 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004Where can you buy contacts worldwide without having a current exam?
Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, have had them checked three times in the last ten years without any further adjustments from my initial exam, and have not had any unexplained eye discomfort, vision change or otherwise prior to the US law enacted last February while I was buying contacts online in the states. Thx for any info. > Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United > States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, So, you understand the risks, you say. They are real---means they really happen and if you're that someone, you have to accept the possibility of pain, loss of vision (perhaps permanently) and big medical expenses. If you understand the risks, then perhaps you'll understand that eye health professionals are not going to help to you hurt yourself and help you break the law; USA law and other countries, too. And not a recent law, as you state. You cannot fit yourself, you cannot examine your own eyes to determine their health state and you cannot depend on lenses hurting to warn you of impending danger. But you can indeed do what it is you contemplate. Please do first contemplate the potential results of your actions. Be well, LB, O.D. >> Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United >> States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > LB, O.D. Larry, at least in my country (The Netherlands) people can buy via internet or drugstores there contactlenses without a prescription and NOT breaking any law. And yes, it is leading to eye/contactlenses related problems in which the Dutch government has no interest this very moment. Most of the people living in my country have a obligated insurance (sort off national health insurance). Contactlens related costs are not included in this insurance and have to be paid just out of your own pocket. However, the costs when needing eye/contactlenses related problems by an ophthalmologist have to be paid by this insurance, making the contributions costs raising. Most irritating to people who take there responsibility by having there eyes checked in a proper way and paying for this check  SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) >> Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United >> States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > LB, O.D. Larry, at least in my country (The Netherlands) people can buy via internet or drugstores there contactlenses without a prescription and NOT breaking any law. And yes, it is leading to eye/contactlenses related problems in which the Dutch government has no interest this very moment. Most of the people living in my country have a obligated insurance (sort off national health insurance). Contactlens related costs are not included in this insurance and have to be paid just out of your own pocket. However, the costs when needing eye/contactlenses related problems solved by an ophthalmologist have to be paid by this insurance, making the contributions costs raising. Most irritating to people who take there responsibility by having there eyes checked in a proper way and paying for this check SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) Me breaking the law? There is absolutely nothing in that recent US legislation specifying I would be breaking any laws by purchasing contacts outside of the United States and importing them in. The law was very specifically constructed and tailored only to US companies selling contacts that would require me to pay a doctor for an eye exam first. If you or anyone else is concerned and/or confused about this, please post a third-party source link that refutes what I am saying. -- Julia Briggs http://www.optometry.ca.gov/ab2020.pdf (Summary of Law) http://www.optometry.ca.gov/ab2020.pdf (Full Text) > > Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United > > States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > LB, O.D. The links you post seem to refer to a California state law, not the federal fairness to contact lens consumers act. Technically, you probably are breaking the law by importing a device that is classified as a medical device by the FDA. Of course, I'm sure the feds are not going to break your door down for this. People order medications from Canada all the time. Eye examinations are not expensive, and eye disease usually does not have any symptoms unitl it's too late to do anything about it. You should consider getting your eyes checked yearly. > Me breaking the law? There is absolutely nothing in that recent US > legislation specifying I would be breaking any laws by purchasing [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> LB, O.D. People often order controlled substances without a note such as Valium from Canada - and that is illegal. If you can find anything out there making it a federal crime to order/traffic prescription contact lenses into the United States then provide a direct link. Well I will save you the time, there isn't any. So, shut up. People often order controlled substances without a note such as Valium from Canada - and that is illegal. If you can find anything out there making it a federal crime to order/traffic prescription contact lenses into the United States then provide a direct link. Well I will save you the time, there isn't any. So, shut up. > People often order controlled substances without a note such as Valium > from Canada - and that is