Rand Paul is not a certified Doctor

[Christopher]

And accomplishment. Earning a Doctoral Degree is no small matter. Do you begrudge military officers for carrying their rank with them after they leave the service?

As for certification: See my above post. Simply graduating from Medical School doesn't make you an ophthalmologist. Graduating from an internal medicine residency doesn't make you an ophthalmologists.

Physician competency is regulated and monitored for patient safety.

So, why isn't the AOB consistent in requiring ALL ophthalmologists to re-certify?

I could see a practical argument being made about a degree of fairness in forcing a new standard on ophthalmologists that didn't exists when they entered the field.

I mean, isn't that the logic behind all grandfather clauses?

Frankly, I think it was a silly caveat since it improves the professional competency of the field, but most likely the Old Timers (who I would venture to guess were about 99% of the practicing ophthalmologists at the time) pitched a fit and the ABO caved.

Further Frankly, I doubt this was really Paul's reason for starting his own certification group. If fairness was his crucial argument, creating a nepotistic environment doesn't quite square with logic.

That being said, (unless there was some sort of dishonesty involved or Paul was going to lose his ABO certification), I don't see it as being germane to the election.

Well then we agree, mostly. You are right, this has nothing to do with the election since no dishonesty or fraud seems to be involved. Where we differ is regarding Paul’s reason for starting his own certification group. I see the nepotism issue as something he felt he had to do to get the certification group started. I mean, who else are you going to get to work for you for free?

It has not taken off like he wanted it to of course; although, I’m not surprised seeing how the AOB has cornered the market on ophthalmologist certification.

I just do not see anything wrong on Paul’s part in starting the new group and I disagree that we can reasonably speculate on any other “perceived” reasons.

 

[Immanuel]

I was K-I-D-D-I-N-G!

There are many professions that take a hell of a lot of education to get into and a hell of a lot of continuing education to stay on top of, I'm sure the medical profession and Ophthalmology are included in that list.

However, Board Certification still is not a requirement. It is a "stamp of approval" from other doctors.

Immie

PS: I hope I didn't offend thee.

Offend me? I am a mediocre medical student, not a Doctor. I have no reason to be offended. Though, God forbid I graduate, I am going to insist that you refer to me as Geauxtohell M.D.

Also, don't kid yourself. "Board certification" might not be a legal requirement but good luck doing anything of consequence without it (and good luck getting insurance to pay you and cover you for malpractice). It's a de-facto requirement. I don't know of a single Dr. I've run into during my time as a student that wasn't board certified in their field.

Thanks for the info on Board certification, Dr2B Geauxtohell.

Immie

 

[rdean]

He may not be a "certified" doctor, but he is most definitely "certified" loony.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm replying to your post.

Certain dimwits around here want to know why I call this a lie. Let me explain for the thinking-impaired.

A lie is any intentional misdirection or deception. Now then, the OP chose to title his thread "Rand Paul is not a certified Doctor". This is untrue, as demonstrated by his own link, which states that he IS certified, but by a different ophthalmological board than is usually used. I can either assume that the OP didn't read his own link, and thus didn't know this, or I can assume that he DID read the link, and chose to deliberately misrepresent the situation.

No argument from me on that point

Furthermore, it is pretty obviously the intention of Paul's political opponents, of which the OP is one, to use this to imply that there is something wrong with Paul as an ophthalmologist. The simple statement ". . . is not a certified Doctor" implies that he's not really a doctor, or not able to practice. This assertion on my part is borne out by the fact that, indeed, some posters took it to mean EXACTLY that. In fact, of course, it is STATE LICENSING that conveys the right to practice medicine, not certification with ANY medical board.

I said as much in a previous post

In addition, several posters are NOW attempting to construe this (and I believe Paul's political rival is doing so as well) as him HAVING to form another certification board because he could not be certified by the original. This is untrue, as seen in the article. No one, not even the medical board, has ever even HINTED that Rand Paul is uncertifiable. As the article states, both sides of the discussion are quite clear that he voluntarily left that board over a dispute that had NOTHING to do with his own practice or medical skills at all, but was a disagreement about policy.

Don't like the rules? Change the game?
Is this his political goals as well?

Which means all of the aforementioned crap is lies, and the anuses spewing it are liars.

Any questions?

Damn....
You defend Paul more with more fervor than Obamanuts defend their messiah.


This entire situation just looks like an end-around to me.

