hand most opticians do not know how to refract. We must respect each others talents and NEVER EVER tell a patient that the O.D. did the exam wrong, or the optician measured your seg ht. too high!!! When this occurs it makes us all look bad and is very unprofessional. I see mistakes on both sides and I just take care of it. The patient loves me for that, The O.D. loves me for that, and the optician loves me for that.:bbg:

----------


## Snitgirl

> _But Ive had it with the bickering, back-biting, smarter-than-you attitudes in this industry.  I believe the reason behind our inability to communicate with each other across professional lines is simply that we dont want to.  Opticians seem to like the bottom of the optical food chain._



Judy, at times it does seem Opticians like the bottom of the optical food chain.  But we have to think about the Opticians that are out there that dont feel that way and are making a difference. IMHO, prime example Darryl Meister.  You know, there are many of us that have been in this field rather long (myself 20+) and also rather short but we all learn something from each other every day even with all the bickering, backbiting, and smarter-than-you-attitudes.   With that entire negative attitude floating around it teaches us how not to be professionally.  If people took that energy and applied it to get things changed (that they bicker about), WOW, can you imagine?



> _As a group, we dont support college-based education in any meaningful way, because we dont make it a prerequisite for hiring nor do we encourage co-workers or employees to seek it.  After all, requiring that level of competency usually means higher salaries._



I for one encourage our staff to do so (continue their education) even though our employers do not.  Its important and I do my best to teach them as much as I can because overall I know it will be better for them, for our practice and for our patients.  I work for 2 ODs but if I was an employer, I would hire differently and hire someone with a college-based "Optical" education, experience and a great attitude.  ←Hard to find this combination but I know they are out there, I've seem them here on the board. :D



> 





> _More than half of us dont support state licensure, because more than half of the states dont require it.  Wed have to work together with state and national organizations to achieve it and thats just asking too much. Most of our professional organizations represent only a fraction of the Opticians in their respective states. Too many of us see licensure as just another income source for state governments rather than an indication to the consumer that there is some level of skill and knowledge required to practice_.



Do you honestly think its asking too much to work together on this? I havent been on this board (not long like most) but Ive seen it grow a bit since Ive been here.  Vs. complaining about state licensure, create a thread that will teach/educate the people who are currently on the board and all the new comers as well on how to make a difference.  There are so many people employed in the Optical field that truly have no idea about licensure and the differences there are between states.  They dont know whom to write or call to get things changed.<-- I feel that is the true reason why it is not supported.  



> 





> Many Optometrists and Ophthalmologists support the concept of college-educated and licensed Opticianry.  However, the actions of their respective state and national organizations and even their own hiring practices belie their words.  If a college-educated, licensed professional is good for your practices, then require it and pay accordingly.  If state licensure is important to your practices then support efforts to achieve it, even if it means associating with Opticians.



Your statement above it quite sad but I have known this to be so true and I wish this would change but I dont feel it will until we Opticians make a change on how we see our profession.  It starts with us; we need to make the difference, its not going to be handed to us.  Once the difference is made, then the OD's and MD's will require to hire a certain way.
 


> 





> My bottom line is this:  If you want to fight, then fight.  If you want to want to be the smartest one in the room, fine.  Ill afford you as much professional courtesy and respect as Im given, but nothing more.  At the end of the day, all any of us want is to have a meaningful profession, a modicum of respect and a decent lifestyle for our families and ourselves.



Cheers to your bottom line! :cheers:









[/QUOTE]

----------


## Graduate

Judy, I did'nt really mean that you are an anti-optician, i know that you are a experienced optician and i respect you, just that i alerted you sounded like that.

I am not an optometrist or optician by profession. I work as technician.
My long observation is like this:
Optometrist eat chocolate mousse cake, but they cannot tolerate to see optician eating dry slice of bread and if they get any opportunity they will pull that bread out of opticians mouth.

When they send customers to my office optician, they would call him spectacle techinician or dispenser,will not use word optician.

I strongly believe they do not like opticians inside their heart.

I am sorry if i annoyed anyone, but this is how i see.

----------


## fjpod

> Judy, I did'nt really mean that you are an anti-optician, i know that you are a experienced optician and i respect you, just that i alerted you sounded like that.
> 
> I am not an optometrist or optician by profession. I work as technician.
> My long observation is like this:
> Optometrist eat chocolate mousse cake, but they cannot tolerate to see optician eating dry slice of bread and if they get any opportunity they will pull that bread out of opticians mouth.
> 
> When they send customers to my office optician, they would call him spectacle techinician or dispenser,will not use word optician.
> 
> I strongly believe they do not like opticians inside their heart.
> ...


Graduate,
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't you think the statement about cake eating optometrists taking bread (dry bread, no less) out of opticians mouths is a bit of an overstatement or unfair generalization?

And if you and others think this is a fair statement, I don't see how the war will ever end.

----------


## NC-OD

> Graduate,
> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't you think the statement about cake eating optometrists taking bread (dry bread, no less) out of opticians mouths is a bit of an overstatement or unfair generalization?
> 
> And if you and others think this is a fair statement, I don't see how the war will ever end.


Exactly. These are the kind of 'drive-by' insults that get ignored by those that are--shall we say-- a bit biased. No one is taking food out of anyone's mouth. Just another cheap shot on the optiboard. 

What if I came on here with statements like "An optician near me put my 85 year old nursing home, monocular patient in a progressive/AR coated lenses and charged her for a fortune and he doesn't even have a clue how to measure the seg heights and doesn't measure monocular PDs and uses an old PD ruler and doesn't have a clue what myopia is and he is stealing money from this old lady.  Opticians don't have a clue what they are doing".

I don't imagine anyone here would appreciate a post like this. Silly, isn't it.  But this is what ODs see every time we log on.

----------


## Judy Canty

Two of the very best features of an online "conversation" are the Backspace and Delete functions.  It allows us the opportunity to "think" before we "speak".  I use them often.  Like un-ringing a bell, words spoken in haste and with great emotion can't be taken back and most apologies sound pretty hollow.  We're having a great conversation here and I applaud those of you who have chosen to keep it on track and meaningful.

----------


## hcjilson

This has been a good thread...despite my earlier missgivings!

----------


## Alvaro Cordova

> Two of the very best features of an online "conversation" are the Backspace and Delete functions.  It allows us the opportunity to "think" before we "speak".  I use them often.  Like un-ringing a bell, words spoken in haste and with great emotion can't be taken back and most apologies sound pretty hollow.  We're having a great conversation here and I applaud those of you who have chosen to keep it on track and meaningful.


I think some progress has been made (at least in my mind).  There isn't a quick fix to Opticianry.  I truly wish those of you in unlicensed states could experience what it feels like being under a strong State Board with a strong society.  Just as an apprentice alone there is a certain level of responsibility and pride in what we do even though not licensed.  I want to help opticians in other states have the same, in their own way of course.  Which is why I believe that it must start with education and it must be inexpensive.  The obvious question posed by someone in an unlicensed state would be "why should I pay for schooling, if it won't benefit me financially?"  By minimizing the monetray risk of attending school this would insulate someone from "wasting their time" (I never think that education is a waste of time).  Inevitably, the standard will be raised and financially be better off in the long run.  Bottom line though, blanket statements serve no purpose because they tend to be inherently incorrect and blaming everything on a group is more of a sign of mental impotence and cynicism.  I don't believe we are "helpless," but we do have to look to our own leadership and tell them what we want and not everyone has to agree with everything.  I find that many simply give up because they may have the unreasonable expectation that everyone should have the same voice.

----------


## Matthew

There may be some animosity between the O's, but in my personal experience I have had a great relationship with Optometrists for the most part.

In my town we have a a lot of Optometrists as well as Ophthamologists.

I afford them the respect they deserve, they afford me the respect and consideration I deserve. Its a two way street relationship.

At the political level things may be different because all want the bigger portion of the pie.

On a professional level I feel like my my opinions and and observations are held with importance.  I feel that respect is something you have to earn in the optical community.

----------


## HarryChiling

It does sometimes feel like a war, and none of the O's are winning.  The real winners are corporations with their chains that will give you your money back if not satisfied and the insurance companies with the idea that a decent pair of frame and lenses should be provided to their customers for $1.00 and they expect change.  Opticians have almost become retail sales people and guess who's next on the food chain? Optometrists, we should be working together at the least it creates a buffer for your profession after all they have to get through us to get to you.

----------


## Framebender

If all I had to endure over the last 40 years was drive by insults I'd be a happy camper! When was the last time you had someone look you directly in the eye and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about?? Or smile at you in a job evaluation and say I'd like to give you a raise, but your educational background just doesn't justify it?? Or had some twenty something yell at you that they're the Doctor and how dare you question their judgement?? (I didn't finish out the day on that one.) Or my personal favorite. . .You know if you were smarter you could have been and OD.

You know in the old days we used to drink and play cards together. You couldn't have looked around the table and told who was who. It wasn't until the group in the early 70's started getting out of school that they seemed to think that there was a G in front of OD. The ones that started introducing themselves as Doctor in social situations.  We helped each other out and got along just fine.

When people start telling you directly to your face that you're full of s***! Then I might have some sympathy. In the meantime I still believe the way to stop the war is to just quit working for them!! And after this last fiasco I won't be doing it again!!

----------


## chip anderson

Of course Dude, I heard some statistics yesterday that only 20% of college students actually make use of thier degree (other than to _get_ a job), the rest end up doing things for which the degree had no application.  Could It be that what we need are more trade schools in most endevors?

----------


## Graduate

> Graduate,
> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't you think the statement about cake eating optometrists taking bread (dry bread, no less) out of opticians mouths is a bit of an overstatement or unfair generalization?
> 
> And if you and others think this is a fair statement, I don't see how the war will ever end.


FJPOD Thanks for bringing my mind on right track, i apologize for unfair generalization.

I will take exit from this thread,not to hurt any one anymore.

----------


## EyeManFla

I know that I am jumping into this late, but.......

In thirty years of doing this, I have rarely had a problem with an OD or an MD as far as professional standing is concerned.

What I witness on a DAILY basis is the contension between ODs and MDs. I know one MD here in SWFLA who has made it his mission in life to do away with optometry!
It is unfortunate that there is room for everyone and everything in this business, except mutual respect.

----------


## Judy Canty

I'm sure that everyone of us has had pleasant and unplesant encounters with others in our professions.  While the concept may be difficult to swallow, it's time to start building new relationships.  Dredging up past incidents is not helpful in any way.  

Rear-view mirrors are always smaller than windshields.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Of course Dude, I heard some statistics yesterday that only 20% of college students actually make use of thier degree (other than to _get_ a job), the rest end up doing things for which the degree had no application.


Keep in mind that many job opportunities don't necessarily _require_ extensive training in a particular discipline; the recruiters just want to know that you have a well-rounded, post-secondary education. Basically, "getting the Degree card punched" opens up more opportunities for you.

However, you are more likely to see someone with a graduate degree or a hard science/engineering degree pursuing job opportunities related to his or her field, since such jobs will frequently demand intensive training and education, and will offer higher salaries as a result. A person with a BA in Business may end up doing anything from serving as an admin assistant to managing a small buiness. A person with an MS in Physics will probably end up with a calculator and a lab notebook -- or teaching somewhere.

----------


## jediron1

> No, she just noted that this kind of statement was counterproductive to a civil discussion.
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, insults and personal attacks have never been acceptable, and are a violation of the posting guidelines.
> 
> 
> She has simply been an optician long enough to know better.