illegal. If you can find anything out there > making it a federal crime to order/traffic prescription contact lenses > into the United States then provide a direct link. Well I will save > you the time, there isn't any. So, shut up. Thanks for dropping by this newsgroup, Julia. Rarely do we get such unmitigated petulance. I am aware that making a crevice of "unmitigated petulance" may be alarming or disturbing to those supporting or dispensing false information. > I am aware that making a crevice of "unmitigated petulance" may be > alarming or disturbing to those supporting or dispensing false > information. You walked into a newsgroup concerned with the /science/ of vision, asking--in effect--for somebody to hand you the prescription pad and let you run amok. The /doctors/ on this newsgroup have given you serious, considered, and well-meaning caveats (that it is very risky to buy contact lenses without a prescription). Whether or not it actually violates the law, it is clearly a risky proposition. Snapping "Shut up" like a petulant child neither helps your credibility nor, I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. The reality is that it isn't breaking the law. There are no United States legal statutes prohibiting a consumer from buying contacts without a prescription. The certain doctors in this forum being considerate with opinions about eye health and supporting them with incorrect information, seems, well, kinda self-serving and certainly makes the opinion you think I've lost my credibility satirical. > > I am aware that making a crevice of "unmitigated petulance" may be > > alarming or disturbing to those supporting or dispensing false [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Snapping "Shut up" like a petulant child neither helps your credibility nor, > I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. > The reality is that it isn't breaking the law. There are no United > States legal statutes prohibiting a consumer from buying contacts > without a prescription. The certain doctors in this forum being > considerate with opinions about eye health and supporting them with > incorrect information, seems, well, kinda self-serving and certainly > makes the opinion you think I've lost my credibility satirical. It may not be illegal to purchase them, just to sell them. DrG >> > I am aware that making a crevice of "unmitigated petulance" may be >> > alarming or disturbing to those supporting or dispensing false [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > credibility nor, >> I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. ...for dispensaries where prohibited by law. ;) > ...for dispensaries where prohibited by law. ;) My what an astute obervation, julia4_me (says it all, by the way). DrG I'm glad I replied to her first post (I'm sure there will be opportunity to use it again). It's pretty clear she's a person for whom common sense is neither common nor sensible and doing the right thing is the wrong thing unless it's right for her and her alone. As DrG said, her ID says it clearly. Hi to everyone - I am too busy to post these days but this thread just beats everything. Why would this idiot Julia think one of you would risk losing your license by giving her this information, if you had it? Of course dispensing contact lenses is regulated by US law. If I'm not mistaken the exact statutes vary from state to state but all of the medical licensing boards throughout the US have clearly stated how medical devices such as contact lenses may be dispensed. And the standards for the devices themselves are regulated by the FDA. Julia probably knows that. If she doesn't, she is too lazy to spend five minutes doing the necessary google search. And too cheap and stupid to get an eye exam. Why would anyone put something in their EYES which may not be a legitimately manufactured, sterile, unadulterated product? Of all the senses, vision is most often listed first as that which is most highly valued. The answer is that no mentally stable person would do so. It doesn't sound like Julia has financial problems that would prevent her from getting an eye exam. If so, she would be asking for information about inexpensive clinics or doctors who might charge on a sliding scale. So what's her problem? She probably has a borderline personality disorder, but getting contact lenses wouldn't help that anyway. Fran ............. >> The reality is that it isn't breaking the law. There are no United >> States legal statutes prohibiting a consumer from buying contacts [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> credibility nor, >>> I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/buycontactqa.html FDA Home Page | CDRH Home Page | Search | CDRH A-Z Index | Contact CDRH Buying Contact Lenses on the Internet, by Phone, or by Mail: Questions and Answers The FDA wants you to be a wise consumer if you buy contact lenses, an FDA-regulated product, on the Internet, over the phone or by mail. While such purchases are often a convenient and economical way to get lenses, Internet, phone, or mail orders require consumers to exercise some caution. The following questions and answers should help you take simple precautions to make your Internet, phone or mail purchase safe and effective for you. What do I need to consider when buying contact lenses on the Internet, by phone or by mail? * Is my contact lens prescription current? You should always have a current, correct prescription when you order contact lenses. * If you have not had