Spare me. I don't give a rat's ass about Rand Paul, or his father, or anyone else in that family. My only interest has ever been honesty and logic, and I have no patience with lies or stupidity. You can try to dismiss me as a zealous fan all you like, but it won't change the fact that you're shoveling manure here.

And you can also spare me your lame-ass attempts to impose your own personal choices on everyone else as some lofty moral standard. You make an ass out of yourself, expect to be "rewarded" for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm still astounded that much of the same crowd that used to ridicule Ron Paul mercilessly have now become zealous defenders, supporters, and champions of his weakminded, wackier than dad son.

Pickin's are gettin' slim on the right I see.

 

[hortysir]

Spare me. I don't give a rat's ass about Rand Paul, or his father, or anyone else in that family. My only interest has ever been honesty and logic, and I have no patience with lies or stupidity. You can try to dismiss me as a zealous fan all you like, but it won't change the fact that you're shoveling manure here.

And you can also spare me your lame-ass attempts to impose your own personal choices on everyone else as some lofty moral standard. You make an ass out of yourself, expect to be "rewarded" for it.

To the blue-highlighted area:
That's admirable, seriously.
But I just don't see what Rand did as being honest, logical, or brilliantly intelligent.
So I, also, think of myself as not having any tolerance for dishonesty.
He made an end-around maneuver to put himself in a better light.


And to the green highlighted sentence:
Imposing my "lofty moral standards"??
Really? Where?
If that's how I come across, it seems kind of contradictory for you to be the one to point it out after just making the statement:

My only interest has ever been honesty and logic, and I have no patience with lies or stupidity

 

[rightwinger]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

 

[geauxtohell]

Well then we agree, mostly. You are right, this has nothing to do with the election since no dishonesty or fraud seems to be involved. Where we differ is regarding Paul’s reason for starting his own certification group. I see the nepotism issue as something he felt he had to do to get the certification group started. I mean, who else are you going to get to work for you for free?

It has not taken off like he wanted it to of course; although, I’m not surprised seeing how the AOB has cornered the market on ophthalmologist certification.

I just do not see anything wrong on Paul’s part in starting the new group and I disagree that we can reasonably speculate on any other “perceived” reasons.

Well of course it didn't take off like Paul expected. 95% of the practicing ophthalmologists in this country are not going to leave the respected and established ABO for Paul's offshoot that was started over a relatively minor slight. I mean, it would be akin to thinking that all the NFL players were going to defect to the XFL. In fact, I suspect that Drs. who are accredited by the NBO would be at a distinct disadvantage when looking for jobs at groups and hospitals against ABO certified Doctors. Though I am speculating.

Brushing off the nepotism issue isn't necessarily prudent either. Paul claims his stance was out of integrity and nepotism is rarely an act of integrity. It might have been an act of necessity, but I suspect he could have dredged up the funds to pay some staff for his new group. If this was a principled stance, I would expect him to make some sacrifices. I also find it strange that the group has virtually no public presence.

As it stands, I don't really see anything wrong with it. Just odd. I am more than skeptical of Paul's explanation of the matter. I mean, I just have a hard time believing that an act of grandfathering would cause Paul's secession movement. I really suspect there is more to this. However, I suspect nothing will really come of it. It's not (as it stands) really that relevant to the campaign.

*Edit* A little more on the grandfather clause of the ABO. Apparently the ABO couldn't legally require doctors who were certified prior to 1992 to re-certify. Slembarski is the spokesperson for the ABO.

Why start a new certifying board? Slembarski explained that in 1992, the American Board of Ophthalmology -- the established certification board -- had instituted new rules requiring that eye doctors re-certify every ten years. But it was legally barred from requiring recertification from doctors who had been certified before '92. In the ensuing years, that caused anger among younger ophthalmologists, who now were subject to a time-consuming process that their older competitors would be spared.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...s_upstart_ophthalmology_group_leaves_litt.php

 

[NYcarbineer]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

Well, they make no secret of wanting to take their country back, question is,

how many centuries back do they want to take it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

 

[geauxtohell]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

There is certainly a need.

Dear lord. Caveat emptor is all good and dandy, but when you are talking about a highly technical job where most people don't even understand the basics, there needs to be regulation.

One of the most disgusting (as in terrible) things I've seen so far was a pathology lecture where the Dr. was talking about a patient they had visit them in the dental clinic (he was a dentist and the lecture was oral path) that had a mass in her throat (she was a young woman, mid 20s). They took a biopsy and found out it was ductal cell carcinoma, a very serious matter. They notified her and immedately scheduled her for aggressive radiation and chemo. Instead she opted to entrust the matter into a holistic healer/Naturopathic Doctor (uncertified/regulated).

