Tuesday, June 15, 2010


I have become fascinated of late with this whole Rand Paul supposed controversy about his certification. People will believe anything it seems so maybe we should look at some interesting facts. The questions have arisen because Dr. Paul did not renew his certification with the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) in 2005. The inference is that Paul is not qualified to be a Doctor accordingly.

Is this the best they have? Is Conway and the liberal media crew that scared?

It would seem so. Let's take a look at some things.

First according to the website

What are the educational requirements for a physician to become Board Certified? Certification by the ABO is a voluntary process, and is the last step in a long and intensive educational experience ......

Certification is not mandatory by their own admission. Additionally, according to their website ABO states: The ABO was the first American Board established to certify medical specialists and is one of 24 specialty Boards recognized by the
American Board of Medical Specialties and the American Medical Association.

Note they are recognized by another private medical group. Of course most people think you must be AMA certified to be a Doctor yet the AMA's membership represents 10% or less of ALL Doctors. Get the point yet?

These boards are self serving and benefit themselves period. In fact many conservatives chastise labor unions because they feel they hurt business. They are accused of using their lobbyist to force politicians to do their bidding.

What is the difference between them and the AMA or other "unions" of like minded individuals. Essentially nothing.

According to the CJ, Rand Paul's ophthalmology certification not recognized by national clearinghouse courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal Rand Paul is a graduate of Duke University's medical school and was board certified under the American Board of Ophthalmology for a decade. He has been licensed to practice in Kentucky since 1993.

In the late 1990s, Paul was a driving force behind forming the National Board of Ophthalmology to protest the ABO's exemption policy.

"I don't think that some people should re certify and others shouldn't," he said. "And I don't choose to give my money to a private group that discriminates."

Paul said in a May interview that he formed the rival board because he had a problem with the organization treating younger doctors -- those certified after 1992 -- differently from older doctors.
"It annoyed me and a lot of younger ophthalmologists ... that people who were 55 years old didn't have to be recertified and those who were 45 years old did," he said. "So we thought if it was a rule, a good rule, everybody should obey it."

Paul has been certified through the National Board of Ophthalmology since 2005. This is a non issue for most who actually pay attention. The ABO, the AMA, and others are private organizations that fund themselves by trying to make themselves important by certifying others. Yawn.

Paul stood firm because the ABO wanted to discriminate by "grandfathering" in some physicians' which allowed them to avoid re certification. It would seem to me that as you age we should not allow an automatic given right to be certified without proper proof or documentation.

But then again since the ABO is a private authority we the public who chooses to use physicians certainly have no say so in that decision do we? Is the intent of the ABO to ensure we receive the best medical care from their physicians as possible?

If so, then why discriminate? Do your skills diminish as you age? Do you feel the need to continue education requirements for the certification when you already meet the State requirements to be a licensed physician?

But therein lies the rub.

Since these organizations' are private enterprises, approved by yet other private enterprises with no public oversight of the approval process, then why aren't the majority of physicians members? Because they know this and do not need them to give permission for them to do their job. Why pay the added expense for a certification that does nothing to aid your practice? In fact read this:

The American Academy of Ophthalmology recognizes board certification only by the American Board of Ophthalmology. So the only certifying authority they will even consider is their own? What if you had the same or more stringent guidelines but were an outside source, would they allow you to be a certifying agency? Chances are they will not.

Great closed game isn't it? Just like every other closed game in town. Look at the court system we rely on they are a closed entity. Check out the JCC or the Ky Bar. Protect your own is the mantra and that is essentially what the ABO is doing.

Kentucky is the one who certifies anyone wanting to be a physician here. These rules require continuing education and accepted State standards be met to be allowed to work in that capacity. Ask a Realtor if they have continuing education as a requirement for their job. The answer is yes. To make an issue like the liberal media is trying to do by implying Rand Paul is not qualified to be a Dr in Kentucky is asinine at best.

Most physicians would not be qualified in the State using the same argument.

Interestingly enough it looks like Rand Paul isn't the devil but perhaps the devil is in the details the spin meisters do not tell you.

Your thoughts?

1 comment:

  1. You gotta love all the conservatives in Kentucky who voted for Rand Paul and brought him to national exposure, priceless. Let’s face it they will try to vote this liar in but we can only wait and see if there is other skeletons in his closet, oh yeah he is not a racist, I repeat, he is not a racist. Great thing is we are talking about Kentucky, so being a racist maybe a positive, we will see. Yee Haw!


Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston


The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...