I continue in my belief that one of the prime requirements for people entering into our medical professions is their ability to see beyond their cultural heritage and treat patients without bias. I received an extremely weird medical note after my visit with a replacement for my usual doctor. Last year's doctor was also a replacement for my usual doctor for my yearly checkup and when my blood results were reported she quickly recognized that the value chosen by the testing company for Total Cholesterol was not standard - my Total Cholesterol was normal. I do work on keeping my total cholesterol low and was very successful bringing the cholesterol down a measurable amount from last year - one could easily have checked my record from last year (all computerized and I myself pay to see those results) and seen that the doctor last year viewed the cholesterol result from the testing company as not abiding by the accepted value in the medical profession for total cholesterol. However, she did not and I received the weird note telling me to watch my high cholesterol (0.08 above the maximum of the testing company but actually well below the maximum accepted by the medical profession) and a recommendation to do exercise which is helpful of course if one isn't already doing exercise. The appointment lasted maybe ten minutes in total (no complaint I like efficiency) with a resident doing my blood pressure prior to the doctor coming into the room. The resident was very efficient and his information quite accurate and well said.
Regarding optometry it does not replace ophthalmology. A recent happening has shown me that having optometrists providing the main service for eyes is poor value for tax money. We pay a lot of taxes for our medical system and everyone with an eye defect (my strabismus is gone so I am free of that) should be able to have an ophthalmologist as their physician and not have to be forced to use an optometrist as their regular eye doctor. The optometrist telling me last year that I could drive without glasses was incorrect and he disagreed with me on making up new bifocals following my cataract surgery (however they were made I insisted and of course he works for a private company which is always on the side of the consumer; there are plenty of optometrists). One cannot drive without corrective lens if there is a note on your driver's license. He told me I could just tell them that he has said I didn't need glasses but that is false; you are required to bring a letter from the optometrist stating that. There should be psychological testing to determine there are no cultural biases before students enter into the course of training for optometry as well; this service is funded by our taxes when it is used for acceptable medical testing.
I may or may not get my driver's license that remains to be seen and if there is a doubt then I accept that my driving days after 59 years (no tickets, no demerit points and no accidents on my record) are finished. I will continue wearing my bifocal glasses to drive until then. Of note the letter from the optometrist for which I paid $50 to take to the License Renewal appointment omits the line "she does not need prescription lens to drive" although he kept saying it to me last year two months after surgery and this year at the one year appointment. The Ministry website clearly states what has to be in the letter concerning corrective lenses which I mentioned in the discussion with him but does state my vision ability which is fundamental to the test of course but one would expect that to be in the letter obviously!
Yesterday another good day of exercise and I worked on the matches but mostly a quiet day which ended with a walk at the beach - lovely evening.
No comments:
Post a Comment