 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2008How to perform retinoscopy
How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? Do dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, stand 20' away, and try to neutralize the cat's-eye reflex w/ the phoropter? Which is better, direct or indirect, sreak or spot? Thanks! Dear Friend, A Phoropter is used to measure the refractive status of the eye. It is basically and "enhanced" trial-lens kit. If you are nearsighed, say 20/70, then then a minus lens (in the Phoropter) is used to clear the Snellen. Typically, about -1.25 diopters is used to clear the 20/20 line. If you are being prescribed for "Best Visual Acuity", then you will get a much stronger minus lens for your prescription. That is one means to determine your refractive STATE. A retinascope and induced paralysis creates a profoundly different measurement. (By some people this is a so-called "objective" measurement.) Enjoy, > How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? Do > dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks! You'll, of course, have to forgive Otis. He's ... well ... he's stupid. > You'll, of course, have to forgive Otis. > > He's ... well ... he's stupid. And, the correct answer I'm looking for is...? Do you wish to make the measurement? > > You'll, of course, have to forgive Otis. > > > He's ... well ... he's stupid. > > And, the correct answer I'm looking for is...? On Apr 29, 9:29 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > Thanks! Here goes Otis with his misinformation again! If you are a 20/70 myope, then minus lenses will restore your distance acuity, Its hard to predict, but assuming no astigmatism, I would guess about -1.5D should be close to providing clear 20/20 distance vision. Of course there might some astigmatism also playing into the senario but Otis likes to make things simple so we are pretending the patient is a simple myope. Most accomplished refractionists prefer a streak retinoscope for the exam. A retinoscope is held about 16" from the eyes while the patient is looking at a distance target using a working distance of optical infinity or about 20 ft. The minimum lens strength that is necessary to give the patient clear 20/20 vision is determined as the spectacle prescription. As Otis likes to imply, patients are not overcorrected (i.e. given excess minus lens power) to obtain clear BVA. Giving excessive power minus lenses is harmful in that it can gives patient eyestrain, and makes it less comfortable than using the exact emmetropic state. In article <0f4a0581-24fc-42dd-9a5e-864907bcfbb6@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > On Apr 29, 9:29 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > > Dear Friend, > > That is one means to determine your refractive STATE. I don't need it. I already know. It is California. > Here goes Otis with his misinformation again! I seldom let Otis give me misinformation anymore. I just don't normally read what he posts.  SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net > How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? "Direct" and "indirect" don't apply to retinoscopes. Ophthalmoscopes yes. > Do > dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, > stand 20' away, and try to neutralize the cat's-eye reflex w/ the > phoropter? You could stand at 20 feet but it'd be unworkable. Better to stand at 67 cm and use a +1.50 lens over the patient's eye as your "zero," simulating infinity (1/1.50=0.67). Three advantages - you can reach the patient, you can see the reflex better, and using +1.50 over both eyes "fogs" the vision in a way that encourages the patient to relax accommodation. If your arms are short, you could test at 50 cm and use a +2.00 "fogging" lens to simulate optical infinity. You could dilate, and that's helpful sometimes, but I'm usually more interested in the patient's "habitual" refractive state. Artificially eliminating accommodation with atropine gives an "objective" result but you don't walk around every day with atropine in your eyes. You don't buy size 34 pants just because you can suck in your 38 belly and squeeze into them in the dressing room. I work at 67 cm. If it takes +2.50 to neutralize the reflex, I know this is a +1.00 hyperope. If the reflex neutralizes at -1.00, it's a -2.50 myope. > Which is better, direct or indirect, sreak or spot? There is no direct/indirect afaik. Most retinoscopes these days are streak. IMO it's easier to determine axis with a streak. because the streak reflex "twists" better, indicating axis. But vertical/horizontal differences appear readily in the moving light, whether it's spot or streak, and some old optometrists will be buried with their spot scopes; for me it's a Copeland streak. Early ret was done with a gas flame behind the patient's head. The "scope" was a flat handheld mirror with an observation hole in the center. Modern scopes aren't fundamentally different. -MT > How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? Do > dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, > stand 20' away, and try to neutralize the cat's-eye reflex w/ the > phoropter? It would be impossible to do at 20', the reflex would be far too dim and you would be unable to reach either the phoropter or trial lenses in a trial case. Can be done with or without cycloplegia. Usually done at 50cm or 67cm, depending on the length of the examiner's arms. Either loose lenses in trial frame, lens bar or lenses in phoropter can be used. An allowance is made for the working distance. > Which is better, direct or indirect, sreak or spot? There is no indirect retinoscope, streak is preferred as it is much easier to detect astigmatism with it. Judy > > How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? Do > > dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Judy OK, I know how to check the base refractive error, but how do you check for astigmatism? I know the retinoscope has a protractor on it, and I'm pretty sure you use it just for that, but...how? If you did both a static cycloplegic and a dynamic non-cycloplegic retinoscopy on your patient, which reading would you use, or would you somehow combine the readings? Coul you give me an example? Who makes good retinoscopes? Keeler? And what's the diff b/w a retinoscope and an ophthalmoscope? Can you use a indirect ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy? And has any beginning optometry student accidently held the retinoscope backwards, and temporarily blinded themselves? Thanks! Dear Doug, You can not self-measure your refractive STATE with a retinoscope. You will have to enlist the support of another person who has your interest in measuring the eye's refractive STATE. With support, you (and your friend) could probably learn to make these measurements in a day. With practice, accuractly, in a week. But you need an educated friend to help you -- and help each other. Doug> Who makes good retinoscopes? Keeler? And what's the diff b/w a retinoscope and an ophthalmoscope? Can you use a indirect ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy? Doug> And has any beginning optometry student accidently held the retinoscope backwards, and temporarily blinded themselves? Otis> Each and ever day. Enjoy, > > > How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct retinoscope? Do > > > dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the retinoscope, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > OK, I know how to check the base refractive error, but how do you > check for astigmatism? I know the retinoscope has a protractor on it, You don't see protractor markings on modern retinoscopes. The markings are on the phoropter. > I'm pretty sure you use it just for that, but...how? Once you get a good reflex, you rotate the streak and sweep it in different directions across the pupil. Many times it's obvious that the streak neutralizes in one meridian (say, sweeping side-to-side) yet it's way off 90 degrees away, when you sweep up-and-down. That's astigmatism, and the trick is to determine the maximum and minimum meridians. > If you did both a static cycloplegic and a dynamic non-cycloplegic Dynamic retinoscopy isn't useful for determining refractive error. Many doctors never use dynamic and have forgotten how, because it's only valuable for determining accommodative response and there are other ways to do that. A few years ago the "Prio system" was pushed out, basically an LCD nearpoint card with a hole it it, thru which you could do dynamic retinoscopy. It was gimmicky ("computer vision") and seldom indicated any unique sort of treatment, but you were obligated to prescripe Prio lenses from it. It wasn't that much better than a plastic nearpoint card with the same hole. Retinoscopy is a dying art. Most retinoscopy used to be done to gain a starting point for subjective refraction, an estimate. Many doctors now use autorefractors for that, and consequently never pick up a retinoscope. I wouldn't either, except sometimes I get ahead of my staff and patients haven't had the autorefraction done yet. Cycloplegic retinoscopy may be used to help determine latent hyperopia but dry (non-cyclo) ret is often a good indicator of LH, revealing results that are a half- or full diopter more plus than the patient's chosen subjective. > Who makes good retinoscopes? Keeler? Copeland and Welch-Allyn. Don't know the Keeler. > And what's the diff b/w a > retinoscope and an ophthalmoscope? BIG diff. A ret just generates a streak of light. The streak can be focused but it's designed to focus an image of the filament (the streak) to the retina, such that you can see it moving in the pupil. Ophthalmoscopes are illuminated too, but more important they have an observation system that lets you see the details of what you're illuminating. Direct and indirect o'scopes both produce an image of the retina. In direct scopes, the image is upright and magnified. Indirect scopes produce upside-down images that are wider-field (less detailed, not as magnified.) > Can you use a indirect > ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy? Not very well, I'm not sure it could be done because retinoscopes all focus the streak in different planes. The ophthalmoscope generates only parallel light for illumination. >And has any beginning optometry student accidently held the > retinoscope backwards, and temporarily blinded themselves? Oh sure. Ophthalmoscopes are much brighter. But with all hand-held scopes, it's habit to turn it on, then shine it somewhere like your hand or the wall, to make sure it's working. Putting it to your eye backwards is dumb but even dumber is getting up in your patient's face then finding the scope is dead. -MT > > OK, I know how to check the base refractive error, but how do you > > check for astigmatism? I know the retinoscope has a protractor on it, [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > -MT But I'm sure you could use a direct ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy, if you lacked a retnoscope, would the procedure be any different for using an ophthalmoscope for static retinoscopy? Which provides better bva, cyclo, or non-cyclo? Dear Doug, Subject: Best Visual Acuity -- METHOD This is the standard that is preferred by most ODs. Using a trial lens kit (or Phoropter), and a minus lens -- you do the following. Have the person read the Snellen. OK, 20/70 Now you place a weak minus lens in your trial-lens frame, of -1 diopter. 20/30, OK You then increase the power (asking 1 or 2 better) until you get the sharpest vision possible. 20/20. OK with a -1.5 diopter lens. Now let is see if we can do better. Using a cyl lens, you rotate the lens from zero to 90 degrees, looking for that to sharpen the image. So you get to 20/15 for that person. You think write the prescription for the Spherical and Cyl and angle. Enjoy, > > > OK, I know how to check the base refractive error, but how do you > > > check for astigmatism? I know the retinoscope has a protractor on it, [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On May 1, 3:31 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That's subjectively. And, according to House, patients lie. So, how do we use retinoscopy to *objectively* determine our patient's refractive error? I believe its as follows: Dim the lights, instill cyclopentolate into the patient's eyes, and have them look at at a target at optical infinity. You stand 67cm away from the patient, and set the phoropter to -1.50D --please explain to me exactly why this is done? To set the effective curvature to zero, perhaps? And I know that -1.50D is the reciprical of 67cm--, and move the retinoscope across the pupil. If you see with-motion, add plus lenses; against-motion, add minus lenses. Stop when the pupil fills w/ light, and there's no motion. Rinse and repeat for all meridians. Rinse and repeat for the other eye. Subtract -1.50D from the readings to get the prescription. How would you use the autorefractor to find an inital starting point for the static retinoscopy? Dear Doug, In order to measure your refractive STATE objectively -- with a retinoscope -- you will need. 1. The instrument. 