 
1. I don't see the statements by the Doc's or Chip were counterproductive the way you and Judy construed them might be considered counterproduction but as set forth by the Doc's and Chip I did not see it or read it that way. Just my 2 cents.  :Rolleyes:  

2. Where were the personal attacks?

3. What does being an optician long enough have anything to do with what was being talked about?

----------


## fjpod

> 1. I don't see the statements by the Doc's or Chip were counterproductive the way you and Judy construed them might be considered counterproduction but as set forth by the Doc's and Chip I did not see it or read it that way. Just my 2 cents.  
> 
> 2. Where were the personal attacks?
> 
> 3. What does being an optician long enough have anything to do with what was being talked about?


Maybe you didn't read the thread right before this one, called "A must read for all opticians", which was closed by the moderators.

I was one of the ODs that lost his cool (judging from the damage done to my reputation). I apologize for using the word ignoramous, and from now on when I see misinformation given about any O profession, I will report it to the moderators.

----------


## Darryl Meister

1. How could rehashing the same issues that led to the closure of the thread that preceded this one (_A Must Read for All Opticians_) be _productive_? Chip and the others made several valid points in this thread, and I don't think anyone is questioning that. But I do think we're trying to move forward.

2. There were several personal attacks in the earlier thread, which was subsequently closed as a result. Heading down that same path in this thread would undoubtedly result in similar consequences -- and, at the very least, serve to perpetuate the animosity between optometry and opticianry.

3. Because if you've been in this industry for any significant length of time, you would have personally witnessed the steady decline of professional opticianry as a direct consequence -- in my opinion -- of opticianry's lack of educational guidelines (much less, requirements) and fragmented leadership. I don't think this observation makes you "anti-optician."

----------


## hcjilson

One of the underlying causes of this situation is that just within the last 30 years, Optometry has become the primary source of eyecare.It has happened that way because the educational requirements have been upgraded and Optometry has kept step with the times. The requirements for Opticianry have remained static.This was not done at the expense of Opticianry, or Ophthalmology, but rather the advancement of the profession. The net result may "at the expense of the 2 remaining O's" but that was not the intent. I applaud Optometry for the foresight of those spearheading this advancement, I am sure it was not easy for them, but they prevailed.

Heck, Optometry has provided a blueprint for Opticianry to build upon. I have friends on all sides of this profession. Fortunately I practice where we all manage to get along  (despite the "occasional'' zinger fired for effect) I think we've mostly gotten to the point where we realize we're not going to write or fill every Rx in our area and despite economic ups and downs, we all still manage to hang around. Often we help each other out which is the way it should be. Its the way it can be for our respective professions as well.

In short, it doesn't have to be war. In spite of a few minor lapse's, this thread is proof of that. Let's build on that.

----------


## stephanie

I don't think in this profession we are ever going to ever be able to dismantle the fence. I have had more OD's and MD's that I have got along with than I haven't. I was simply making the statement all the O's need each other. It is easier to get along than it is to slam one another. 



Steph

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *.................you would have personally witnessed the steady decline of professional opticianry as a direct consequence -- in my opinion -- of opticianry's lack of educational guidelines (much less, requirements) and fragmented leadership. I don't think this observation makes you "anti-optician."*


and this




> *Heck, Optometry has provided a blueprint for Opticianry to build upon.*


*just about sum's it all up.......................now, instead of moaning bring up some propositions for a positive result.*

----------


## hcjilson

For Opticianry:

To begin with, a concerted effort by the ABO/NCLE. NAO, and OAA to establish a single set of educational and clinical standards by which opticians would become credentialed. The establishment of CE that is truly education, not some of the stuff that passes for CE today.

Individual states must pursue registration in states where licensing does not exist today, and states that have it must strengthen it. Here's where Optometry and Ophthalmology can assist, through their state societies lobbying efforts.State societies in licensed states should be enlisted in this effort. I am astounded that a state which reguires the registration of barbers, does not require it of Opticians as well. 

Many will follow, saying that the chains and organized Optometry will fight this, as they have done in Alaska, but I still think it is possible, particularly if it is done up front and VERY publicly. Optometry and Ophthalmology may have their own agenda's but I don't think they would publicly stand in the way of consumer protection. It would paint them in a less than professional light and they wouldn't want that.

Anyway, thats the view from Cape Cod this morning.

hj

PS to Chris.....thanks for the opening!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *........................... Here's where Optometry and Ophthalmology can assist, through their state societies lobbying efforts.State societies in licensed states should be enlisted in this effort. I am astounded that a state which reguires the registration of barbers, does not require it of Opticians as well.* 
> 
> *................................but I still think it is possible, particularly if it is done up front and VERY publicly. Optometry and Ophthalmology may have their own agenda's but I don't think they would publicly stand in the way of consumer protection.*


Harry, a perfect start. Your idea actually kills the two flies in one swap. 

The 2 other O's could help, which would probably end the war with the exception of a few fanatics minded ones.

Doing it publicly and open will gain support from the public, who actually does not seem to know that the optical specialist (of course not every one) they are getting their glasses from does not have to have any special professional requirements.

A solution has to be found that also optical dispensers working for optometrist's and ophthalmologist's with dispensaries would fall under the same regulations. Same for on-line dispensaries.

Lets hear some more positive arguments how to correct the situation in an acceptable way for everybody.

----------


## chip anderson

Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it.   Of course employees in Opthalmology and Optometry offices are exempt so they are not affected by restrictions on independent opticianry.


Chip

----------


## Chris Ryser

Chip, maybe you forgot the mentioning of doing it in full view of the public..............which if you get it on your side. is a powerfull way of doing it.

----------


## hcjilson

> Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it.   Of course employees in Opthalmology and Optometry offices are exempt so they are not affected by restrictions on independent opticianry.
> 
> 
> Chip


 What you have to do is get your ducks in a row first. I am speaking of gaining the support of the national organizations first, and frankly I don't think, given the proper approach, that it would be difficult to do that. I'm afraid that the "old guard" in opticianry could present a problem, but I've known most of them since the mid sixties and they don't want to appear in the negative either, at least in public. I think the key is to be VERY upfront so no one can miss it. ( It doesn't hurt to have the knowledge that former executive officers of the educational arm of Opticianry freely admit they have never taken even the elementary ABO examination. :bbg: ) I don't think they would be too loud in their opposition! (hints of blackmail but is not meant that way)

The people who can bring this about are here, albeit some, very quietly.From what I've heard from the OD's in this thread at least, are in favor of higher educational standards for our profession and provided we get the education, would not object to the expansion of our scope of practice. ( If I read correctly)

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Nice thought but It's been tried before in many states and by the time Optometry finds something it will approve the restrictions on Opticianry are so intense that Opticianry would be a fool to accept it.


I was actually on the board of directors for the Opticians Association of Missouri about 13 years ago, when Missouri was inches away from getting a licensure bill passed -- after a great deal of effort and financial support. The optometrists were actually _willing_ to support this bill, as long as there was no provision for fitting contact lenses independently.

Well, the Powers That Be in the OAM insisted on the contact lens fitting component. Of course, the optometrists fought it, as everyone knew they would, and the bill never made it through committee. So, Missouri has since remained an unlicensed state, and the OAM eventually disbanded. Oh, and Missouri opticians _still_ can't fit contact lenses.

It's been almost 20 years since any state has advanced significant opticianry legislation. In this day and age, opticians should take what they can get in terms of legislation, because they probably won't getting anything else at all otherwise.

----------


## hcjilson

At the risk of opening a can of worms, it is indeed unfortunate that Optometry fights an ability to fit contact lenses. Collectively they must have forgotten that the corneal lenses they fit today were invented by an Optician not an Optometrist.( same true for sceleral if aged memory serves) That having been said, I agree that Opticians should focus on licensing. The remainder can come though legislation, or as in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through litigation. (Commonwealth vs Collinson 1966) which has established the precedent. I think at this point in time, Optometry probably would not be as adamant about Contacts, they've set their sights considerably higher.Perhaps if Opticianry were to actively support Optometry in the expansion of their scope of practice, something could be worked out.

----------


## fjpod

> At the risk of opening a can of worms, it is indeed unfortunate that Optometry fights an ability to fit contact lenses. Collectively they must have forgotten that the corneal lenses they fit today were invented by an Optician not an Optometrist.( same true for sceleral if aged memory serves) That having been said, I agree that Opticians should focus on licensing. The remainder can come though legislation, or as in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through litigation. (Commonwealth vs Collinson 1966) which has established the precedent. I think at this point in time, Optometry probably would not be as adamant about Contacts, they've set their sights considerably higher.Perhaps if Opticianry were to actively support Optometry in the expansion of their scope of practice, something could be worked out.


I'm trying to be helpful here. Forgive me if I step on any toes.

I must tell you (all), I was VERY active in my state when we went for diagnostic and therapeutic priviledges. I am still active to some degree. Never did we plan on support from opticianry, ophthalmology, nor the ORA. We always planned for their opposition. In fact, even after ophthalmology "cooperated" and worked out a compromise with us that helped to move our therapeutics bill, they fought us tooth and nail in the aftermath during the credentialing phase to try and make sure no-one could get certified. When that failed, they lobbied insurance carriers not to enroll us in their plans, and when this failed they lobbied the carriers not to pay us. 

It would be nice, and you should try to get it, but don't count on help from anybody but yourselves and your schools.

You've got to move forward on licensure based on an educational standard. Listen to all opticians and try to include everyone, but move forward with the positive thinkers, don't get bogged down with the nay sayers.

Now, I'm not an optician, and if you want me to shut up, I will.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Never did we plan on support from opticianry


But, of course, opticianry wasn't lobbying _against_ you. And you _did_ have to reach a compromise with the ophthalmologists, who were.

It is actually in optometry's best interest to have licensed opticians (bearing in mind that, at least as far as I know, an optometrist doesn't even have to employ a licensed optician as long as the optometrist is on site).

However, independent optometry's biggest competitors -- retail chains and independent dispensers -- generally _will_ have to employ a licensed optician. I don't think optometrists have really thought this issue through. Further, even though retail chains have historically opposed licensure, I honestly think that they, too, would benefit from employing licensed, career opticians.

----------


## fjpod

> It is actually in optometry's best interest to have licensed opticians (bearing in mind that, at least as far as I know, an optometrist doesn't even have to employ a licensed optician as long as the optometrist is on site).


You're right, an OD doesn't have to employ a licensed optician (neither does an OMD), but it is becoming increasingly foolish not to, as ophthalmic materials are becoming more numerous and more technologically advanced, and as optometric scope of practice has become more medical. I admit, I'm probably nor the average OD, but in my single office practice (3 ODs) we employ 3 LDOs. 




> However, independent optometry's biggest competitors -- retail chains and independent dispensers -- generally _will_ have to employ a licensed optician. I don't think optometrists have really thought this issue through. Further, even though retail chains have historically opposed licensure, I honestly think that they, too, would benefit from employing licensed, career opticians.


I agree.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> but it is becoming increasingly foolish not to, as ophthalmic materials are becoming more numerous and more technologically advanced, and as optometric scope of practice has become more medical.


Then you guys are running out of reasons not to support it.

----------


## fjpod

> Then you guys are running out of reasons not to support it.


Well, not that I'm trying to take the lazy way out, but opticians in NY have been licensed and fitting contacts independantly ever since I can remember, Jersey too. 

