/ /

  • linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    In defense of Sen. Rand Paul

    Editor’s Note: Ophthalmology Times introduces “Eye Catching: Let's Chat,” a blog series featuring contributions from members of the ophthalmic community. These blogs will be an opportunity for ophthalmic bloggers to engage with readers with about a topic that is top of mind, whether it is practice management, experiences with patients, the industry, medicine in general, or healthcare reform. The series continues with this blog by Zack Oakey, MD, an ophthalmology resident at the University of California, Irvine. The viewpoints expressed in these blogs do not represent the viewpoints of Ophthalmology Times and UBM Advanstar.

    Dr. Oakey

    When the idea of becoming an ophthalmologist first came to my naïve self, I made the right decision to seek a relationship with my medical school’s department. I met a number of prominent ophthalmologists, and all of them imparted great advice on application, on why ophthalmology is a good discipline, etc.

    One of my eventual mentors said something I still remember: “When interviewing, don’t ruffle feathers; ophthalmologists are careful people who don’t want controversy.”

    Blog: Caught between a husband and a wife: A cautionary surgical tale

    I now believe in this observation from my own interactions. I’ve found that many traditions and conservative ways of thinking are preserved in the subspecialty more so than other surgical subspecialties. Withholding the expression of deeper and controversial thoughts and management plans has served me well.

    What’s more, we seem to be the only game in town where, for example, superior alternating hemiplegia is known by its eponym (Weber’s Syndrome)—sometimes to the derision of our neurology colleagues.

    We are most likely to believe that burnout results from bureaucratic tasks1, arguably a conservative notion contrary to the progressive ideas surrounding electronic medical records. In my personal experience, I have heard and seen that we seem to be the last in adopting changes in medical documentation. I’ve been in clinics where the Haag-Streit slit lamp dates back to the 1960s and the whole clinic note is an alphabet soup of “PDR d/t NIDDMII,” etc.

    NEXT: Tying in Sen. Rand Paul

    Zack Oakey, MD
    Zack Oakey, MD, is an ophthalmology resident at the University of California, Irvine.

    New Call-to-action

    4 Comments

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • Anonymous
      This makes total sense. The ABO has had this policy in place now for 23 years and those older ophthalmologists who were part of the old guard are now retired or dead. This leaves the rest of us with a two tiered system. It is high time that ALL diplomates receive the SAME treatment and also that the "MOC" be more reasonable to those of us in mid life with busy personal and professional lives. The ABO is simply an organization of our own colleagues adding to the administrative burden of all practicing ophthalmologists and they can demonstrate NO meaningful benefit to their recent changes to MOC to merit the current system. I have finished 3 cycles of recertification (being in the first year of the non-permanent lifetime certificants) and they can go to hell if they think I'll do it again. All the members of the ABO board should hear from its members and be more accountable for caring on this charade...and that's all it is
    • Anonymous
      This makes total sense. The ABO has had this policy in place now for 23 years and those older ophthalmologists who were part of the old guard are now retired or dead. This leaves the rest of us with a two tiered system. It is high time that ALL diplomates receive the SAME treatment and also that the "MOC" be more reasonable to those of us in mid life with busy personal and professional lives. The ABO is simply an organization of our own colleagues adding to the administrative burden of all practicing ophthalmologists and they can demonstrate NO meaningful benefit to their recent changes to MOC to merit the current system. I have finished 3 cycles of recertification (being in the first year of the non-permanent lifetime certificants) and they can go to hell if they think I'll do it again. All the members of the ABO board should hear from its members and be more accountable for caring on this charade...and that's all it is
    • Anonymous
      This makes total sense. The ABO has had this policy in place now for 23 years and those older ophthalmologists who were part of the old guard are now retired or dead. This leaves the rest of us with a two tiered system. It is high time that ALL diplomates receive the SAME treatment and also that the "MOC" be more reasonable to those of us in mid life with busy personal and professional lives. The ABO is simply an organization of our own colleagues adding to the administrative burden of all practicing ophthalmologists and they can demonstrate NO meaningful benefit to their recent changes to MOC to merit the current system. I have finished 3 cycles of recertification (being in the first year of the non-permanent lifetime certificants) and they can go to hell if they think I'll do it again. All the members of the ABO board should hear from its members and be more accountable for caring on this charade...and that's all it is
    • Anonymous
      Did you ever meet Rand Paul ? his history of unpleasant run ins have been well know through out his career . I think that he is self centered to the point of being unreasonable . His NBO was a failure because of not only the way he went about,but it has always been his way or the highway > i suggest you personally meet up with some people who did work with him including his fellow residents at Duke . > i think your tone might be different > He is very smart but that does not make him a great person and I would predict a very poor and unpredictable president . I think his past will haunt him if he gets into the nomination . Time will tell , but I am certainly one of those old farts that have not retired and am still practicing actively at the age of 65. Somewhere seniority does count and sometimes you can draw the line of when things become a classic and or need new tires-but not always is it right or easy !. I am glad i did not have to recertify but that is for another day !!. IF THIS COUNTRY FINDS RAND PAUL AS PRESIDENT IT WILL BE IN BIG TROUBLE !

    Poll

    View Results