2. Technical training on the instrument, and some basic optical information (analysis) of the eye. 3. Assuming you have a friend who has your interest then BOTH of you can make this measurement on each other. 4. The Snellen/Trial-lens is quite good -- and is preferred for a final refraction. But the retinoscope will give a similar reading. 5. You can do this, but you can ot "freeze" the eye with a drug. If you think that is more "accurate" then you will need some one to prescribe that drug for you. As Mike as said, he thinks the retinoscope is quite accurate with no drug -- and I would agree with him on that point. Enjoy, > On May 1, 3:31 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In article <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04026@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Retinoscopy is a dying art. Most retinoscopy used to be done to gain a > > > > starting point for subjective refraction, an estimate. Many doctors now [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > wouldn't either, except sometimes I get ahead of my staff and patients > > > > haven't had the autorefraction done yet. > How would you use the autorefractor to find an inital starting point > for the static retinoscopy? Perhaps I didn't understand your question, so I left a bit from Mike up above. My niece was hired to work in an OD office last summer, to do autorefractions and field tests. She was paid US$1.00 per hour. She thought that was pretty good, because it gave her something to do while she hung out with her mother and aunt. She is only nine years old. SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net > In article > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Petaluma, California USA > da...@sonic.net So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order. Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal? And why do you set the phoropter to -1.50D if you're standing 67cm away? What's the purpose? Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh, FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"? Thanks! Dear Doug, An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor first. With further training he qualifies for his title. He and all medical doctors are call "Doctors" -- if the subject is medical. If a man has a Ph.D., he also can be called a "Doctor". In the U.S.A., a optometrist is called a "Doctor", but in other countries that is not legal, so he is called a "Refractionist" -- to separate him from a medical doctor. So their title is "Mister". Enjoy, > > In article > > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On May 1, 6:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - OK, you obviously don't understand the British system at all...ophthalmologists are surgeons, and most hold MRCS or above. If you hold MRCS or above, you call yourself "Mr", due to some historical anachronism of the RCS. But, if you also hold MRCP or above, you call yourself "Dr". Same for MCh vs. DM. Would you consider an ophthalmologist a surgeon, or a physician? Ophthos do a *lot* of surgery. Ophthalmologists are kinda in between physicians and surgeons. That's the key here. Please do not proffer your advice on any of my threads ever again. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. And what about my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? On May 1, 7:43 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote (re: Otis): > Please do not proffer your advice on any of my threads ever again. You > clearly don't understand what you are talking about. It actually took you a few posts longer to figure that out than it does most people. I'll chalk it up to your being a cherry optimist and having given Otis the benefit of the doubt ;-) On 2 May, 02:45, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Doug, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - I noticed you watch 'House'. Me too! It's cool! I watched it yesterday. The one with the guy who mimicks the persona of anyone he comes into contact with. Creepy but cool. >> [...] >> Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and >> ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh, >> FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"? > An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor first. With further > training he qualifies for his title. He and all medical doctors > are call "Doctors" -- if the subject is medical. So much more than simply an ophthalmologist. Do the terms "consultant ophthalmologist" and "ophthalmic surgeon" not convey anything to you? In case you are unfamiliar, the letters after his name stand for: DM = Doctor of Medicine; MCh = Master of Surgery; FRCP = Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; FRCS = Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons; FRCOphth = Fellow of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. > If a man has a Ph.D., he also can be called a "Doctor". > > In the U.S.A., a optometrist is called a "Doctor" The gentleman was quite specific; "in England". "In the USA" is utterly irrelevant, even if that is where you are. > but in other countries that is not legal, so he is called a > "Refractionist" -- to separate him from a medical doctor. So their > title is "Mister". On the basis of his medical qualifications (DM and FRCP) he is entitled to the honorific of 'Doctor'. On the basis of his qualifications