One year later she came back to the dental clinic. By that time, the mass had almost completely occluded her throat. It was too late to do much of anything for her.

I mean, I wonder if you guys realize the potential for harm here.

Finally, and again, just because certification is "voluntary" doesn't mean it's not a well adhered to practice within the field. As I said, you are unlikely to do much of anything in medicine without being properly certified and if it wasn't important, Paul wouldn't have gone to the effort to create his own certification process.

 

[Zona]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

And they should bde allowed to not serve minorities. Go Paul! I wonder of old Rand was robbed, and called the police and the only cops available were black....what would he do? Tell them they have the right to not help him?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

There is certainly a need.

Dear lord. Caveat emptor is all good and dandy, but when you are talking about a highly technical job where most people don't even understand the basics, there needs to be regulation.

One of the most disgusting (as in terrible) things I've seen so far was a pathology lecture where the Dr. was talking about a patient they had visit them in the dental clinic (he was a dentist and the lecture was oral path) that had a mass in her throat (she was a young woman, mid 20s). They took a biopsy and found out it was ductal cell carcinoma, a very serious matter. They notified her and immedately scheduled her for aggressive radiation and chemo. Instead she opted to entrust the matter into a holistic healer/Naturopathic Doctor (uncertified/regulated).

One year later she came back to the dental clinic. By that time, the mass had almost completely occluded her throat. It was too late to do much of anything for her.

I mean, I wonder if you guys realize the potential for harm here.

Finally, and again, just because certification is "voluntary" doesn't mean it's not a well adhered to practice within the field. As I said, you are unlikely to do much of anything in medicine without being properly certified and if it wasn't important, Paul wouldn't have gone to the effort to create his own certification process.

I was referring to it being mandatory, which it is not.

 

[Zona]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

There is certainly a need.

Dear lord. Caveat emptor is all good and dandy, but when you are talking about a highly technical job where most people don't even understand the basics, there needs to be regulation.

One of the most disgusting (as in terrible) things I've seen so far was a pathology lecture where the Dr. was talking about a patient they had visit them in the dental clinic (he was a dentist and the lecture was oral path) that had a mass in her throat (she was a young woman, mid 20s). They took a biopsy and found out it was ductal cell carcinoma, a very serious matter. They notified her and immedately scheduled her for aggressive radiation and chemo. Instead she opted to entrust the matter into a holistic healer/Naturopathic Doctor (uncertified/regulated).

One year later she came back to the dental clinic. By that time, the mass had almost completely occluded her throat. It was too late to do much of anything for her.

I mean, I wonder if you guys realize the potential for harm here.

Finally, and again, just because certification is "voluntary" doesn't mean it's not a well adhered to practice within the field. As I said, you are unlikely to do much of anything in medicine without being properly certified and if it wasn't important, Paul wouldn't have gone to the effort to create his own certification process.

This post is going to be lost on so many on the right who support ol Rand.

Excellent post sir. Question though...didnt ol Rand say he was a board certified doc? Is it true he certified himself and is a liar? I feel a Fox "special commentator"ship coming....al la Mark Furhman or Palin.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

And they should bde allowed to not serve minorities. Go Paul! I wonder of old Rand was robbed, and called the police and the only cops available were black....what would he do? Tell them they have the right to not help him?

The police would have every right not to take his case if they were a private organization.

 

[geauxtohell]

This post is going to be lost on so many on the right who support ol Rand.

Excellent post sir. Question though...didnt ol Rand say he was a board certified doc? Is it true he certified himself and is a liar? I feel a Fox "special commentator"ship coming....al la Mark Furhman or Palin.

He is certified, currently, under his own organization. Until 2002 (I think), Rand was certified by the ABO (the main certification organization) and his own NBO when he let his ABO certification expire.

 

[geauxtohell]

I was referring to it being mandatory, which it is not.

Not technically. Now try and find a practicing physician in your area who is not board certified.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I was referring to it being mandatory, which it is not.

Not technically. Now try and find a practicing physician in your area who is not board certified.

The fact remains that it is not mandatory by law that a doctor be certified.

 

[uscitizen]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

No wonder we have so much medical malpractice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It just goes to show you what life in a Libertarian world is like....there is no need to certify doctors, it is an assault on their personal freedom

There's no need to certify doctors now, it's purely voluntary.

No wonder we have so much medical malpractice.

Physicians must still get permission from the state to practice.