How 'bout it ODs in non-licensed optician states? What do you think about the matter? I've survived in a licensed state.

----------


## Dannyboy

If my memory is right Opticians in New Jersey have not been able to indepently fit contact lenses mainly because (again) the ODs have oppose every legislation to do so. 

New Jersey Opticians have the toughest opticianry laws in nation as they must attend college or college and apprenticeship at the same time, yet even that is not enough for the ODs. Even if every state was licensed and required a PHD in Optics that would not be enough for the ODs to allow opticians refracting. Do not come here and tell us that we need to educate every optician and then you will agree with "us" refracting. That is a lie and you know it. 

It is a lie and let me tell you why. Independent Optometry cannot survive without the eyeglasses portion in their income. Corporate optometry cannot survive if refracting opticians take their jobs at the chains. Colleges of Optometry could not get paid if their graduates are being forced out of the jobs by refracting opticians even if they have an equivalent education as mighty as yours. It is pure economics. 

See Doctor, opticianry is not just "measuring the seg height and bending the wires" Opticians interpret the rx to the lifestyle of the patient by using their knowledge of the lenses materials and designs available to provide the best vision possible. It is not our fault that the title "optician" is not protected in half of the US. It is the Optometric profession that has fought every bill that has come across in every location. If it was for organized optometry magnifiers would require a prescription! What angers most opticians is the disrespect that optometry has towards opticianry. Opticianry is raped when there is a loop hole that allows you to delegate opticianry. 

If opticianry had been more intelligent, instead of seeking refraction they would have concentrated in making it illegal that the fitting be done personally (yes face to face) by a licensed optician, certified optician, optometrists or ophthalmologists. (Yep a licensed to use the PD stick, bend the wires and spread the nosy thing.) I have seen the sloppy work that many ODs offices do in the eyeglasses section. From uncalled cosmetics to simply outrageous mistakes that could have been caught by the OD if he/she would have been more attentive. It is not to say that opticianry is exempt when something like this happens in their dispenseries but it is very unlikely that it would happen in independent opticianry shops (most are high end and do not allow this to happen). Independent opticianry has fought optometry by providing unsurpassed customer care and superior optics. Otherwise we would not even exists as Optometry, the big chains and dispensing ophthalmology wants us dead.

If we could not get a bill pass in every state at least in the interest of the American public could we lobby medicare, medicaid and all vision plans to require the presence of one of the 3 o's. not just an assistant. If the assistant is good enough have him/her certified. If you are so pro opticianry as you say you are send a letter to your leadership in support of Opticianry.

If optometry does not want us to evolve into refracting opticians , they should consider allowing opticianry to be licensed. 


Otherwise as the old argument goes " If we do not need a license to dispense a pair of eyeglasses why do we need a license to prescribe them?:angry: 

Dannyboy :Rolleyes:  
Ex ignoramous as pardoned by the OD.

----------


## Ed_Optician

In NJ opticians may not independently fit CLs...it is not even part of their State Opticians Examination.  Opticians may however fill a prescription for CLs from an OD or MD.  
In NY there is a 2 tiered Ophthalmic Dispenser's license...Ophthalmic Dispenser with the ABO and a State administered practical and an additional license of SL fitter NCLE and a State CL practical
In Connecticut ALL opticians are qualified Contact Lens Fitters.  In order to get licensed in CT you need to becontact lens qualified.  

As far as who may fit and dispense glasses, my opinion is that in any professional office be it MD, OD or Independent Optician, a certified  or licensed optician depending on the state should be the person fitting and dispensing glasses.  THe receptionist or technician working in the office is not a certified /licensed opotician who has considerable knowledge of what can or can not be done with a pair of glasses.  __________ is working under my license is not acceptable yet is commonplace in many states because the MD and OD lobby created exemptions in any regulation s regarding the dispensing of glasses when it applies to their offices.  

The optical community needs to work together to provide better service to our customers/patients.  We need all unlicensed states to at least create a requirement for registering as an optician/contact lens dispenser
Minimum requirements to register and maintain registration as an optician
1.  Pass ABO examination in order to renew registration with the state provide evidence of renewal of ABO certification
2.  Pass NCLE examination in order to dispense contact lenses.  In order to renew state registration, present evidence or renewal of NCLE certification
3.  One licensed/registered optician may supervise no more than two apprentice opticians at any given time.  No apprentice optician may fit or dispense unless a licensed optician is present and on duty on the premesis
4.  Name Badges/Tags Only a licensed/registered optician maywear the title OPTICIAN on their badge/tag.  An apprentice optician will wear a tag/badge with the title APPRENTICE OPTICIAN.  The title Licensed Optician may not appear on any nametag or badge as there is no title of UNLICENSED OPTICIAN.  If you are licensed or certified you are an optician otherwise you are NOT an Optician.  A student in an acredited opticianary program will wear a nametag/badge with the title of STUDENT OPTICIAN when in any clinic/laboratory setting especially when working with the public
5.  A clear criminal background check by the state requirements shall be similar to other health care workers

I offer this as a starting point for minimum requirements for those states that have no regulations regarding the practice of opticians.  I consider this to be an evolving document and have yet to carve it into stone

Ed

----------


## Darryl Meister

Dannyboy, are you trying to single-handedly get _this_ thread closed, too? ;)

----------


## Graduate

> Dannyboy, are you trying to single-handedly get _this_ thread closed, too? ;)


I commend Dannyboy posts, he is making sensible points.

If we had more like Dannyboys, the picture of opticianry would be different.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I commend Dannyboy posts, he is making sensible points. If we had more like Dannyboys, the picture of opticianry would be different


Oh, I think there are plenty of opticians with Dannyboy's point of view, and I don't think it has been productive for opticianry at all. I'm not sure how attacking optometrists or blaming them for opticianry's constant predicaments is going to help matters.

I can appreciate Dannyboy's passion. However, making constant references to "refracting opticians," even while acknowledging that optometry has successfully fought licensure in most states, is -- in my opinion -- the single greatest threat to the future of professional opticianry. Opticians won't be refracting anytime soon in the United States -- at least not in my lifetime. Yet trying to put the cart before the horse with this kind of wishful thinking, at the expense of any real progress, will keep most states just the way they are: unlicensed.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Then you guys are running out of reasons not to support it.*


I am glad that we are getting from a war situation to a logical seeking of solutions that make sense.

I we keep this thread foing for a while we actually can come up with something to start a process that can be realized.

----------


## ikon44

In the UK we have refracting opticians, they are Dispensing Opticians that have taken the FBDO hons cl exam. it is really not much use as an optometrist still has to sign off the rx, it is only useful when fitting contacts or sorting out a spectacle non tolerance.
I think you guys need to have the title optician protected and to have a professional association that has a really stiff qualifying exam. I would suggest at least a 2 year minimum, a nationally recognised diploma then perhaps you will get the respect of the ODs and Optoms

----------


## drk

Darryl, you are right, period. 

"Refracting opticans" is not going to happen in the U.S., unless we get some sort of nationalized health care, which isn't happening anytime in the forseeable future.

Using that as a "stick" is very counter-productive towards working together, which seems to be our fate.

Control of marketshare equals power. Opticians, by current standards, do not control marketshare as independents, for the variety of reasons noted.

Opticianry's best bet is make the important step towards state licensure requirements. You gotta walk before you can run, guys.

The best synergistic scenario I can think of is the situation where a business arrangement is made between an optician and a less-than-interested-in-dispensing O.D. who would greatly benefit from your services. Yes, there would be a "sales job" involved, but I KNOW I could present it to an O.D. and make it work (office management is another hot commodity, and I haven't even broached the subject of technical assistance, such as CL services). OD's are CLUELESS about ophthalmic lenses (present company excepted, of course) and patients are willing to pay for better technology. Inventories are bloated and inefficient and un-original and uncompetitive. Needs analysis and multiple pair sales is an untapped resource. Rx sunwear is on the verge of exploding, but is poorly understood. Heaven help an O.D. who wants to actually do some finishing...the profit margins could knock him over, dead.

If you think about it, chains are the entities that have too much marketshare.  

In my scenario, opticians would get access to the marketshare that they need to survive, and the O.D.'s patients get better optical services, and the O.D. gets to charge rent to the optician.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Here we have proposition number 1




> *In my scenario, opticians would get access to the marketshare that they need to survive, and the O.D.'s patients get better optical services, and the O.D. gets to charge rent to the optician.*


Lets get some more ideas together, so that we can get to some positive result.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *"An optician is someone who controls the ultimate step in providing good visual outcomes to the citizen by designing and fitting vision correcting devices using the raw refractive data as provided by the prescription. This essential link in the vision care chain cannot be broken, or the entire preceeding vision correcting process is substantially negated. Consistent with this importance, all governing bodies should ensure the good visual welfare of it's citizenry by creation of educational and licensure requirements, a self-governing Board, and sufficient enforcement abilities to regulate the compliance with the professional standards".*
> 
> *If you could get that passed, if commercialism didn't dry up entirely, you'd at least be getting paid big, big bucks.*




I copied this quote from another post, as it fits perfectly here too.

----------


## Ed_Optician

Adding on to my previous post, I would also consider a no grandfather clause.  Upon adoption of my requirements for an optician, I would give those working in the field a period of 3 years to take and pass the ABO/NCLE examinations
I know existing opticians *****ed and moaned when NY adopted continuing education for ALL opticians some years ago.  While living and working in NY I had no trouble getting CEs as a member of NYSSO.  At the metro chapter there were 2 CEUs offered each month.  THe college I taught at had a 1 day CE program 6 CEUs offered and the neighboring chapter had a mid summer meeting providing 6 hours  as well.  A bargain by any means for the $150 annual dues compared to CEs offered at vision expo.  All I gave up was 2 Sundays and one evening 10 months of the year

Ed

----------


## jediron1

> 1. How could rehashing the same issues that led to the closure of the thread that preceded this one (_A Must Read for All Opticians_) be _productive_? Chip and the others made several valid points in this thread, and I don't think anyone is questioning that. But I do think we're trying to move forward.
> 
> 2. There were several personal attacks in the earlier thread, which was subsequently closed as a result. Heading down that same path in this thread would undoubtedly result in similar consequences -- and, at the very least, serve to perpetuate the animosity between optometry and opticianry.
> 
> 3. Because if you've been in this industry for any significant length of time, you would have personally witnessed the steady decline of professional opticianry as a direct consequence -- in my opinion -- of opticianry's lack of educational guidelines (much less, requirements) and fragmented leadership. I don't think this observation makes you "anti-optician."


1. Lets move forward

2. I must have missed the personal attacks

3. I never said anyone was anti-optician, I was using a quote from the member who posted that used anti-optician. And from what he or she posted it did not sound like they were bashing Judy for being anti-optician but the stand she taking. Big difference between the two. Just my 2 cents :D

----------


## jediron1

> I commend Dannyboy posts, he is making sensible points.
> 
> If we had more like Dannyboys, the picture of opticianry would be different.


 
I re-edited this because I re-read Dannyboy with a clear head and I agree with 
him, now the wrest of you might not agree but I m free for the moment to express those same views, because more than most of you I have worked for a number of OD's and MD's and where as the OD's were a little better to work for 
the MD's were not. It all comes back to what Dannyboy said: ( It is pure economics ) another words money. Pure and simple!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *It all comes back to what Dannyboy said: (* *It is pure economics ) another words money. Pure and simple!*


I thought we were past the old part of blaming each other and were going to have some positive input with suggestions to correct the situation.