as a surgeon (MCh and FRCS) he is entitled to the honorific of 'Mister', as are all surgeons in England and many other places. So, on the basis of the above, he would be entitled to use whichever honorific he damned well chooses! To answer his question of "are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"?" directly, I would venture that it would depend on who was doing the addressing and the circumstances, adding that "Good morning, Doctor" sounds a little less strange than "Good morning, Mister" - the latter sounds as if you are addressing a stranger. Oh ... and has it occurred to anyone that his question may have been a rather subtle way of telling the group of his qualifications, suggesting that he has rather more of a clue whereof he speaks than do many on this group? Signature- Nic. > >> [...] > >> Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > sounds a little less strange than "Good morning, Mister" - the latter > sounds as if you are addressing a stranger. I agree! My dad is a "doctor" but not really a "doctor" how most people would think. He has just got a Ph.D, but not any medical qualifications! It just seems weird to me to even just imagine someone addressing him as 'Doctor'!. But I agree that Doctor can sound a lot more friendly whereas 'Mister' sounds slighly over-the-top formal and pompous... or something to that effect? > Oh ... and has it occurred to anyone that his question may have been a > rather subtle way of telling the group of his qualifications, suggesting > that he has rather more of a clue whereof he speaks than do many on this > group? Well, everyone has their own time of being just a little ostentatious. Just welcome him into the group, don't be so accusatory and harsh! We all like to impress our friends by being super-clever now and then. Don't you? Hmm. > >> [...] > >> Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > -- > - Nic. Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the fictional --merely shares my name-- consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM" instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is. And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet? And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP outranks FRCS. And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please answer this. Thanks! > > >> [...] > > >> Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Thanks! I think static retinoscopy would be better. Although I've never done it. It sounds a lot more fun than just 'auto' whatever. I like doing stuff manually, the long way around. Anyway, retinoscopy is way cooler. You get to do cool stuff with lights and mirrors and lenses and shadows and things. And you can do it on any of the lower animals. Which is a big advantage, because you can't normally do that by any of the other methods. I mean, imagine trying to get a dog to 'read the damn snellen bitch!'. But you should do it at 6 ft because then it's more accurate because you wouldn't make the subject nervous and that spoils the measurement. You're really smart for a 16 year old. I mean, you talk about all these optics so intelligently. I hardly have a clue about what you guys are talking about. Good luck with your future you'll defininately succeed in optometry. But I hate optometry because they give people glasses and destroy lives. So personally I kind of dislike that profession. Oh, I'm 16 too! Ophthalmology used to be my dream career as well! But I gave it up because now I want to be an airline pilot. Me and Jason Sperry (another guy who shares similar interests) are both 16. Welcome to the '16 club' LOL. That makes three of us. > You're really smart for a 16 year old. > I mean, you talk about all these optics so intelligently. I hardly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sperry (another guy who shares similar interests) are both 16. Welcome > to the '16 club' LOL. That makes three of us. Really? I talk about optics *intelligently*? How so? Give me an example. To myself, I sound like some guy, who, in rl, walks around bothering medical professionals w/ incessant questions --I do, but said medical professionals don't mind...I'm great friends w/ my pharmacist-friend at Sams Club and my internist-friend at church--. I plan on asking my ophthalmologist and optometrist to let me shadow them one half-day/week. And, I want to be an *ophthalmologist*; refracting is so fun and cool, but ocular malignancies and vitreoretinal disorders are where it's at...literally! Have you seen the pay for ocular oncologists and vitreo-retinal surgeons? $500K-$800K+!!!! If you want to see me talk super-intelligently, see me talk about hematology/oncology, immunology, or rheumatology. Can I private email you, Zetsu? Oh my God! I always wanted to shadow an optometrist/ophthalmologist! It would be so awesome! But I don't think I'd be allowed! But it would be great to put in my CV. By the way, there's actually a yahoo group called 'why optometry sucks' or something like that. They whine about getting low salaries and whatnot. HAHA. And I'm not even joking, it really does exist. So it looks like the pay can be bad and good. But 800K sounds quite good. Over here in UK I think that would be about £400K! Mezmerizing! Oh yes, private mail me away! (if you're a girl, then all I encourage you all the more! If you're a boy, then that's OK but I'm a bit disappointed.) > Can I private email you, Zetsu? Generally speaking, I'd venture a guess that ... the more you can do to take "Zetsu" off of this forum ... the more receptive people will be toward helping you in the future ;-) Get Otis out of here and win bonus points! Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his miserable life! > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his > miserable life! His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as: Plus lenses for myopia, which will make it even worse Pin-hole glasses, which have no benefit whatsoever Exercises for myopia; legitimate orthoptics is only justfied for amblyopia and strabismus His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16, and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum. > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as: It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private messaging'. > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16, > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum. Well, it's a long story. But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the archives of SMV and you can see what I mean! > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean! Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you? Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence- based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are arrogant and stupid. > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are > arrogant and stupid. Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses). I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions. > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--, now what? > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--, > now what? Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right, remember that blurriness for later on. Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5 minutes. Then open your eyes. Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks clearer doesn't it? YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it until your cured! Well, that's the fundamental principle. > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things alot better, doesn't it. And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses, because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--, thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope -- -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole. > > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things > alot better, doesn't it. EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE! And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses, > because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--, 'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in totality! > thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope -- > -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o > them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole. Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double improvements! > > > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend > > > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I had to do that when Atlantis Eyecare f.cked up my prescription so much that I had to turn them upside-down to even see slightly more clearly. Damn them and their computer system to hell. They never entered our appt., even though two weeks before they said "Oh yes, your appt.'s for 12:00". This happened several times. They also apparently fired every one of their ODs, so things were even more screwy But now I go to Hertzog Eye Associates --or is it Hertzog Eye Care--, and all is well; I'm good friends w/ Dr Darcy C. Ryan, OD, my optometrist, and Dr Leif M. Hertzog, MD, me and my internist's ophthalmologist. http://www.hertzogeyecare.com/about_us.htm. I've never had 20/20 in my left eye, and 20/40 --Dres Hertzog and Ryan said that's the maximum m right eye can be corrected to, by any method-- in my right eye. God bless them! > Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those > postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the > fictional --merely shares my name-- Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity. > consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM" > instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he > recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and > Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is. > And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray > tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet? That question has already been answered. > And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of > "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established > way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully > long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP > outranks FRCS. Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me not, I thought it may have been some local custom. > And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please > answer this. No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to have any qualifications in the field of optometry. Signature- Nic. > > Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those > > postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > -- > - Nic. Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK. And, was that a compliment, or an insult? >>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please >>> answer this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK. O-kay. I wish you well with that. You could do one hell of a lot worse. > And, was that a compliment, or an insult? Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'. No way was my reply intended as a personal insult. Signature- Nic. > >>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please > >>> answer this. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > - Nic. So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do? >>> And, was that a compliment, or an insult? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do? No, I do not - at least not that I have noticed so far. It seems to me that you are more than intelligent enough to know your own limitations. You certainly ask a lot of questions in your thirst for knowledge, which is no bad thing, and it seems that you are getting answers - also no bad thing as long as you remain able to sort out the good answers from the dreck. Signature- Nic. > An ophthalmologist is a medical doctor first. With further > training he qualifies for his title. He and all medical doctors > are call "Doctors" -- if the subject is medical. I believe you're going to find it isn't so in GB. Most doctors are "Mister" and aluminum is aluminium and barbiturates are bar-bi-TUR-its. -MT > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT It's so funny how you Americans call aluminium 'aLUUminum'! In fact we were having a laugh about just that in an English class at school a few weeks back. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean that most doctors are 'Mister' here. Personally I call doctors doctors and misters misters! > > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > By the way, I'm not sure what you mean that most doctors are 'Mister' > here. Personally I call doctors doctors and misters misters! Yeah, most *surgeons* or Mr/Mrs/Miss/Prof/etc. Most physicians are Dr/ Prof. Are ophthalmlogists surgeons, or physicians? GB has this emerging specialty of medical ophthalmology, which is ophthalmology w/ o surgey. Although that removes all the fun. > > > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Are ophthalmlogists surgeons, or physicians? I suppose a lot of them would be both? > > > > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, but unlike Germany --where if you're a Mr/Mrs/Miss, a Dr, and a Prof, you're adressed as Mr/Mrs/Miss Prof Dr [Full/Last Name]--, you're addressed by your highest title, in that case, Prof...unless you're also a Sir, where you're addressed as Prof Sir [First Name]...I think. > O> > So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order. > Is SR better then AR, worse, or equal? With cyclopleged eyes, they give about the same result. Glasses prescriptions will usually be based on subjective refraction, not SR or AR. > Oh, and in England, if you're a consultant ophthalmologist and > ophthalmic surgeon, and are named "Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, MCh, > FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth", are you addressed as "Doctor", or "Mister"? You'll have to ask someone locally. I seem to remember that Mr carries more prestige in England, and that professors of medicine are called Mr, while mere run of the mill MDs are called Dr. Judy On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK. Wow! You can come visit me! I live in the UK! Have you decided which Uni you want to apply for? > > O> > > So, a comparison of static retinoscopy and autorefraction is in order. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Judy Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than 'Doctor'! But then we have other titles that are really high up, like 'Sir', or 'Lord', or 'Your Highness'. OK, I made the last one up. Anyway, I doubt there's a lot of difference between here and the US. I mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian). > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, I plan on getting my BSc in Molecular Medicine from Sussex, maybe a MSc in Genetic Manipulation and Molecular Cell Biology/MPhil in Biochemistry from Sussex, and my BM BCh from Oxford, doing a preliminary internship in internal medicine at UCSF, my internal medicine residency at MGH, passing the ABIM Internal Medicine Board Certification exam *and* MRCP(UK), and my hematology/medical oncology fellowship at The Mayo Clinic, passing the ABIM Subspecialty Boards in hematology and medical oncology *and* new MRCP Part 3 exam in medical oncology, then a research fellowship, either in the US or UK, where I'll do research for the Oxford DM dissertation. Then apply for GMC -- they'll accept the ABIM boards!-- registration, and inclusion on the GMC Specialist Register as a Consultant Physician, Haematologist, and Medical Oncologist. Then work at Oxford --if I decide to live and work in the UK-- or UCSF/HMS/The Mayo Clinic as a medical professor/ biomedical scientist/consultant haematologist and medical oncologist. Maybe my research'll be good enough to someday allow me to supplicate for an Oxford DSc, or even be nominated for FRS. Maybe I'll also become a Master of the American College of Physicians --an even higher honor then FACP, only around 25% of FACPs make it to Mastership--, or a Member of the National Academy of Sciences. Maybe I'll be known as "Professor Douglas K. Sartorius, DM, DSc, MACP, FRCP"! It was Columbus or Lief Eriksson. I believe Lief Eriksson *discovered* it; Columbus ran into it. A Norse or a Spainard. Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your honorific is "Prof". > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > Judy, if you're a medical professor --or any other professor--, your > honorific is "Prof". HOLY CRAP! THIS GUY MUST BE EINSTEIN I mean, good to have a plan for your future and all... but holy crap. Next thing we know, you'll be inventing the second theory of relativity > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr- friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like reverse arrogance. > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like > reverse arrogance. Well, me and Jason are going to do some interesting stuff in our future like curing the world from eyeglasses. You can join us if you want. But first you have to read some books. The Cure of Imperfect Sight Without Glasses is where it all begins. I am going to prove to all these skeptics someday that the Bates system isn't quackery. Mark my word! > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You go then!!!! I'll practice conventional ophthalmology, and you can do your system. We could even team up; while I don't believe that the Bates Method treats myopia, I *do* believe it enhances the brain's ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs less power on their lenses, which is cheaper. And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc. > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > ability to extract useful data from blurred images. Then the pt. needs > less power on their lenses, which is cheaper. Well we've had this blur interpretation debate loads of times in the past. It's been gone over.. Just search the archives, you'll see some classic threads! > And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie > contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc. Well, that's exactly the same thing (only worse) than eyeglasses. Contacts are just having it right up against your eye. Surgery is just having a correction lasered onto your eyes. They are all Bullshit. OK, you practice conventional stuff, I'll do my stuff, we'll see who wins! You don't stand a chance, my friend! I'll be curing the patients you put specs on before you can even say "Bates" Lol. Btw I had to switch account because I reached my peak with Google on the other one. > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > > - Show quoted text - A duel is it? May the best man win! > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But you don't believe specs at least *look* cool; some people look horrid w/o their glasses. And mine, according to my friend Joseph N. Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so sure he meant that as a compliment. > > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > Mastron, make me look like I'm from West Hollywood, though I'm not so > sure he meant that as a compliment. I think glasses look disgusting and ugly. > > > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Um, that's your opinion. And what of my friend saying I look like I'm from West Hollywood? BTW, we sem to have gotten a *long* way off from retinoscopy. > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > BTW, we sem to have gotten a *long* way off from retinoscopy. Well, everyone likes to think they look 'cool' with their glasses. No one likes to accept that they are reliant on a crutch. But I think anyone who finds glasses 'cool' is totally nuts. It completely distorts the natural beauty of the face, and creates big edemas underneath the eyes, and shrinks the eyes to a little pulp, or vice versa magnifies them into massive staring fish-eyes! YUCK > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 173 lines] > underneath the eyes, and shrinks the eyes to a little pulp, or vice > versa magnifies them into massive staring fish-eyes! YUCK Um, not mine. No, really. But Joey says that I look like a Saudi w/o my glasses, a nerd w/ my old ones, and a flaming gay w/ my new ones. But that's him. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > > read more » OK, you keep your glasses off for a week and see what happens! I know at first how people look really weird when they take off their glasses but this is exactly the result of strain! See what happens when someone keeps their glasses off for a while, like a week or two and then see how their eyes become wide and open and normal and relaxed looking! That is rest! >>> > > > On 2 May, 05:19, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > And there's other ways to "save the world from eyeglasses", ie > contacts, refractive surgery, intraocular lens implants, etc. Beware of assorted fruits, nuts and crusaders - in whatever combination and of whatever nationality. Signature- Nic. > Please tell me you mean that sarcastically...I'm not Einstein by any > stretch of the imagination. I'm just an obsessive planner. My Dr- > friend, Dr Sleiman, says I'll probably invent some revolutionary > medical device or treatment...well, maybe, maybe not. I absolutely > hate it when people are overconfident in my abilities...it's like > reverse arrogance. Not to mention more than a little scary! Signature- Nic. >Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential >perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mean, it's us Brits who discovered your land in the first place isn't >it? Oh well, I can't remember (not a good historian). "Us Brits"? My recollection is that you are actually a Norwegian girl with a Japanese name who lives now in the UK. Oh well, what's the heck... SignatureMsBrainy > >Well, I am a local from the UK, and from my personal and experiential > >perspective, 'Mister' is a lot less prestiguous sounding than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Us Brits"? My recollection is that you are actually a Norwegian girl with a > Japanese name who lives now in the UK. Oh well, what's the heck... As a citizen of the UK, I am privileged with the respectful title of 'Brit'! Just like you can call yourself 'American' even if you are from Portugal, because you live in the US. Well, that's how I thought it works! > "Us Brits"? My recollection is that you are actually a Norwegian girl with a > Japanese name who lives now in the UK. Oh well, what's the heck... For those who don't know, Zetsu is a villainous giant (cannibalistic) man-eating venus flytrap from the manga series "Naruto." Zetsu can merge with objects and travel to many locations. He has a split personality (represented by a black side and a white side) and often argues with himself. In this respect, the Zetsu on this list is surprisingly in character. Do a google images search of "Zetsu Naruto" and you can see what our resident venus flytrap looks like. Puts his posts in clearer perspective. Signature~RT This is an exceptionally qood question to ask on Mother's Day. Don W. > On May 1, 3:31 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > from the patient, and set the phoropter to -1.50D --please explain to > me exactly why this is done? You don't set it to -1.50 at the beginning. After you are finished doing retinoscopy you add -1.50 to the result (if you are standing 67cm from the patient). This is because the patient is looking at the chart 6 metres away and you are standing 67cm away. That creates a +1.50 error in the measurement. To set the effective curvature to zero, > perhaps? And I know that -1.50D is the reciprical of 67cm--, and move > the retinoscope across the pupil. If you see with-motion, add plus [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How would you use the autorefractor to find an inital starting point > for the static retinoscopy?