a check-up in the last one to two years, you may have problems with your eyes that you are not aware of, or your contact lenses may not correct your vision well. * The expiration date for your prescription is currently set by your state. Some require a one-year renewal, some a two-year renewal, while other states leave it to your doctor to decide. * Never order lenses with a prescription that has expired. What does a valid contact lens prescription include? * This depends on the state where your doctor practices. State laws often define a prescription¹s requirements. In states without a legal definition, the prescribing doctor includes some minimum elements. * The minimum elements usually include your name and the doctor¹s name along with the contact lens brand name and material. Also, lens measurements such as power, diameter and base curve are included. * More detailed prescriptions will include directions for safe use such as wearing schedule, whether lenses are for daily or extended wear, the number of refills, whether lens material substitutions are allowed and an expiration date. * Some Internet sites ask for information about your doctor so that they may check the prescription with your doctor. State laws vary greatly concerning the kind of verification that is required. Internet sites should comply with applicable State requirements concerning verification of prescriptions for contact lenses. Will I get in legal trouble if I buy my contact lenses on the Internet, by phone or by mail if I don¹t have a copy of my prescription? * You won¹t break any laws, but the company is selling you a prescription device as if it were an over-the-counter device. In legal terms, this misbrands the device. Often, the company will say that they will check back with your doctor to confirm the prescription and expiration date; however, that may not always happen. * Some Internet sites will allow you to fill out a chart with the ordering information about your contact lenses and ask you to fill in your doctor¹s name and phone number. The site may or may not ask for an actual copy of your prescription, but they should comply with applicable State law concerning contact lens prescription verification. * Since individual states have different licensing requirements for optical dispensers, enforcement of prescription device sales has usually been left to State authorities. What harm can be done if I don¹t have regular check-ups with my doctor or I order lenses without a valid prescription? * At your check-up, your eye doctor will re-evaluate the fit of your contact lenses and observe any changes in your cornea caused by your lenses. You will benefit by having a correct, current prescription and you may avoid serious problems, especially if you wear your lenses on an extended or overnight schedule. * Though infections of the cornea are rare, severe cases can cause loss of vision and even blindness. During regularly scheduled visits, your eye doctor looks for irregularities that, if left untreated, may lead to severe problems. These irregularities often have no symptoms and you may be totally unaware of them. * Contact lens wear causes many changes to cells and tissues of the eye, and sometimes wearing contact lenses can damage the cornea (the clear window of the eye). Even if you are currently experiencing no problems, the lenses may be causing damage to your eyes. Regular check-ups will reduce the likelihood of damage going undetected. * Contact lenses that are not properly fitted by an eye doctor might not work well, or even worse, may harm your eyes. * Ask your eye doctor how often to have a check-up. Will regular check-ups help prevent me from having problems with my contact lenses? * Anyone wearing contact lenses runs an increased risk of corneal infection. Regular check-ups will help reduce your chances of having a problem. At your check-up, your doctor may find something that requires refitting with a new lens or requires modifying your wearing schedule. What can I do to avoid serious problems with my contact lenses? * Ask your eye doctor how often you should have a check-up and see the doctor according to the recommended schedule. * You run a greater risk of developing serious eye problems such as infection if you wear lenses overnight. * Order your contact lenses from a supplier you are familiar with and know is reliable. Contact lenses are often more complex than they appear. * Request the manufacturer¹s written patient information for your contact lenses. It will give you important risk/benefit information, as well as instructions for use. * Beware of attempts to substitute a different brand than you presently have. While this may be acceptable in some situations, there are differences in the water content and shape between different brands. The correct choice of which lens is right for you should only be made based on examination by your doctor, not over the phone. * Carefully check to make sure the company gives you * the exact brand, * lens name, * power, * sphere, * cylinder, if any, * axis, if any, * diameter, * base curve, and * peripheral curves, if any. * If you think you have gotten an incorrect lens, check with your eye doctor. Don¹t accept a substitution unless your doctor approves it. Where can I report problems that I have with my contact lenses? * You can report a serious eye problem associated with your contact lenses with FDA¹s MedWatch reporting form at: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch. Also, contact your health professional