----------


## Judy Canty

Well that is the plan.  So to paraphrase Thumper in the Disney movie Bambi, "If you can't say something (constructive), don't say nothing at all."

----------


## drk

I know an independent optician who closed his shop(s) and went in with a family practice OMD.  I'll bet he has autonomy and good pay.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> "Refracting opticans" is not going to happen in the U.S., unless we get some sort of nationalized health care, which isn't happening anytime in the forseeable future... Using that as a "stick" is very counter-productive towards working together, which seems to be our fate... Opticianry's best bet is make the important step towards state licensure requirements. You gotta walk before you can run, guys.


Exactly.




> In the UK we have refracting opticians, they are Dispensing Opticians that have taken the FBDO hons cl exam. it is really not much use as an optometrist still has to sign off the rx, it is only useful when fitting contacts or sorting out a spectacle non tolerance.


Just to clarify, they are talking about opticians refracting _independently_ in the United States. Many optometrists and ophthalmologists in the US have technicians -- with or without training or credentials -- refracting for them under their direct supervision.




> ( It is pure economics ) another words money. Pure and simple!


Well, while we're on that subject, look into how much money Optometry's AAO and AOA have floating around versus Opticianry's OAA and NAO (and the state societies, for that matter). And then ask yourself again whether you still believe that attacking optometrists and insisting upon refraction rights -- which you won't have anytime soon, if ever -- is helping your case.




> I never said anyone was anti-optician, I was using a quote from the member who posted that used anti-optician.


You asked me about my response to someone else's post, who _did_ make that statement.




> If opticianry had been more intelligent, instead of seeking refraction...


I think if opticianry had been more sensible as a group, they would've abandoned the notion of refracting independently and focused on working with optometry to ensure some form of minimal licensure and training requirements in all states. The OAA has been talking about "refracting" for 10 years now, although they collectively had around 30 states without licensing or consistent education standards for opticians. And they have made absolutely no progress since then.




> From uncalled cosmetics to simply outrageous mistakes that could have been caught by the OD if he/she would have been more attentive. It is not to say that opticianry is exempt when something like this happens in their dispenseries but it is very unlikely that it would happen in independent opticianry shops


Keep in mind that, in most states, the optometrist has had more formal training in optics and dispensing than even "independent" opticians. Maybe _you_ don't make those mistakes, but there are plenty of other opticians who do, which is why licensing is important.




> Independent opticianry has fought optometry by providing unsurpassed customer care and superior optics.


That's your opinion, and most optometrists -- and their accountants -- would disagree with you.

I don't dispense eyewear anymore, so my interest in seeing opticians achieve consistent licensure in all states isn't really a professional interest. However, I do believe that _everyone_ -- including retail chains and optometrists -- would benefit from some minimal standards and licensing for opticians. While salaries may go up some, customer service, product quality, and profit margins should all go up -- with less money lost to breakage/mistakes.

----------


## Graduate

> Oh, I think there are plenty of opticians with Dannyboy's point of view, and I don't think it has been productive for opticianry at all. I'm not sure how attacking optometrists or blaming them for opticianry's constant predicaments is going to help matters.
> 
> I can appreciate Dannyboy's passion. However, making constant references to "refracting opticians," even while acknowledging that optometry has successfully fought licensure in most states, is -- in my opinion -- the single greatest threat to the future of professional opticianry. Opticians won't be refracting anytime soon in the United States -- at least not in my lifetime. Yet trying to put the cart before the horse with this kind of wishful thinking, at the expense of any real progress, will keep most states just the way they are: unlicensed.


I don't think they are many now,but once upon a time there were many Dannyboys who now call themselves doctor of optometry.

We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like you:p(no offence please)

----------


## Judy Canty

Once again, not helpful to the current discussion.

----------


## Graduate

> Once again, not helpful to the current discussion.


Judy I don't understand you.

What is the title of this thread? Optometry Vs Opticianry or Pro Optometry Vs anti-Opticianry.

Anyway, i am not posting again on this thread.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I don't think they are many now,but once upon a time there were many Dannyboys who now call themselves doctor of optometry.


We still have people like that. They go to optometry school. ;)




> We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like youI tell you


Well, I'll check back on you three in ten years, to see if you've managed to bring refracting rights to opticians and advance the profession. ;) Unfortunately, I suspect that your attitude will be quite counterproductive in the meantime to the cause of most opticians, who -- in most states -- would be thrilled to get a little more respect for _dispensing_ first.

----------


## jediron1

> Once again, not helpful to the current discussion.


 
From the look of the posts after mine most people didn't want to get on with the current discussion. My last two posts were only to clarify but some did not take it that way, so be it! my 2 cents  :Cool: 

"Somewhere over the rainbow" by Iz

----------


## QDO1

im for peace, who wants to crack a great bottle of wine?

----------


## jediron1

[QUOTE=Darryl Meister]

 Originally Posted by *Jediron*
_I never said anyone was anti-optician, I was using a quote from the member who posted that used anti-optician._

You asked me about my response to someone else's post, who _did_ make that statement.

Since you asked:it is in post 58. I would have thought if you had been reading the posts you would have seen it because it has been referenced quite offen.
But there are a lot of posts. Just my 2 cents:bbg:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Since you asked:it is in post 58. I would have thought if you had been reading the posts you would have seen it because it has been referenced quite offen


I wasn't asking; I was making a statement. I already know who made the original comment (Graduate), and even quoted him in my response. You subsequently questioned me regarding my response to him, so I explained my perspective on the matter.

----------


## Darryl Meister

By the way, I should add that I am also a "graduate" of OAA's Refractometry program, and I certainly understand the value of having opticians understand the basic principles of refraction.

----------


## Dannyboy

Darryl, my boy I think you have missed my point ;) in the answers I gave the onboard optometrists. It does not matter what education we have or will ever achieve, let it be an optics PHD, it will never be sufficient for them. 

Refracting opticians will come sooner or later here, because organized ophthalmology is waiting for the right moment. They are waiting for them (the Ods) to request lasik or surgery priviledges in a licensed state for them to beg us to enter the appropiate bills. The (oDs) need to expand and so do us. Oklahoma was luck (ophthalmology does not forgives this)and that my friends will not happen in a licensed state for opticianry. Ophthalmology will split optometry legislative battle by endorsing opticians refracting because it is easier to enter an expansion bill for an establish profession. They prefer loosing refraction than surgery and that my friends maybe the only window of opportunity that exists for opticians refracting. It is not getting a PHD in Optics. We are not Canada and opticianrys standarizations will not happen any time soon. If it happens it will only be because ophthalmology and optometry are fighting and because it will serve one to beat the other.

If you carefully read my post at no moment did I attacked optometry other than merely stating a position that has been time and time proven by organized optometry. Our current predicament actually exist in the minds of a majority that is currently employed as opticians for chains, independent optometrists or ophthalmologists and who actually dream to do what we independent opticians do. These opticians see whats wrong because they are outside and see that they can make a decent living in opticianry if they could fix the errors and unjustices that exist in todays employment. How many opticians have left a good paying job as an employee to struggle as an independent optician? Not many..but how many have left the employment of an OD or OMD because they want or need more money or personal satisfaction...many!

When you are inside of independent opticianry you quickly learn how to satisfy a market and your niche. I see no predicament in my own practice. We make money and we enjoy what we do. We go to church and respect others life choices. We turn the other cheek from time time and when a customers is down we lend a hand discretely.  :cry:  but we are not naive to think we do not have to be savy. We create sales..we research better products..we endorse lifestyle dispensing. All and each of my dispensers receives a share of the business. If a customer is happy we are happy if they are not happy we make them happy.

Do we need ODs? off course! Do we need OMDs of course! What we do not need is "Ods or OMD" delegating opticianry. It is a plain and simple concept. Not hard to understand. When the ODs hire a tech to do opticianry, they are taking the bread and butter of another optician. Not funny nor a hypocritical statement in todays opticianrys reality. I do not mind if the actual OD or OMD does the "dirty work" of an optician but I do mind them having a non licensed nor certified tech doing the work that is and should be ours. It hurts my feelings when I see a 10Cent tech doing the work that a certified or LDO should be doing and a salary to go with that title. The public is getting cheated under a false impression that the OD or MD is supervising:angry: . *And yes I have repeated what I said in another post.*

When I started in this business being an optician was an ethical profession and our apprentices were expected to move on an put their own practices. Being a licensed optician ment you could actually live next to the ophthalmologists and play golf together..shop at the same department stores and let our sons and daughters mingle. It was not a dirty word. but their greed (why else would they take the work of an optician away and give it to someone who has not been properly educated and is less expensive to sustain as an employee) got to them. Ophthalmology our long friend is no longer our friend but our competitor. How did we let this happen? maybe just maybe we did not reacted enough or hard enough nor complain to them loud enough. 


So if my opinions and self defense close this thread so let it be. 

My practice and my opinions do not dependent wether ODs buy from my company or not. I try to say it direct and if it ruffles a few feathers let it be.

Now to answer the question to the OD about the quality of craftmanship that we independents do. Dear OD, my practice, my employees and their families dependent on our success. To triumph in this competive world we have to be better, better than the rest. No single independent Optician will ever survive if they do shady work. The word gets around. Independent opticianry is not the chains and its not the employees of the ODs or the MDs. Its those practices that are totally owned by an optician. I am not ashame to say that I own opticals in the good, the medium and low income parts of town. ..but just because we sell to the low income sections of town do we compromise our ethics and sell shady jobs. Our ethics are not compromised in any shape or form as we do not prescribe what we sell nor do I express my views to please someone or am I afraid of retaliation. I for one thank any OD or OMD for any errors that we inadvertantly do. (we are human after all), I see them as our checks and balances...but that does not mean that i do not try to improve customers satisfaction or improve quality...we try to do it right because otherwise we will not be open the doors tomorrow.

The irony of all this is that the ODs and MDs can hire unqualified help to do the work of a certified or licensed Opticians but we cannot even HIRE an OD to provide care to our own patients. They have made it legislative impossible..even the FTC is on our side on this issue but again the ODs control most eyecare legislation.
Then we have to resort to creative leases to attract an OD to stay with us. Nothing proud to add when we do this.

Dannyboy:o 
ex ignoramos.. hey wait a minute I always end up with one peg...maybe the Ods do go to the same food joints we uneducated opticians go to.

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

Dannyboy, 
Do not optical shops (both optician owned and retail establishments) with licensed opticians hire people that are unlicensed to work also? An apprentice is going to school and learning, the untrained people in the ODs or OMDs office are learning? What is the harm? You cannot have it both ways.

And on a personal note, what is with the outright animosity to our OD and OMD borthers and sisters? The Optiboard is open to all...that is optician, OD, OMD, techs, unlicensed, learning, growing, teaching, customers, etc. 

I think when we draw lines in the sand like you are doing that you only make the divide wider between the groups. You do nothing to help build the bridge. We all live in this very large optical sandbox and we have to play nice!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> It does not matter what education we have or will ever achieve, let it be an optics PHD, it will never be sufficient for them.


Given that only 1 out of every 6 or 7 optical dispensers even has an AAS degree in opticianry, I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. And earning an 8-year degree in optometry (I mean, if you're considering a PhD anyway) would be more than sufficient for them.




> Refracting opticians will come sooner or later here, because organized ophthalmology is waiting for the right moment.


