re: Optometry: LA HB 1065/SB 568: What if your Louisiana Eye Surgeon is NOT an MD?

quote:

---

So when an optometrist gets sued for malpractice after a botched eye or lid surgery, will they have to go in front of a medical review panel like other surgeons?

---

No. And that's great for them and sucks for ya'll.

The difference is they took advantage of the system to better their profession. Nothing's stopping MDs from fighting back the same way except complacency

For too long MDs have relied on the idea the world thinks they are the best because they made it through medical school. MDs have no will to fight because the never dreamed they'd have to because they "earned" their way.

Well guess what? While ya'll been doing your own thing, the fight's been brought to you.

First NPs
Now ODs

Then what?

Maybe it's time for you to take this ACA restructuring seriously and better your lobby because apparently it sucks.

If we patients are too dumb to understand and need protection, educate us. Start a movement. Fight back.

Too many talkers in quitters in this world today. Be a doer and maybe something will be done.

What do you think starting this thread was about?
This misinformed vote will not be the last word in the discussion on who exactly can do surgery on patients.
Term limits exist for a reason

I can't argue with you there. Pretty accurate assessment. I really didn't know about them going in front of the medical review panel. Guess they'll to to standard for malpractice too?

quote;
An MD Ophthalmologist is a full spectrum physician for the eye. How can you take turf that's by training already yours?

Optometry has an ever-evolving legislatively expanding vision for their professional role.

One was trained to learn the body and then master knowledge of the eye and to fully take care of the eye medically and surgically. The other defines its own expertise year-to-year
------------------------------------------------------------

This!

Taken from my post in another thread:


The problem is as a country, we are straddling the fence on two sides of the issue.

Side one: everyone deserves care regardless of who pays for it

Whenever you show up at the ER, EMTLA requires that you are rendered medical care regardless of financial resources. Medical Malpractice Laws prevent turning out those patients with self induced disease states that require treatment simply because of lack of funding. The often publicized myth that individuals in need of care could not get care in the country prior to the ACA is total and utter bullshite. Considering the increased premiums for those with insurance forced to change, the expensive premiums for those with none before, and the poor reimbursement forcing physicians to not take ACA patients into their practice, the relative ability to get preventative services or specialty non in-patient care has not changed either.

This side of the argument of course tries to limit and control choices of individuals in an effort to control expenditures while maintaining health.

side 2: Everyone has freedom of choice and an individuals choices that don't directly affect others should not be infringed.

This side of the argument basically believes your healthcare is your responsibility. It empowers the individual through free choice allowing each person to refuse or accept risk and then ultimately benefit or suffer from the consequences. Admittedly this restricts care for those who have little control about their environment or how they arrived there(children, the disabled, the elderly). This side is believed by some to improve society as whole over time as the weak are self eliminated and the strong prosper. The witnessing of the process may actually alter choices of other individuals increasing the overall health of the whole.






The real issue, which I am by no means limiting to pot legalization, is as a society we seem to want to do both. We can't. There are simply not enough recourses to provide totalitarian care (side 1) for those who choose self destructive high risk activities (side 2)Sadly the good hearted Americans who are supporters of side one, often holding to the belief that no one should be allowed to judge who does and does not deserve healthcare, frequently fail to realize that refusing to make a decision for an individual is by default making a decision for the whole. Simply put resources are spread thinner, persons with self abusive habits are kept alive longer, financial return to the community is lower and there is less available for everyone to share.


Personally I am proponent of side two. However, as long as we are stuck providing care based on side one beliefs, we must sadly continue to limit side two freedoms in an effort to keep the ship aright.

quote:

---

The difference is they took advantage of the system to better their profession. Nothing's stopping MDs from fighting back the same way except complacency

---

their complacency is pretty understandable

their control, which btw was given by the same body that just weakened it a bit, has been long-standing

quote:

---

Heitmeier is a douche.

---

He comes across as unethical with a big time conflict of interest. And all of his other politician buds have his back- sickening. What a joke for the healthcare of our state.

I've only read the last few pages of this, but I'm Ortho-spine.

So should Chiropractors be allowed to perform spinal fusion/decompression/instrumentation surgeries?

I think not!!

So he can screw up your back then give you anal in the same procedure? What a joke

quote:

---

I've only read the last few pages of this, but I'm Ortho-spine.

So should Chiropractors be allowed to perform spinal fusion/decompression/instrumentation surgeries?

I think not!!!

---

Exhibit A of complacency.

Maybe not TODAY. But imagine a world 25 years from now that would make certain spinal surgeries a cake walk.

Imagine that world.

Because it's coming.