- An autorefractor is a substitute for retinoscopy. Both provide a starting point for subjective refraction. To use an auto refractor you line up the patients pupils with the cross hairs and push the button. Judy Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - >Dim the lights, instill cyclopentolate into the patient's eyes, and >have them look at at a target at optical infinity. I seldom use cyclopentolate. > You stand 67cm away >from the patient, and set the phoropter to -1.50D --please explain to >me exactly why this is done? To set the effective curvature to zero, > perhaps? Yes. You need to focus the streak on the retina while the eye is at rest. To do this, you can stand at 20 feet away, or you can simulate infinity by placing a +1.50 lens in front of the eye and holding your light at 67 cm. In either case, the result is parallel light striking the eye. > Subtract -1.50D from the readings > to get the prescription. +1.50 not -1.50 > How would you use the autorefractor to find an inital starting point > for the static retinoscopy? You wouldn't. You'd use retinoscopy or the autorefractor as an initial starting point for subjective refraction. There's little benefit in doing both ret and AR. -MT > MT > > But I'm sure you could use a direct ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy, if > you lacked a retnoscope, would the procedure be any different for > using an ophthalmoscope for static retinoscopy? Which provides better > bva, cyclo, or non-cyclo? It's almost impossible to use a DO for ret; I've tried once or twice while doing community screenings. Best Visual Acuity is not related very well to cyclo or non cyclo. It is a function of the eye, not the measurement system. Judy >But I'm sure you could use a direct ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy, if >you lacked a retnoscope, would the procedure be any different for >using an ophthalmoscope for static retinoscopy? The ophthalmoscope lacks any optics to focus the beam. I don't think I could do ret with parallel light. Your mileage may vary. >Which provides better >bva, cyclo, or non-cyclo? "BVA" is a term usually applied to subjective refraction. Which ret techique comes closer to the subjective refraction? Probably dry (non-cyclo.) -MT Mike Tyner schreef: >> But I'm sure you could use a direct ophthalmoscope for retinoscopy, if >> you lacked a retnoscope, would the procedure be any different for >> using an ophthalmoscope for static retinoscopy? > > The ophthalmoscope lacks any optics to focus the beam. No need to, some skiascopes/retinoscopes didn't have either. The ones that are without such a facility most of the time are using a divergent lightbeam as seen in the old plano mirror ophthalmoscope. I don't think I could > do ret with parallel light. I'm sure you could > Your mileage may vary. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "BVA" is a term usually applied to subjective refraction. Which ret techique > comes closer to the subjective refraction? Probably dry (non-cyclo.) I think that's for sure. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) PS, pictures of an old ophthalmoscope/skiascope set skiascope = retinoscope http://picasaweb.google.nl/jan.oudesluys/OldOphthalmoscopeSkiascope > Mike Tyner schreef: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://picasaweb.google.nl/jan.oudesluys/OldOphthalmoscopeSkiascope So, could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts, convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides, etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures. > So, could any one compare the refraction abilities of an > ophthalmologist vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? For that task, probably optometrists are better in general. Many ophthalmologists would gladly agree. As a group, they don't like refracting or fitting contacts. Many of them delegate it to a technician. Medical insurance never pays for refraction. Why would they want to be better at refraction? > And why do they let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like > glaucoma, cataracts, convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, > conjunctivitides, etc.? The same reason they let dentists work on teeth. Do you really need an oral surgeon to fill your cavities or design your braces? In the US, optometrists get the same length and scope of training as dentists. In some US universities, students of optometry, dentistry and medicine all take classes from the same professors, in the same classrooms. In my class, optometry students did cadaver dissection, pharmacology, bacteriology and several other "ologies". In other countries it is not so. In the US, optometry schools receive government funding and it's bad investment to waste that training. Optometry was favored by the US military after WWII, as a profession where returning pilots and officers could be gainfully employed. In the US, optometry participates in regulation of drugs (FDA) and public health. Optometrists serve as officers and administrators in the military. There are optometrists on the faculty of medical schools, teaching ophthalmology residents. There are optometrists with hospital admitting privileges. Most surgeons do not want to treat pink eye, amblyopia and contact lens problems. And in the US, there aren't enough ophthalmologists to treat all those non-surgical problems. There are almost three times as many US optometrists as ophthalmologists. > Both types of eye doctors have their place in the healthcare system...but > they shouldn't do each other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead > to > misadventures. Then it's fortunate that you aren't in charge. Learn some more before you pass judgement. In the last 30 years there's been significant improvements in training, more standards, CE requirements and stringent board examinations, In the same period, every US state has passed new laws allowing optometrists to prescribe drugs in the treatment of medical disease. US Medicare and private insurance companies recognize optometrists as participating providers on par with ophthalmology. Does it mean anything to you that optometry malpractice premiums have hardly changed in those 30 years? What's it like on your planet? Nurses digging for foreign bodies with a Q-tip? Barefoot doctors and general practitioners prescribing chloramphenicol for every red eye? -MT > > So, could any one compare the refraction abilities of an > > ophthalmologist vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > -MT Okay, well now I know: optometrists for the "easy, simple" -- relatively speaking, of course--, and ophthalmologists when you really need one, like if your retina's detaching, or you have fourth nerve palsy, etc, or you've got a refractory case of herpes retinitis -- well, then you'd need an infectious disease specialist, as well as an ophthalmologist--. Thanks for filling me in! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.