I disagree with just about every one of your premises in this argument. ODs and OMDs do not need opticians to refract independently -- and likely never will (there are already more than enough refractionists to satisfy the current public demand).




> Our current predicament actually exist in the minds of a majority that is currently employed as opticians for chains, independent optometrists or ophthalmologists and who actually dream to do what we independent opticians do.


This is at the heart of my point. The _vast majority_ of opticians are not independent, and never will be. The vast majority don't even have access to licensure. Your attitude is serving the interests of a very small faction of the industry, while compromising any progress for the rest. However, if _you_ already live in a licensed state with a good educational system for opticians, I guess you can afford this kind of perspective.




> When you are inside of independent opticianry you quickly learn how to satisfy a market and your niche. I see no predicament in my own practice. We make money and we enjoy what we do.


I thought your point was that independent opticians _can't_ make money in the current system?




> When the ODs hire a tech to do opticianry, they are taking the bread and butter of another optician. Not funny nor a hypocritical statement in todays opticianrys reality.


Are you suggesting that an OD filling his or her _own prescription_ is taking the "bread and butter" away from another optician? Or are you suggesting that ODs don't hire "opticians," though you just spent the last two paragraphs encouraging opticians to work independently?




> So if my opinions and self defense close this thread so let it be.


Which is a very dangerous attitude to have, in my opinion. But, again, if you already live in a licensed state with decent education requirements, I guess you can afford to throw diplomacy to the wind -- at least until you're up for deregulation review.




> Our ethics are not compromised in any shape or form as we do not prescribe what we sell nor do I express my views to please someone or am I afraid of retaliation.


I think you're making a rather broad and unfounded generalization.




> The irony of all this is that the ODs and MDs can hire unqualified help to do the work of a certified or licensed Opticians but we cannot even HIRE an OD to provide care to our own patients.


It varies from state to state.




> Being a licensed optician ment you could actually live next to the ophthalmologists and play golf together.


You know, it seems to me that you should really be upset with the _ophthalmologists_, since they are the ones eroding your prescriptions. After all, optometrists have always filled their own Rx's, while independent opticians thrived primarily on referrals from OMDs, before they began dispensing. Yet you seem to hold ophthalmologists in rather high regard, while blaming optometry.

----------


## Steve Machol

> We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like you:p(no offence please)


You gotta be kidding, right?  I can't imagine anyone of sound mind writing this about Darryl Meister.  :Confused:

----------


## Dannyboy

Darryll, no matter how much the education of opticians increase as long as it says opticians, optometry will never recognize it. It has to say Optometry not opticianry. 

When optometry seeks lasiK and surgery priviledges they will spend lots and lots of money in it. Ophthalmology only chance is to derail the optometric bills by supporting bills that will split that OD efforts and nothing more enfurating to ODs than a refracting Opticians. Ophthalmology will promote such bills in licensed opticianry states to that effect not because there is a lack of refractionists but because it serves the purpose of ophthalmology which is stopping ODs expansion. Legislation is easier to introduce as expansion bills. Dirty legislative tactics. Obviously you have not been involve in legislation. The ODs will have to give it up (refraction)if they want to obtain lasik and surgery priviledges. I have heard it many times from the prominent MD leaders. Just to prove a point New York state has introduce refraction bills for at least five years. Their legislative body is already accustumed to hearing the bill. Will ODs in New York attempt lasik and surgery? Eventually. Will the MDs support these opticianry bills? absolutely as long as it costs money and effort to the ODs to derail the ambitions of ODs expansion into ophthalmology. 

Ophthalmology has the money but not the numbers as they are not as united with the fellow medical professionals. 

Will ODS have future in surgery and lasik? Absolutely. They are educated enough to do it. :Eek:  But if they want to do it they will need to pay a price that will change how business is done in the eyecare industry. Will they have the guts to do it?

Optometry, Opticianry and ophthalmology cannot get along with each other as long as they put their hands on each others wallet.

As to answer the other questions re read the post.


Dannyboy:drop:

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Obviously you have not been involve in legislation.


As a matter of fact, I was -- with the Opticians Association of Missouri. And, as I mentioned earlier, I watched in horror as a small faction of board members with your very same attitude single-handedly thwarted our chances of licensure by refusing to cooperate with the ODs. Fourteen years later, Missouri still doesn't have licensing for opticians -- or an Opticians Association of Missouri, for that matter.




> Will the MDs support these opticianry bills? absolutely as long as it costs money and effort to the ODs to derail the ambitions of ODs expansion into ophthalmology.


This is probably the point in the conversation where we must "agree to disagree" and move on. But, like I said earlier, I'll check back in on you in a few years to see if you've managed to progress opticianry at all with this kind of mindset.

----------


## Dannyboy

agreed!;)

----------


## shellrob

I've been reading this thread throughout and I think that if people don't want to hear or in this case read both sides of the argument, it shouldn't have been started in the first place. The subject started was bound to once again create controversy. You can't discount one persons side of the argument and respect the other side for which you agree. I respect both sides passion for the business and I will enjoy reading further. Type on my friends!!!:cheers:

----------


## hcjilson

Controversy yes, War....no! Its a heated discussion that didn't degenerate into name calling....which was the excersise. All sides are being presented and it is a very readable thread, providing some historical background for positions taken today. I for one, have learned a great deal.

----------


## drk

Dannyboy as an O.D., I have to correct some of your notions.

Firstly, you have a practically conspriatorial, political-intrigue laden view of "what is going on".  With a little grammar and spelling help, you'd make a best-selling author.

Firstly, with the exception of state(s?) where opticians have introduced a refracting bill (Pacific NW?) (maybe no such bill has been introduced), optometry is very much not paying attention to opticianry, at all. 

Secondly, we do not have the power you have ascribed to us. Despite some legislative victories in the past, actually the profession is in sort of a slump, right now, and the butt-whipping we took on the FCLCA should be proof of that! We can't "keep you down"! Your scope of licensure is up to your state legislation, not optometry, although optometry will respond.

Thirdly, there is no significant push for optometric surgery. We are completely untrained for that, with the exception of foriegn body removal, punctal occlusion, and the like. Lasers are out of the question. Oklahoma is an anomaly. Ophthalmology is overestimating if they think we can get such legislation passed. There are no grass roots on that issue.

Fourthly, while it's an interesting scenario that you create where OMDs punish ODs for surgical inroads by teaming up with opticians for independent practice legislation, you'd better not hold your breath, since ODs are not going for surgery anytime in the forseeable future.

Fifthly, I understand your desire to have independence as a professional. You obviously serve your clientele well, and have the brains to be successful. But, two things have hurt your independence: 
1.) Chains
2.) Dispensing ophthalmologists.

Darryl is completely realistic in his assessment of the current state of affairs. ODs are not taking anything away from independent opticianry that they didn't already have, since we've always practiced in parallel systems. The strategic alliance with OMD's is what has been broken. OMD's like to have ALL the money, and if they don't have a dispensary, they have fallen prey to the "take your Rx anywhere, try Lenscrafters" mentality because we have either not approched them properly regarding optical services, or because they hear the advertising as well.

Your profession was never REALLY independent in the first place, now was it? If you can't start at "A" and go to "Z" in your location, then you have ALWAYS been referral-based. 

Trying to achieve independence is a waste of time. You should work on your core competence, and work hard to get the traditional referrals where you can. If you are able, an arrangement with an in-house O.D. seems like a great solution for everyone (as I know you are doing).

Remember, the competition is the chains, not optometry. (Ophthalmology is untouchable because they have all the power, so "don't go there".)

Why are you griping? You have a successful, multi-location, OD-affiliated, optical.

----------


## hcjilson

Drk said :



> Firstly, with the exception of state(s?) where opticians have introduced a refracting bill (Pacific NW?) (maybe no such bill has been introduced), optometry is very much not paying attention to opticianry, at all. 
> 
> Secondly, we do not have the power you have ascribed to us. Despite some legislative victories in the past, actually the profession is in sort of a slump, right now, and the butt-whipping we took on the FCLCA should be proof of that! We can't "keep you down"! Your scope of licensure is up to your state legislation, not optometry, although optometry will respond.
> 
> Thirdly, there is no significant push for optometric surgery. We are completely untrained for that, with the exception of foriegn body removal, punctal occlusion, and the like. Lasers are out of the question. Oklahoma is an anomaly. Ophthalmology is overestimating if they think we can get such legislation passed. There are no grass roots on that issue.


To the first paragraph I would only add, thats not what they're saying in Alaska!They were indeed paying close attention to opticians.

I am not aware of what FCLCA is, so I can't comment, however, currently in Massachusetts, there is Senate Bill 1277. "The proposed bill would allow non-medical doctors, optometrists, to treat glaucoma a group of medically complex and potentially blinding diseases. In addition, the legislation would provide non-physicians with broad prescription priviliges......Senate Bill 1277 would allow optometrists to treat Glaucoma and prescribe powerful drugs after only 60 hours of training..." (quote taken from a MA Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons pamphlet)

It would appear that at least in Massachusetts, Ophthalmology is not overestimating Optometry.I don't toss this in to fuel the fire, only to illustrate that Optometry is anything but sluggish, and if this period is a slump, then look out when things heat up! :bbg: 

hj

----------


## QDO1

as no one wants peace, I will drink my wine myself

----------


## Framebender

Save me a glass!  I decided to watch this one from the sidelines.  I'm not sure what the point is anymore, but I'm impressed that its gone to six pages!!

----------


## Johns

As someone mentioned earlier, while the opticians are so worried about ODs and MDs, the chain stores are doing their best at making opticianry irrelevant.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *As someone mentioned earlier, while the opticians are so worried about ODs and MDs, the chain stores are doing their best at making opticianry irrelevant*.


You'r so right. 

Even in Europe were opticians have to be fully qualified, the chains are very agressively trying to put opticians out of business by advertising inexpensive glasses..........but then trying to sell more expensive ones. They do need qualified opticians in most places.

My crystal ball say's that if opticians don't wake up from their dreamland of milk and honey, they will suffer along with GM and the 30,000 employees that will be leaving soon, plus the ones from other companies, who for sure will not be purchasing $ 500.00 glasses in the near and maybe distant future.

----------


## QDO1

> You'r so right. 
> 
> Even in Europe were opticians have to be fully qualified, the chains are very agressively trying to put opticians out of business by advertising inexpensive glasses..........but then trying to sell more expensive ones. They do need qualified opticians in most places.
> 
> My crystal ball say's that if opticians don't wake up from their dreamland of milk and honey, they will suffer along with GM and the 30,000 employees that will be leaving soon, plus the ones from other companies, who for sure will not be purchasing $ 500.00 glasses in the near and maybe distant future.


in the UK in the main most dispenses are done by the unqualified, us qualified are sidelined

----------


## jherman

we will all look back and laugh at how greedy we were, light up a stoggie, with our adult beverage, and say,( I'm so glad we decided to start thinking of what was best for the patient) instead of how much we were making off them. Wonder how we will get there?

James

----------


## chip anderson

James: 


 Most of us were there in the 40's, 50', and 60's, then "designer frames, and concepts of "medical ethics" changed.
Chip

----------


## QDO1

> James: 
> 
> 
> Most of us were there in the 40's, 50', and 60's, then "designer frames, and concepts of "medical ethics" changed.
> Chip


you talk like the word designer only applies to optics, you will find in in all areas of retail, thats the world we live in now

----------


## Darryl Meister

Honestly, the optical industry would probably be worse off right now if eyewear hadn't achieved some level of fashion.

