This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Challenge the status quo
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
|
|
Status quo. Webster’s defines it as “the current state of affairs.” In reality, it doesn’t need to be defined at all. The status quo is something we’re all quite familiar with as it plays out every day of our lives. Regardless of which facet of life we consider, the status quo reflects an evolutionary process in which comfort, function and familiarity reign supreme. As a result, we often settle into a routine – both personally and professionally – in which the status quo prevails. However, is the status quo always a good thing?
While the status quo may not always be the best approach, effecting change is not an easy task. Challenging the status quo has always carried an element of risk, destining many to criticism and failure. Such attempts have taught us that change should not merely be an exercise in and of itself. Rather, scrutinizing the status quo should transpire only after much deliberation, deliberations in which we acknowledge current attributes, analyze shortcomings and critically assess alternatives. In taking this approach, challenging the status quo has also produced many of modern civilization’s greatest advances.
Professionally, it can be equally difficult to challenge the status quo. Quite frankly, much of what we do for our patients works well. And, given the pressure and time constraints of conducting optometric practice today, there isn’t a whole lot of time for challenging conventional wisdoms. But, again, is this always the best approach?
From an editorial perspective we feel it is our obligation to challenge the status quo. Every month, PCON strives to provide our readers with fresh thoughts on a variety of issues affecting optometry. We don’t do it just for the sake of doing it. We do it as a vehicle for effecting constructive change.
Consider this month’s issue. Dr. Murray Fingeret reports on deliberations of the Association of International Glaucoma Societies. His column offers a compelling perspective on gonioscopy, one in which this procedure plays an even greater role in glaucoma detection and management.
Dr. Charles Connor provides us with an overview of his research involving testosterone and progesterone in treating dry eye. As a disease entity for which we have more questions than answers, his research offers hope for an exciting new treatment.
There’s Dr. Elliot Kirstein’s article on dynamic contour tonometry. As the shortcomings of Goldmann applanation tonometry become more apparent, it certainly behooves us to consider more advanced techniques for measuring IOP.
Finally, sometimes challenging the status quo involves a much more fundamental issue, as pointed out by Drs. Robert Davis and Marla Moon. They aptly remind us that progressive lens technology is not stagnant, but rather an ever evolving and improving discipline.
While challenging the status quo and adopting change is difficult for all of us, it is inevitable. It is also the very process by which we get better, the very reason we are able do so much more for our patients today … as well as the very reason they seek our care.