Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
How to perform retinoscopy
Re: How to perform 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, 7:14 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 3:31 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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,
>
> > On May 1, 3:18 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
>
> > > > "douglas" <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote
>
> > > > > 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
>
> > > 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
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, 7:14 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 3:31 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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,
>
> > On May 1, 3:18 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
>
> > > > "douglas" <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote
>
> > > > > 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
>
> > > 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
In article
<94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04026@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > 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.
> 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.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic,net
In article
<94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04026@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > 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.
> 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.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic,net
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
> In article
> <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > 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.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> 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!
On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
> In article
> <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > 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.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> 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!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
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,
On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > 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.
>
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
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,
On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > 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.
>
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 6:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> 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,
>
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
>
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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, 6:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> 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,
>
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
>
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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?
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
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 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 ;-)
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 02:45, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> 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,
>
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
>
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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.
On 2 May, 02:45, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> 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,
>
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic,net > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <94107388-eb1c-4341-a73b-ab2e01c04...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups,com >,
>
> > > douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:21 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
>
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbrown@embarqmail,com > wrote
in
<news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>> [...]
>> 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?
--
- Nic.
On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbrown@embarqmail,com > wrote
in
<news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
> On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>> [...]
>> 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?
--
- Nic.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 03:54, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> in
> <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 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.
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.
On 2 May, 03:54, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> in
> <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 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.
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.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 7:54 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> in
> <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 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?
>
> --
> - 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!
On May 1, 7:54 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> in
> <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 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?
>
> --
> - 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!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 04:13, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 7:54 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> > in
> > <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> 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?
>
> > --
> > - 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!
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.
On 2 May, 04:13, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 7:54 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), <otisbr...@embarqmail,com > wrote
> > in
> > <news:19f24818-1d55-4c41-a7aa-af2f1cab094a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >:
>
> > > On May 1, 8:39 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> 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?
>
> > --
> > - 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!
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.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
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
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.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 8:36 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> 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.
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?
On May 1, 8:36 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> 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.
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?
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
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.)
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.)
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 8:49 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> 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!
On May 1, 8:49 pm, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> 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!