----------


## QDO1

> Honestly, the optical industry would probably be worse off right now if eyewear hadn't achieved some level of fashion.


the thought of all the fellas frames still looking looking like the spectacles  woody allen wore is horrifing

----------


## chip anderson

My point was back then we selected frames that fit by style, temple lenght, temple wt., temple style, bridge style, bridge width,  lens for best patient's optical need.  Doctors prescribed only what the patient needed as they had no motivation to do otherwise.  

Now I think the optical industry is making a lot more money with designer stuff.  But I also remember when Christian Dior and others that followed later were "designing"  stuff that was way too large for the patients (they had no idea of the optical business or optics) and we had to sell the c*** or the patient' would go across the street to someone who would sell it to them.

I can also remember frames with 17 styles and weights for temples alone (to ballance the weight of lenses (a thought forgotten today).  Keyhole bridges, saddle bridges, and a lot of good stuff that has gone by the wayside.

So the industry is better, but is the patient?

Chip

Hell, I can even remember when we made some very good stuff in the US of A.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> So the industry is better, but is the patient?


Only those who don't want to look like Woody Allen. ;) But, seriously, I agree with you completely that we have lost many of our core competencies over the decades.

----------


## Bev Heishman

This is a detriment to those of us who have thought or are thinking about possible legislative attempts in unlicensed States. Many of us just want to have title protection and some standard to define what an optician is with minimum qualifications as ABO certification and future growth as to what a registered optician with the department of health in a state should be. Look to the big picture and realize that in the realm of 50 states, those who are licensed and spouting are truly in the minority. After seeing a lot of this we think that any chance at any recogntion will be failed.

What I really would like to hear though is the NAOO's position since many of them fall under Luxottica as their parent company.

----------


## Ed_Optician

Bev please read  posts 103 and 112 on this topic, and read the forum the value of an optician.  I strongly believe that we need at least a minimal recogition of what an optician is and does ESPECIALLY in the currently unlicensedstates.  We need to accept ABOC/NCLC as minimum qualifications and fight for it 1 state at a time.  
To combat NAOO we all need to attemp to apply for membership.  When we are refused membership, we collectively should file a class action lawsuit against them for discrimination.  THis lawsuit will blow the cover off of their hidden aganda and have them publicly show their true colors

Ed

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *................. But I also remember when Christian Dior and others that followed later were "designing" stuff that was way too large for the patients (they had no idea of the optical business or optics) and we had to sell the c*** or the patient' would go across the street to someone who would sell it to them.*


Christian Dior nor any other designer never designed an optical frame. The frame manufacturers just paid a few dollars per frame as license fees. They were made from Optyl, injection molded in Canada and then sent semi finished to Europe for finishing.

However that allowed them to come up with styles that took less work by having limited sizes and other technical aspects.

Also they would sell a model in Canada under a designer name at twice the price in Canada than the same model that sold in the USA as a regular frame at half the price.

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:

----------


## Snitgirl

> You mean to tell me no one can question the all knowing and powerful OZ, Darryl? Come on! :hammer:


Jediron1 - :) Below is the quote that I feel you have misinterpreted.  Where does it say that no one can question Darryl? 




> I don't think they are many now,but once upon a time there were many Dannyboys who now call themselves doctor of optometry.
> 
> We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like you:p(no offence please)

----------


## lensgrinder

> You mean to tell me no one can question the all knowing and powerful OZ, Darryl? Come on! :hammer:


Nobody said that you cannot not question him, but to say that Darryl is not forward thinking is completly absurd.  He has provided help and information with his web site, articles, and programs to help promote learning and understanding.  These things help Opticians become stronger and at least the ones that want to learn more, become respected.  This is forward thinking and this helps promote Opticianry.




> We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like you:p(no offence please)

----------


## Steve Machol

> You mean to tell me no one can question the all knowing and powerful OZ, Darryl? Come on! :hammer:


You can question whatever you want.  I really don't care. :) 

I know for a fact that Darryl's knowledge and contributions to the field of Optics is far superior to yours (or mine for that matter.)  And I maintain that anyone of sound mine who reads his posts and yours will come to that same conclusion. ;)

----------


## QDO1

> Christian Dior nor any other designer never designed an optical frame. The frame manufacturers just paid a few dollars per frame as license fees. They were made from Optyl, injection molded in Canada and then sent semi finished to Europe for finishing.
> 
> However that allowed them to come up with styles that took less work by having limited sizes and other technical aspects.
> 
> Also they would sell a model in Canada under a designer name at twice the price in Canada than the same model that sold in the USA as a regular frame at half the price.


although i agree with you on the size of some dior frames, the regular frame market also had massive flaws in it too.  Basically the designer brands were made by regular frame makers, on license from the designer houses

Optyl, Dior, Terri Brogan Viennaline, Dunhill etc.  all came from the same factory, but had different designers.  I think Optyl was a fantastic product, and BTW there was never a progression length problem in those days either

Personally I love the challenges that the designers throw up, and occasionally, there is a real gem in there, that propells a new idea forwards in design and optics

----------


## Darryl Meister

> You mean to tell me no one can question the all knowing and powerful OZ, Darryl?


The statement, _We need more positive forward thinking opticians like Dannyboy, Jediron and others, but not like you:p(no offence please)_, is not questioning the accuracy of something I've said; rather, it's making a general and somewhat derogatory statement regarding my views and opinions of opticianry. (Though it's obviously a statement I didn't take too seriously.) You, Dannyboy, and Graduate are certainly welcome to your _own_ opinions, even if _I personally_ disagree with them.

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Edited

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Edited

----------


## fjpod

> Apparently you read more into from what I was saying in referring to the quote from Steve about Darryl. It sounded or should I say it read like we should not question Darryl. What or how you read into what I wrote I can't say because Im 
> not in your head and I don't want to be. Just my 2 cents:D


Now, I'm really confused.

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Edited

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Edited

----------


## Judy Canty

Gentlemen, none of this is moving the thread forward.

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Edited

----------


## chip anderson

Are you guys familiar with the term ******g contest?

----------


## jediron1

> Are you guys familiar with the term: ******g contest?


 
Sounds vulgar to me I m surprised Steve let you get away with that one!

----------


## Snitgirl

> Now, I'm really confused.


As am I, especially since I read it word for word.

----------


## GOS_Queen

> This is a detriment to those of us who have thought or are thinking about possible legislative attempts in unlicensed States. Many of us just want to have title protection and some standard to define what an optician is with minimum qualifications as ABO certification and future growth as to what a registered optician with the department of health in a state should be. Look to the big picture and realize that in the realm of 50 states, those who are licensed and spouting are truly in the minority. After seeing a lot of this we think that any chance at any recogntion will be failed.
> 
> What I really would like to hear though is the NAOO's position since many of them fall under Luxottica as their parent company.


 
Would someone mind explaining "who" or "what" the NAOO is ... what Luxottica has to do with it ... etc ?  

Thanks ~  

Karen (who is so freakin' happy to be no longer with the Borg)

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Do you know that as a fact or just speaking off the top of your head? Because I feel my knowledge in the field the of optics is very good.


Seriously?

----------


## jediron1

:Cool:   :Cool:  Good Bye

----------


## fjpod

> As am I, especially since I read it word for word.


There ought to be a rule about the number of errors in grammer, syntax, spelling and truth that are allowed in each post.

----------


## QDO1

> There ought to be a rule about the number of errors in grammer, syntax, spelling and truth that are allowed in each post.


damm - ive had it then

----------


## fjpod

> damm - ive had it then


Not likely.  I've never seen you post a lie.

----------


## QDO1

> Not likely. I've never seen you post a lie.


My sin is the number of errors in grammer, syntax, spelling

----------


## Darryl Meister

Jediron, Regardless of whether or not you have more optical knowledge than I have, or whether or not you have made more contributions to the field, you are still entitled to your opinion either way. And, while I might disagree with your opinion on this particular subject, I do respect your right to it -- as well as Dannyboy's and Graduate's.

----------


## shanbaum

> My sin is the number of errors in grammer, syntax, spelling


It's "grammar".

----------


## fjpod

> It's "grammar".


  Oops!  Guess I reached my allowable limit of mistakes.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Seriously?


You've hurt his feelings now it looks like he's taken his ball and gone home. 




> Good Bye


You used to be such a nice guy Darryl! ;)

----------


## Darryl Meister

> You've hurt his feelings now it looks like he's taken his ball and gone home... You used to be such a nice guy Darryl!


Well, in all seriousness, I generally try not to offend anyone. And perhaps I could've phrased some of these posts a little less aggressively -- or at least clarified the tone so as not to seem disparaging. I don't want to scare anyone away from OptiBoard, whether I disagree with him or not. And I'd be happy to buy Jediron a beer sometime if I have left him with any hard feelings.

----------


## Johns

This has been one of the most fascinating threads I've ever read. And no, I'm not kidding. Forget the content, the dialogue has been riveting.

It's like an "optcal cafeteria" where anyone that happens to be walking dodwn the hall gets drawn into the verbal foodfight. It has really been interesting to see the many personalities revealed. Thank goodness for the lunchroom monitors !


Presenting...

The Optiboard Family:


The good the bad, the grammatically challenged, and all !

Great Show !!!!

----------


## drk

We're like "the Osbournes".

----------


## Graduate

> You gotta be kidding, right? I can't imagine anyone of sound mind writing this about Darryl Meister.


Mr. Machol, it was not at all my intent to derogate Darryl but you took advantage of my poor English to make me victim.

I now understand that challenging Darryl or likes or commending other posters views/opinions over Darryls or likes is crime on Optiboard forums.

I am saying that Darryl likes to be a good little sweet boy in optometry camp, a loss to us in opticianry camp.

Darryl - there are more smarter ones out there working seriously on bringing positive changes to opticianry and do not be surprised to see results in near future. In Canada they have almost done it.

Darryl  I am trainee optician. As I make progress day by day I will be challenging you and others on all aspects of opticianry. Please dont be offended.

Mr.Machol  If you dont correct your myopia, a day will come you will remain with small bunch on your board.

Have a great week!

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I now understand that challenging Darryl or likes or commending other posters views/opinions over Darryls or likes is crime on Optiboard forums.



I don't think that was Steve's point at all. And, again, you weren't questioning me; you were essentially calling me short-sighted. However, I have thick skin and don't get offended easily, so if that's your opinion of me, then that's your opinion.




> I am saying that Darryl likes to be a good little sweet boy in optometry camp, a loss to us in opticianry camp.



Graduate, rest assured that I have been supporting and promoting opticiany for 15 years. I was even recognized by the National Federation of Opticianry Schools with an award for _Advancing Education in Opticianry_. And I, personally, feel that establishing consistent licensure and training standards will much better serve the "opticianry camp" than talking about refracting rights for opticians, which could never happen without those very same standards anyway.




> Darryl - there are more smarter ones out there



So you keep suggesting. ;) I wish them the best of luck, in any event.




> working seriously on bringing positive changes to opticianry and do not be surprised to see results in near future. In Canada they have almost done it.



Actually, if you look at what opticianry in Canada has accomplished, you will see that they _first_ established consistent licensure and educational requirements, which is the very point I've been making all along (and the same point that ODs like DRK have also been making). Regardless of whether opticians in Canada ever refract, they at least have an infrastructure in place to make it a remote possibility -- and to sustain their profession either way. The US does not.




