310
The optometrist
(lemmy.world)
Whatever this humor is, I like it.
An opthalmologist is an eye doctor. They go to medical school and do a residency for extra training. Optometrists have doctorates in optometry meaning they do four more years of school after their bachelor's. They can call themselves doctor because in the US that's the convention for doctorate's (in Europe ony medical doctors use the term). There's avast difference in intensity, depth, bredth, etc. of training between the two. It's easy to miss the difference if you're not familiar with the system.
You’re right about the differing educational requirements, but optometrists are just as much an eye doctor as an ophthalmologist. They just fulfill different roles.
Optometrists do four years of optometry school (the fourth of which is entirely supervised practice) and pass a series of licensing exams. Many optometrists also complete residencies to further specialize. They typically see patients on a regular basis to monitor eye health, provide contacts and glasses, and treat some diseases.
Ophthalmologists go to medical school, and then further specialize in eyes. They tend to treat more serious diseases and injuries, especially when they require surgery (or injections, depending on the state).
I guess I would compare the difference as similar to a dentist versus an oral surgeon. Both doctors, both valuable and knowledgeable components of the healthcare system, just filling different roles.
I disagree with the use of doctor for anyone who hasn't completed medical school and their field's respective post-graduate training. I've seen the term watered down to the point that anyone tangentially related to a physician-led field uses the term. Chiropractors, nurse practitioner, administrators, etc. etc. It leads to confusion in patient populations. I've had patients in the ER tell me that their nurse practitioner was equivalent to me in temrs of training which is absolutely not the case. I finished 3,000 hours of clinical rotations by the end of med school and another 10,000 hours of training by the end of residency. Patients are lucky if an NP has 500 hours of clinicals before they're hired to provide "primary care". The training an optometrist has is specialized but not to the level of an opthalmologist so using the same term muddies the water and makes it difficult for people to discern the difference.
I appreciate the distinction, but educating the masses on this particular point is an effort in futility. As an ophtho doc, I have no problem with optometrists being called eye doctors. Most ppl can't tell me the difference between their PCP MD and the PA who actually sees them at each check up. Personally I draw the line at chiropractors, though I do believe some of them provide truly beneficial treatments.
You may be right a out that but I'll keep trying. I've seen some truly egregious care provided by midlevels who were hired for primary care because hospital admins only care that midlevels can bill 80% of a physician but they only have to be paid a third of a physician salary. Unfortunately people aren't able to differentiate between all the people in scrubs that they see so I recommend supporung Physician for Patient Protection , a great organization that lobbies against unsuper mid-level practice.
And as for chiropractors? I have little against them except for neck adjustments and adjusting childre. Necks are fragile and so are the arteries in it and kids are the just straight up flexible, they don't need placebos to feel better.
Dr. is used extensively in Europe. It's even tacked on to existing titles, where in the US you rarely use Dr. if a "higher" honorific is applicable (e.g., it's usually just "Prof. X," where in parts of Europe it's "Prof. Dr. X").
Do you mean that doctorates in medical-adjacent fields (but not unqualified med school) don't use the term in Europe?
I worked with European PhDs at the NIH and the impression I got was that they don't use it regularly or even prefer it. Small sample size but at the upper echelons of their respective fields.
The irony of this spelling error is actually hilarious.
"There’s avast difference in intensity, depth, bredth, etc."
Tangentially, is "bastard" gendered? It feels like it's always applied to men, so it seems gendered. And yet, the original meaning of the word "bastard"--someone born out of wedlock--doesn't imply any kind of gender.
So it struck me as weird that this person would call themselves a bastard. nbd, just thought it was odd
The original legal definition of bastard is any child born outside of marriage. I would assume the reason why it applies mostly to sons is because the law used to prevent bastards from receiving inheritance and royal titles. Daughters already had difficulty receiving these things, so a bastard daughter wasn't much different than a legitimate daughter.
In modern times, almost all legalities around bastard children have been removed from law since most children are bastards.
I think you're misinterpreting some of that info. There are a number of countries where children born out of wedlock are the majority, primarily in Latin America and Western Europe. In America, it seems to be hovering around 40% for the last 8 years and worldwide it's about 15 percent, with Asia doing a lot to keep that number down.
If not by definition, I feel like it shifted more towards the masculine counterpart to "bitch"(or "whore", in some periods) as an insult in colloquial usage.
I lived in co-op housing during college, which was (loosely) administered by the university and separated into different buildings by gender. One year my hall started a rapidly-escalating prank war with a women's hall when some guys testing a water balloon launcher accidentally put a balloon through their back window from like 100 yards away. Things culminated in a massive water balloon fight on the campus quad that both sides referred to as the "Bitches and Bastards Brawl."
The past truly is another country.
Bastard is not gendered in any way.
Eye doctor: I've fought mud crabs more fearsome than you!
The worst thing is they are just relying on you to tell them what works.
"Can you read this? Is this better? How about this? A or B?"
Conclusion: They don't actually know what they are doing.
To be fair, its not like they can just connect an HDMI cable up to your visual cortex and look for themselves...
There are now machines (Autorefractor) that will (more!) accurately get your prescription auto-magically. A couple of years ago I went to place that had one, but where the doctor also checked the traditional way. The results were the identical.
I'd guess that inside of 10 years you will just get your prescription by computer and that inside of 25 surgery or other solutions will be automated and permanent. This industry of charlatans will be no more.
Oh wow, that's really cool. I guess I have something new to look up now lmao
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
310 points (92.8% liked)
People Twitter
5162 readers
1562 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS