From: mad hatterŪ
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Problem & options. (Long)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:12:27 -0600

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:07:37 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>mad hatterŪ writes:
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:00:25 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
>>(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>>>Really, that's irrelevant, because a good optometrist is more than
>>>sufficient for most people, i.e., Travis Jordan's advice is bogus.  For
>>>people with normal eyes, using an ophthalmologist instead of a decent
>>>optometrist is a waste of money.  Any decent ophthalmologist will be
>>>able to...
>
>I should have written "optometrist" in the last sentence above, but
>that's probably obvious from context.
>
>>I'm not so worried about the prescription (that can be corrected
>>easily) as I am the eye diseases.  I don't know about you but I don't
>>want a phd looking at my eyes pretending to be a md and telling me if
>>I might or might not have an eye disease.  
>
>Optometrists are trained to do the same tests, and look for the same
>signs of problems, that ophthalmologists are trained to look for.  It


I guess it comes down to personal preference.  Do you want a
technician (phd)  or a doctor (md)  to exam your eyes for disease?