> As I make progress day by day I will be challenging you and others on all aspects of opticianry. Please dont be offended.



And I would ask that you take no offense if I happen to disagree occasionally.

----------


## QDO1

> Oops! Guess I reached my allowable limit of mistakes.


lol - i mean - I can laugh at myself - which is much nicer than laughing at you lot.  this discussion has come to a end ages ago - time to bury it in the ether, kiss and make up (etc)

----------


## Snitgirl

Still working on that bottle of wine King?  I shall join you :cheers:

----------


## fjpod

> ...It's like an "optcal cafeteria" where anyone that happens to be walking dodwn the hall gets drawn into the verbal foodfight. It has really been interesting to see the many personalities revealed. Thank goodness for the lunchroom monitors !...


It's more like an "optical reality show". I guess you have to joke sometimes, but this is a serious issue. I would hope all parties take something positive away. 

Darryl, sorry you took some heat because of me. Chip, you're not as rambuncious as you appear (I hope that is interpreted as a compliment). 

Good luck to all. See you in the next thread.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Mr.Machol  If you dont correct your myopia, a day will come you will remain with small bunch on your board.


You gotta be kidding, right? (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D )

Honestly I have no idea what you mean by this, but I can tell you that if you insult someone, then you really have no business complaining if someone else comes to their defense. 

The online world may not be for you, my friend. :)

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Darryl, sorry you took some heat because of me... See you in the next thread.


Yeah, maybe I should stick to the _Ophthalmic Optics_ forum. The only thing we ever argue about over there is whether a given formula is accurate out to enough decimal places. ;)

----------


## HarryChiling

> Yeah, maybe I should stick to the _Ophthalmic Optics_ forum. The only thing we ever argue about over there is whether a given formula is accurate out to enough decimal places.


It's definately fun to duck in here and see whats going on, but everyones got the knives out and throats are getting slit.

To help with the arguement I will toss a proverbial grenade out there.

OPTICIANS RULE AND OPTOMETRISTS DROOL.  Now I duck and run for cover.:bbg:

----------


## shanbaum

> OPTICIANS RULE AND OPTOMETRISTS DROOL. Now I duck and run for cover.:bbg:


You left off the "nyaah, nyaah"...

----------


## HarryChiling

> You left off the "nyaah, nyaah"...


No time for formalities. :D

----------


## HarryChiling

I have a serious question that I would hope gets a serious response.  Some of you may know that about 6-9 months ago optometry in the state of maryland passed legislation to prescribe steroid drops.  As of wednesday the protocal was ironed out.

My question for optometry:

The educational requirement for prescribing steroids in maryland is an 8 hour lecture.  No test and I saw a few optometrists leave and come back at the end of the lecture.  Please don't take this as a bash, but the ophthalmologists I work with think its not that big of a deal.  I would like to discuss the logic behind it.  On one hand I have heard that an uneducated person refracting can do harm, but an uneducated person prescribing drugs?  I do understand that optometrists learn pathology in their curriculum and for the most part modern optometry is ready for this responsibility, but what about all the old timers out their.  Older optometrists did not have the medical training that the newer grads are recieving and are slightly over their heads when it comes to prescribing steroids.

I am particularly curious what opinions the optometrists on the board have.

----------


## chip anderson

I'm not an O.D. (athough I did get an add this year that said I was listed as one of the top 100 O.D.'s in the country?).  But I have seen patients (in fact the only patient I ever saw lose and eye as  a result of CL wear) because her O.M.D.'s {several since she moved during treatment} left her on steroid drops too long.  These are not drugs to be played with or to pretend to have expertise with.


Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

Chip I definately agree and their are cases where they are contraindicative.  I am curious what level of education is required for the adequate knowledge to prescribe.  I just have a felling that 8 hours with no test to measure knowledge is a setup.  Optometrists in Maryland have been fighting for this for a long time and now that they have it, it almost feels like they are droping the ball with this one.  What happens if OD's start prescribing and cuasing lots of problems because of the lack of knowledge, then the ophthalmologists will have a better leg to stand on when they appeal the legislation and if it gets overturned then they will never get it back.

From an opticians stand point the more the optometrists scope of practice incereases the more likely they will eigther concede to refracting opticians or the more likely that ophthalmologists will side with opticians to help us gain refracting privlidges.

On another note Bush would like for science to be more of a focus in the US.  I feel like this would be a great opportunity for opticians to be licensed in all states as it is a position grounded in the sciences and math.

----------


## chip anderson

Harry:
I have known O.M.D.'s to become certified in intraocular implant surgery by attending a week~end seminar.
Chip

Of course, they were board certified ocular surgeons before the seminar, but it did seem a rather brief prerequisite.  
I didn't use it but I got certified in CRT lens fitting by attending a couple of hours seminar.   Don't believe in intentionaly altering in a perfectly normal cornea myself.

Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

Wow!  Surgical bootcamp.

----------


## OPTIDONN

WOW! I try not to pay any attention to these "battle" threads but this is a good one!! I have to add that the only way to end this thread with dignity is to slam a jello shot hop in the pool of mud and have at it like real men! I think trying to catch Darryl and Steve M would be like trying to catch a greased pig!:D

----------


## gola

> I have worked and became great friends with many O.D.s. Without them, I dont know where I would be. I have found that by treating everyone with respect, I get that same respect in return. Yes, many O.D.s do not know how to calculate prism thinning and reject it as unprescribed prism. On the other hand most opticians do not know how to refract. We must respect each others talents and NEVER EVER tell a patient that the O.D. did the exam wrong, or the optician measured your seg ht. too high!!! When this occurs it makes us all look bad and is very unprofessional. I see mistakes on both sides and I just take care of it. The patient loves me for that, The O.D. loves me for that, and the optician loves me for that.:bbg:


I think this post resume the way thinks should be. I would only add that we should do our best to keep comunication channels always open and try to know more about others job so you can call the OD and ask for more information when needed or when you think something is wrong.
As humans we make mistakes and we should be responsible for ours and do not blame others when it is our fault.
I would like to know how many times a OD has send a patient back to the Optician with a note saying "Its my mistake, please redo the lenses and send me the bill"?.

----------


## HarryChiling

> "Its my mistake, please redo the lenses and send me the bill"?.


I have never had a doctor do that.  I just get the Rx back and it has changed and we chalk it up as a doctors remake.  I will tell you that the optometrists remakes are far far lower than the ophthalmologists in my area.

----------


## chip anderson

I actually have had a couple of OMD's offer to do this, we re-made NC anyway of course.   Many many years ago in the days of "kick~backs" for Rx's there used to be what was called a CTD (Charge to doctor).  Don't know if anyone even remembers the term anymore.

I once even had an OMD tell me the patient had lost the eye due his mistake and he offered to pay the bill for the prosthetic eye.

----------


## QDO1

> I would like to know how many times a OD has send a patient back to the Optician with a note saying "Its my mistake, please redo the lenses and send me the bill"?.


Never, infact one private Dr sent back (quite arrogantly) a patient back to me, because he wrote the -2.00 cyl signs down wrong (+) and even indicated with that silly arrow thing the direction wrong to

Quote to patient

"take it back to xyz they will remake it at no charge!"

No phoine call, no nothing.  First and last script of his I did

----------


## Bill West

To get a closer look at the "real ethics "of NC Optometrist check out www.journalnow.com 

They finally got caught.
Headline 2/9/06   'Pay to' line left blank

----------


## fjpod

Oh, goodness gracious.  Here we go agian.  Those unethical, untrustworthy, scoundrel optometrists.

----------


## SpecialT

> I have a serious question that I would hope gets a serious response. Some of you may know that about 6-9 months ago optometry in the state of maryland passed legislation to prescribe steroid drops. As of wednesday the protocal was ironed out.
> 
> My question for optometry:
> 
> The educational requirement for prescribing steroids in maryland is an 8 hour lecture. No test and I saw a few optometrists leave and come back at the end of the lecture. Please don't take this as a bash, but the ophthalmologists I work with think its not that big of a deal. I would like to discuss the logic behind it. On one hand I have heard that an uneducated person refracting can do harm, but an uneducated person prescribing drugs? I do understand that optometrists learn pathology in their curriculum and for the most part modern optometry is ready for this responsibility, but what about all the old timers out their. Older optometrists did not have the medical training that the newer grads are recieving and are slightly over their heads when it comes to prescribing steroids.
> 
> I am particularly curious what opinions the optometrists on the board have.


Harry, 

First, my perspective on this would be different if *a* bill included oral steroids. Topical steroids are not quite as dangerous as some people think. There are only a few simple rules to keep a doc from using them in error. Steroids can cause an IOP increase but almost never within 2 weeks. Steroids should not be used on a cornea that has a break in the epithelium. Steroids will drastically worsen herpes keratitis and fungal keratitis. So, if a doc uses the steroid for less than two weeks on an intact epithelium and is careful not to use it where herpes keratitis or fugal infection is suspected, all is well. I feel that this can easily be covered in an 8 hour course and even most of the older docs are knowledgeful of steroid use. Otherwise, it is the doctors butt on the line if things go bad so I doubt that someone that feels uncomfortable with prescribing a drop would even take the chance. Also, I have seen state laws that specify the amount of time that a steroid can be prescribed by an O.D. before a referral to an ophthalmologist is required.

Excellent thought on your part. I feel you are completely within your right to question this! At the same time, I truly believe that it is a non issue as long as systemic steroids are not in the equation.

----------


## fjpod

> I have a serious question that I would hope gets a serious response. Some of you may know that about 6-9 months ago optometry in the state of maryland passed legislation to prescribe steroid drops. As of wednesday the protocal was ironed out.
> 
> My question for optometry:
> 
> The educational requirement for prescribing steroids in maryland is an 8 hour lecture. No test and I saw a few optometrists leave and come back at the end of the lecture. Please don't take this as a bash, but the ophthalmologists I work with think its not that big of a deal. I would like to discuss the logic behind it. On one hand I have heard that an uneducated person refracting can do harm, but an uneducated person prescribing drugs? I do understand that optometrists learn pathology in their curriculum and for the most part modern optometry is ready for this responsibility, but what about all the old timers out their. Older optometrists did not have the medical training that the newer grads are recieving and are slightly over their heads when it comes to prescribing steroids.
> 
> I am particularly curious what opinions the optometrists on the board have.


Harry,
I wouldn't mind discussing the issue in a civil, factual tone.

Optometrists don't learn how to use drugs, or steroids, oral or otherwise, in an eight hour course. These courses are usually mandated and put into a law to appease the naysayers. The basic science necessary to prescribe drugs is taught at the undergraduate level (four years). The pharmacology, physiology, neurology, and clinical exposure is given during the four additional years of optometry school. Numerous comparisons have been looked at between medical school, dental school, podiatry, etc. and optometry, and with the exception of the study of anesthesia in dentistry, all the professions are about the same. In some optometry programs, which are part of state university systems, the medical, dental and optometric students sit elbow to elbow in anatomy, pharmacology, and pathology classes (and the like). The students pass the same exams by the same professors. In optometry, the students go on and pass national board exams including sections on treatment and management of ocular disease (TMOD), which has become the standard. All optometrists, old or young, who use drugs, must pass this exam. But, even as early as 1977, it was mandatory for optometry students to pass a pharmacology board.

So, the use of medications is taught long before the end of optometric education. It is not an eight hour afterthought, yet the perception that optometrists are not ready, or need the permission, persists. 

The only healthcare profession which has an unlimited scope of practice (legislatively) is Medicine. They do not have to go to the state legislature to get permission to use new technology or information. They simply go take CE courses of learn from sales reps. ALL OTHER PROFESSIONS DO. That is what dentistry, podiatry, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, and optometry have all done...because... THEY HAD TO. There is a great amount of precedence for non-Physicians using drugs in their practice, not just in optometry. Folks need to realize that physicians do not have a monopoly on intelligence, good sense, how to use drugs, how to handle and treat patients, when to refer a case, and the like (neither do optometrists). 

Optometrists in some states have been using medications for the treatment of ocular disease, including steroids, since 1976. It is clear the eye health of the nation has not been damaged by this. Malpractice cases against optometrists for using drugs are minimal. Excellent in comparison to other professions. We see GPs prescribing tobradex (a "cureall" steroid/antibiotic combination) for herpetic corneal infections, yet no one questions their integrity for prescribing drugs in cases where they shouldn't. 

On the issue of refracting and the possibility of missing causative ocular pathology..., this issue needs to be addressed by the ophthalmic dispensing profession. I won't speak for opticians. 

I hope my comments do not offend or anger anyone. Now, I'll get off my soap box...but you did ask for an optometrist's opinion.

----------


## Glock

Hello. I'm an optician in Canada. I was reading this topic and I found it quite riveting but also disturbing. I can't believe some of the negative remarks.  I hope it's just a few bad apples but it appears that American opticians really have a poor attitude towards optometrists.  If American opticians are not happy with their position, it must have to do with a lack of education.  Educate yourselves and you will rise above your problems.

Have a nice day.

----------


## chip anderson

Glock:  With a handle like that you could command respect in the U.S.  Too bad in Canada they won't let you have one.

----------


## Johns

Glock,

Thanks for the inspiring words of wisdom from on high !  

I'm going out tommorrow and get me an eduamavacation.

:shiner:

----------


## Glock

> Glock: With a handle like that you could command respect in the U.S. Too bad in Canada they won't let you have one.


Actually, I do have one.  All you need is a restricted firearms possession and acquisition license  (PAL).

----------


## Glock

> Glock,
> 
> Thanks for the inspiring words of wisdom from on high ! 
> 
> I'm going out tommorrow and get me an eduamavacation.
> 
> :shiner:


You must be one of the bad apples.

----------


## Judy Canty

Wow, for a few days we actually had a good discussion going.  There were lots of good ideas and some really positive reactions.  However, if you guys can't keep this discussion on-topic and helpful, I'll ask that it be closed.

----------


## Glock

My apologies.  I just wanted to comment on some of the negativity I read.  Johns obviously took it as a personal attack.  If I came across as talking down to anyone I do apologize.

----------


## Johns

Glock,

If I'm a bad apple, it doesn't fit your grading criteria.  I have no bad feelings toward optometrists or MDs. I make my living by working very closely with them, and had you read my earlier posts, you could have made note of that.
I also have no desire to refract, do lasik surgery, or prescribe meds.  If I had wanted to do those things, I could have just as easily gone to school for that.  I am extremely comfortable doing what I am doing, although I would like to see changes in where the field of opticianry is going.  

To come in and use the broad brush of education as a cure-all is ludicrous.  You can't name a profession that wouldn't benefit from more education, but it certainly won't make those people with certain issues any happier.

My guess is that some of the negative remarks taht were made are what made this forum riveting enough to read, and disturbing enough to comment on.

Johns (One BAAAD apple)









> Hello. I'm an optician in Canada. I was reading this topic and I found it quite riveting but also disturbing. I can't believe some of the negative remarks. I hope it's just a few bad apples but it appears that American opticians really have a poor attitude towards optometrists. If American opticians are not happy with their position, it must have to do with a lack of education. Educate yourselves and you will rise above your problems.
> 
> Have a nice day.

----------


## Johns

Glock,

No, I really don't take any of this personal.  You can't take any of this to heart when it's coming from people that you've never even met. 

Now, if I meet you at VE, and then you start slamming me, I'll send Bill West and Chip up and have them teach you some southern manners.

Johns

----------


## Johns

Chip & OD1,


I'm probably preaching to the choir, but I've found that remaking MD errors will, in many cases, lock you in as a main referal. (Of course, the argument can be made that you don't need referals like that.)  If you remake them while allowing the MD (or OD) to save face, they won't want to risk send the patient to someone that won't "cover" for them.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If you remake them while allowing the MD (or OD) to save face, they won't want to risk send the patient to someone that won't "cover" for them.*


This is one of the oldest hats in the optical retail business. The doctor is the one that sends the optician his daily bread and butter by reffering patients to him with an RX iun his hands.

We all make mistakes and can the prescriber. I would NOT even call this "cover" I would call this a coutesy action to somebody that is responsible for a large part or a smaller part of the customer stock. 

Just figure out 1) how much you earned with the help of that doctor and 2) how much you lost through his mistakes, and I bet you that the first is way ahead

----------


## Johns

Chris,

With no disrespect intended...some of these doctors need to be covered for.  There is a local MD that we get a ton of referals from that writes on his Rx,"Please confirm Rx" and "Prism may be necessary, supply as needed".  He's a great guy, and fortunately, knows that refracting is not his forte'.  At least we know with him what to expect.  It's the MSs that don't think they could possibly err that get us.

----------


## chip anderson

Our policy is to re-make at no charge within 30 days of origional Rx and only if subsequent Rx is from the same practioner.   We never refuse to do this unless we suspect that the practioner is a "Spectacle Compeditor" who repeatedly sends incorrect Rx's to give us a hard time.  In this event we just don't fill his Rx's the first time.

As to changes in Rx, the doctor can make a mistake.  He can also find that his
initial evaluation may change due to circumstances that you would not concider to be a mistake.  Sometimes the patient will come back and say he wants to read 4" closer or farther.    Sometimes the patient may have changes in blood surgar,  the doctor may refract dilated in a dark room with an illuminated chart which may not actually have relevance to the world the patient actually lives in.

So most of the time you can say the doctor is doing his best.  Now for Johns where he leaves the final Rx or prism up to you, I can only say: Get some trial lenses and a chart, and refract over whatever the doctor said.

Chip

----------


## SpecialT

> Chris,
> 
> With no disrespect intended...some of these doctors need to be covered for. There is a local MD that we get a ton of referals from that writes on his Rx,"Please confirm Rx" and "Prism may be necessary, supply as needed". He's a great guy, and fortunately, knows that refracting is not his forte'. At least we know with him what to expect. It's the MSs that don't think they could possibly err that get us.


I have got to start learning not to take offense to what opticians are saying.  If you guys (opticians) are dealing with stuff like this, then *WOW! * I have to remember that the playing field is not equal between every doc for one reason or another.  I get sooo used to the docs that I choose to associate with, which are very competent.  Then again, the reason I choose to associate with them is because they *are* good docs.

----------


## Aarlan

> Hello. I'm an optician in Canada. I was reading this topic and I found it quite riveting but also disturbing. I can't believe some of the negative remarks. I hope it's just a few bad apples but it appears that American opticians really have a poor attitude towards optometrists. If American opticians are not happy with their position, it must have to do with a lack of education. Educate yourselves and you will rise above your problems.
> 
> Have a nice day.


I think the main point Glock is making is that with a unified position and standardized education we as opticians can acomplish more.  They can refract in some parts of Canada.  Do they know more than us down here?  probably not, but with a unified voice, an education to point to and proper lobbying the case has been made that they are qualified to do what we may never be allowed to do.  If we can't show a minimum standard in terms of education and training we will never advance, and instead may fall farther behind.  

AA

----------


## fjpod

> There is a local MD that we get a ton of referals from that writes on his Rx,"Please confirm Rx" and "Prism may be necessary, supply as needed". He's a great guy, and fortunately, knows that refracting is not his forte'. .


I read your post a few times and feel compelled to reply.  If this OMD was a great guy, he would tell his patient that he does not offer refracting service and refer it to someone else.  He is making his patients think he is qualified to refract, while pushing off the real work to you.  Do you get to charge for your refracting and prescribing service?

----------


## fjpod

> I think the main point Glock is making is that with a unified position and standardized education we as opticians can acomplish more. They can refract in some parts of Canada. Do they know more than us down here? probably not, but with a unified voice, an education to point to and proper lobbying the case has been made that they are qualified to do what we may never be allowed to do. If we can't show a minimum standard in terms of education and training we will never advance, and instead may fall farther behind. 
> 
> AA


I know you guys don't want to hear it from me because I'm an OD, but I feel Arlan and Glock are 100% correct.  Correct me if I am wrong, but with the exception of one or two states, there is no college level education requirement to become an LDO.  It will be IMPOSSIBLE to advance the profession of opticianry without it.

----------


## drk

For those of us who went to college, I would say that much of it was sitting around reading books on art history, Sigmund Freud, writing English papers, learning a second language (call that "liberal arts") with some math and science.

To be a good optician (other than a lens designer like herr Meister or whatever the heck Shanbaum does, or Steve), I think high school trig and algebra are sufficient.  H.S. physics may need supplementation, but that's do-able.

What I'm trying to say is that a nice two-year tech college degree would be pretty useful, and the B.S. or B.A. from a four-year college would be overkill, IMO.

Why is it that at 2 a.m. on every channel there is an advertisement for the "school of medical assisting" or the "college of hair design" but no private schools for opticianry get started?  Seems like it has to do with job placement, or something.

----------


## lensgrinder

> I know you guys don't want to hear it from me because I'm an OD


I do not care who we hear it from.  We need to have education if we want to advance period.  I do not understand why we fight this.  Someone in this thread said we need to crawl before we can walk.  We need to get some sort of 2 year degree program in every state, once we acieve this then we can get every state licensed.  The goal is to become licensed in every state to be taken seriously, who cares about anything else.  After we achieve those two things then we can worry about other things.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> For those of us who went to college, I would say that much of it was sitting around reading books on art history, Sigmund Freud, writing English papers, learning a second language (call that "liberal arts") with some math and science.


Try getting a physics or engineering degree sometime. ;)

On that subject, it is interesting to note that opticians in Germany generally receive training in optical engineering, not simply ophthalmic dispensing, which makes the typical German optician considerably more competent technically than comparable opticians and optometrists in the US.




> I think high school trig and algebra are sufficient. H.S. physics may need supplementation, but that's do-able... What I'm trying to say is that a nice two-year tech college degree would be pretty useful,


An opticianry degree is usually a two-year "applied science" degree, which means that the vast majority of the courses will be focused on ophthalmic technology. A basic English composition course and Intermediate Algebra course are generally also part of the curriculum, and frankly should be. I think this type of degree program is a good fit for opticians. But keep in mind that very few opticians have actually graduated from one of these programs.

----------


## Glock

In Canada, at least in Ontario, you need 2 years of college plus 2 internships to practice as an optician.  We know enough about ophthalmic optics to be able to learn refraction.  Thanks to Amoura for posting the link to the retinoscopy simulator.  A couple hours of practice with a phoropter and I'm good to go.

----------


## fjpod

[QUOTE=Glock] We know enough about ophthalmic optics to be able to learn refraction. 
I read several of your posts.  I think most of what you say is true, sensible and well thought out.

But, the act of refraction has an awful lot to do with physiological optics.  I'm not saying opticians can't do it, but you've got to study this subject as well.  Perhaps you include this in your definition of ophthalmic optics?

----------

