Job Board

Humspoff · Post by **Humspoff** » Mon May 11, 2009 11:12 pm

shimsham wrote:I think it was unfortunate and naive for him to use the term DO but I think he is of the opinion that his experience makes him comparable to a DO which in practical skills I bet he is. I agree that he should stop using that term to describe his position but perhaps a good humoured and gentle reminder to him would have sufficed rather than a witch hunt.

A sensible post in this debate.

an radharcmahstoir · Post by **an radharcmahstoir** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 pm

[quote="shimsham"]I think it was unfortunate and naive for him to use the term DO but I think he is of the opinion that his experience makes him comparable to a DO which in practical skills I bet he is.[/quote

If he has FAILED the professional exams set out for Dispensing Opticians than his experience and practical skills cannot be compared to a Dispensing Optician. He has no intention of retaking them! IMHO it seems foolish not to resit them after going through 3 yrs of study, however that is his decision.

For the record, I am not against optical assistants, as I have said on many occasions, they do a vital job in the dispensing process, however I take strongly against anybody who tries to carry themselves off as a DO when they clearly know that this is wrong and illegal. I could go on and on about how hard I studied blah blah but at the end of the day the title of Dispensing Optician is protected for a reason.

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:32 pm

shimsham wrote:I think it was unfortunate and naive for him to use the term DO but I think he is of the opinion that his experience makes him comparable to a DO which in practical skills I bet he is. I agree that he should stop using that term to describe his position but perhaps a good humoured and gentle reminder to him would have sufficed rather than a witch hunt.

I agree with you 100%

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:46 pm

disagree an rad, by practical skills I mean adjustments, repairs etc. I would not however expect his knowledge of anatomy or of physics would compare but these are hardly everyday practical skills.

an radharcmahstoir · Post by **an radharcmahstoir** » Tue May 12, 2009 12:59 pm

How can you say his practical skills are up to the same standard when he was unable to pass the exams. Both written and practical exams assess the practical side of dispensing.

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:18 pm

how do you know that he didn't fail on lens theory or anatomy? You wouldn't believe how DOs I have had to put up with over the years who can't even re-cord a supra never mind replace half joints. To shorten sides seems to be the only practical skill they possess. Even then half the time they don't file the end so don't give me your high horse rubbish about the sanctity of the DO profession. I want usable skills and a good work ethic in my practice, not airy theory.

fagin · Post by **fagin** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:47 pm

so the qualification might not mean that you're any good, and you can be good without the qualification.

But lets not slag off the qualification eh, its holders are very proud of it.

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:49 pm

not airy theory.

aha the theory of the Airy disc!!!!

It is amazing what theory you forget over time, but the practical stuff should stay with you as it's stuff you use regularly(?)

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:51 pm

we're getting off topic again

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:57 pm

opps, sorry

What is the punishment for pretending to be a DO?

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Tue May 12, 2009 2:02 pm

a night under Humspoff's control

Humspoff · Post by **Humspoff** » Tue May 12, 2009 6:26 pm

shimsham wrote:a night under Humspoff's control

Many Optoms pay a fortune for that..... why should OAs get it for free?

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Tue May 12, 2009 7:02 pm

An education for them

seeR39 · Post by **seeR39** » Tue May 12, 2009 9:04 pm

shimsham wrote:Ant, an optical assistant can, perfectly legally, dispense all but complex rx wearers and under 16 year olds. You cannot legally do ret or use a slit lamp as part of an eye test. If I have a practice and get the optom to do ocs on the above, where is the illegal action?

Are you sure?
I think you will find that an Optom can delegate parts of an eye exam to non-Optoms.

As to the thread topic, I'm obviously a law and order/scrupulously honest sort of guy. Thats why I dont like this incident.

I did not know there were people who appear to despise registered Dispensing Opticians, as shimsham appears to!
I am not a D.O., I have worked with many D.O.s and most are really good and many are superb.

seeR39

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Tue May 12, 2009 11:07 pm

No, not despise. Just don't believe that letters after a name ensure superiority over experience. I feel that on here, much like the letters page of "The Optician" back in the day, there is an attitude that non qualified staff should stick to answering the phone and making appointments. If they dare learn anything that might extend their range, they bloody well better qualify. If not, they are obviously charlatans and are putting the uneducated public in danger. Lets be honest, generally, the worst that can happen is an unhappy px who never returns. Most non qualified staff who I have met who dispense have a very good understanding of the responsibilities of their actions. Of course I have met some who should never hold a PD rule, just as I have met some DOs who think now that they have qualified, they are on a par with Mo Jalie. A bit of respect for all who work in the industry is what is called for. Otherwise, qualifying becomes a, as MTP would call it, "a pissing contest."