|
American Academy of Ophthalmology Web Site: www.aao.org
|
||
|
Letters |
| |
|
I recently received information from the American Board of Ophthalmology regarding the change in status for recertification. To put it mildly, I can’t believe what is going on. I am not against recertification. What is ridiculous is that it only applies to those ophthalmologists who were most recently educated (post-1992, I believe). The ABO newsletter states that older physicians cannot be forced to recertify because they were not given time-limited certification. They mention that recertification helps protect patients, and I believe that to be true. But does this mean that the ABO wants to protect patients from young “incompetent” doctors—but not older ones? Does anyone believe that a 50-year-old doctor knows more outside of his/her specialty than a 40-year-old who was more recently trained? Do I remember as much of what I knew about general medicine as I did when I graduated from medical school about 10 years ago? No, only what I use in my practice today. I would like the Academy to take a stand for fairness to all of its members and for patient protection. If the ABO won’t require recertification for older ophthalmologists, perhaps the Academy can require it for its membership. I seriously doubt anything will be done, as those in power in both the Academy and ABO are the ones who stand to “lose” by having to study, travel and pay for recertification. It is easy to spin the benefit of recertification when it doesn’t apply to you. Steven R. Virata, MD West Lafayette, Ind. ______________________________ Ed: The ABO newsletter can be found at www.abop.org. I read the EyeNet Opinion by Ralph C. Lanciano Jr., DO, about the New Jersey Bill A3364 (“Saying ‘Optometry’s Not My Problem’ Means That You Have a Problem,” September). I would like to offer some insight from a newly graduated ophthalmologist who, with an optometrist for a father, grew up with significant exposure to the practice of optometry. Marc D. Hirsch, MD In the February issue, page 13, the caption for the retinopathy of prematurity photo says that treatment is required in zone II or III. It should read zone I or II. EyeNet regrets the error. ____________________________ |