for medical advice. * You can report problems involving contact lens sales by Web sites by sending e-mail to webcomplaints@ora.fda.gov. * If you do not get the exact lenses that you ordered, you should report the problem directly to the company that supplied them. Buying Medicines and Medical Products Online Updated 11/27/02 CDRH Home Page | CDRH A-Z Index | Contact CDRH | Accessibility | Disclaimer FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | Contact FDA | HHS Home Page Center for Devices and Radiological Health / CDRH Well, it appears by reading this thread that Julia is right and everyone seems to be in a big fluff over it, misinformation, etc. Reading her words, I don't sense she is a lazy cheap mentally-ill idiot as you put it in your word salad below? Perhaps you have yourself evaluated for that dear. > Hi to everyone - I am too busy to post these days but this thread just beats > everything. Why would this idiot Julia think one of you would risk losing [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >> credibility nor, > >>> I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. You are misusing the expression "word salad." A word salad bears no resemblance to my posting below, but is a real psychiatric term meaning the confused and repetitious language that is thought to be a symptom of various psychoses and other serious mental illnesses. It describes the use of words with no apparent meaning attached to them, or to the relationships between them. In this context, it is considered to be a symptom of a formal thought disorder. No one cannot accurately call someone else's statements a "word salad" just because they disagree with his or her opinions. And incidentally, oh keeper of the salad dish, there is no such word as "irregardless." FRAN > Well, it appears by reading this thread that Julia is right and > everyone seems to be in a big fluff over it, misinformation, etc. > Reading her words, I don't sense she is a lazy cheap mentally-ill idiot > as you put it in your word salad below? Perhaps you have yourself > evaluated for that dear. > You are misusing the expression "word salad." A word salad bears no > resemblance to my posting below, but is a real psychiatric term meaning the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > FRAN SYLLABICATION: ir·re·gard·less PRONUNCIATION: r-gärdls ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless. ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless. USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so. Fran, do note the 1st phrase after usage note: "is a word" LMAO Common usage does not a word make. "Nucular is not a word either, even though President Bush and even many people in the media say it all the time. >> You are misusing the expression "word salad." A word salad bears no >> resemblance to my posting below, but is a real psychiatric term meaning the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > LMAO >>> You are misusing the expression "word salad." A word salad bears no >>> resemblance to my posting below, but is a real psychiatric term meaning the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> LMAO Top posting fixed > Common usage does not a word make. "Nucular is not a word either, even > though President Bush and even many people in the media say it all the time. False, and if you were properly educated you would be aware of that. If you bothered to read the whole story behind the "word" it might've help to clarify the issues. It came from a dictionary. There are many words that came into existence within the last 40 years due to technology and its usage. There are many words which had been shunned over the years that ended up "accepted" simply because the usage was too common. Regarding the word you just used as a rather poor example, while I have not tried to look it up, it would seem a phonetic spelling based on southern accents. I doubt anyone would see it spelled that way. I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing you can say will make irregardless, nucular, copacetic, and lots of other examples into legitimate words. Now if one is speaking about slang, well of course there are no rules and anything can be used as a word. The entire discussion started when Neil misused the expression "word salad." He or you can use it to mean a new recipe for a side dish, and that is called poetic license. Using "word salad" the way that he did, implying that my statements made no logical sense, was just plain sloppy and inaccurate because it is clear that he just simply disagrees with me. As far as my being obsessed with vision therapy, I am an advocate for vision therapy because it was an effective treatment for my own vision problems. My great interest has lead me toward a new career. To work full-time and go to school at night one must be more than a little bit driven. But calling me obsessive-compulsive is confabulation, and no one who is personally acquainted with me would agree with your diagnosis. > False, and if you were properly educated you would be aware of that. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have not tried to look it up, it would seem a phonetic spelling based on > southern accents. I doubt anyone would see it spelled that way. > I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage > has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing > you can say will make irregardless, nucular, copacetic, and lots of other > examples into legitimate words. Now if one is speaking about slang, well of > course there are no rules and anything can be used as a word. LOL, you might be more educated than you appear, but your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Reread what I wrote about "nucular". > The entire discussion started when Neil misused the expression "word salad." > He or you can use it to mean a new recipe for a side dish, and that is > called poetic license. Using "word salad" the way that he did, implying that > my statements made no logical sense, was just plain sloppy and inaccurate > because it is clear that he just simply disagrees with me. No, you made a point about "irregardless" picking at words to make a point, not the subject of the text. > As far as my being obsessed with vision therapy, I am an advocate for vision > therapy because it was an effective treatment for my own vision problems. > My great interest has lead me toward a new career. To work full-time and go > to school at night one must be more than a little bit driven. But calling me > obsessive-compulsive is confabulation, and no one who is personally > acquainted with me would agree with your diagnosis. No? I suppose they would blame it on your vision, not your comprehension? LOL, "more than a little bit driven", "obsessive-compulsive" sounds the same to me. Maybe your vision problems are not so much what your eye's see but how the mind see's it? Just an observation not a diagnosis. :) >> False, and if you were properly educated you would be aware of that. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> have not tried to look it up, it would seem a phonetic spelling based on >> southern accents. I doubt anyone would see it spelled that way. Francine wrote in part: > The entire discussion started when Neil misused the expression "word > salad." He or you can use it to mean a new recipe for a side dish, > and that is called poetic license. Using "word salad" the way that he > did, implying that my statements made no logical sense, was just > plain sloppy and inaccurate because it is clear that he just simply > disagrees with me. Please be careful with your attributions, Francine. I was most certainly /not/ the one to use the expression "word salad." >I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage >has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing >you can say will make irregardless, nucular, copacetic, and lots of other >examples into legitimate words. Now if one is speaking about slang, well of >course there are no rules and anything can be used as a word. The word "irregardless" is in the Oxford English Dictionary so it must be a word. The OED is god. Ann > >I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage > >has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The word "irregardless" is in the Oxford English Dictionary so it must > be a word. The OED is god. Yes, but it is a descriptive god, not a prescriptive one. Even if words exist, they can still sound really stupid and reflect nothing but discredit on the user. SignatureCheers, Bev ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All bleeding eventually stops. >>>I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage >>>has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exist, they can still sound really stupid and reflect nothing but > discredit on the user. Like your use of grammar? >>> I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage >>> has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exist, they can still sound really stupid and reflect nothing but > discredit on the user. Bev, you are certainly correct. Many of my close friends work in the publishing industry, where use of such "words" certainly is frowned upon regardless of the nature of the publication. Cheers, Francine >>>> I am a great deal more educated than you would like to believe. Common usage >>>> has expanded the English language, but this is not always true and nothing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cheers, > Francine You are joking, right? There is so much proof to the contrary. Since you are a "great deal more educated" then most would believe then you must have had a blonde moment when you wrote that. Please don't frown too much, it creates lines. > You are misusing the expression "word salad." A word salad bears no > resemblance to my posting below, but is a real psychiatric term meaning [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> as you put it in your word salad below? Perhaps you have yourself >> evaluated for that dear. Hear, hear! Just one of many logical slips. A double negative in "irregardless," a redundancy in "mentally-ill [sic] idiot," or "Reading her words." Dayum, this is fun! Card XII > I don't sense she is a lazy cheap mentally-ill idiot > as you put it in your word salad below? Perhaps you have yourself > evaluated for that dear. Google is your friend Lee! Do a little Googling on Francine, and you will find she is obsessive compulsive (in my opinion anyway) about vision therapy. If you disagree with her, you are wrong, no and ifs or butts.... Followups sent to sci.psychology.ssychotherapy where she belongs. Allen Hi. It appears by reading this thread that Julia is still in the legal clear from a consumer position to buy contacts without a prescription. I would hope she wouldn't buy them from a shady street dealer! I imagine based on her earlier post she is looking for a crediable company outside of the USA. If I were a doctor posting from this group I would just stay silent to the question she asked if I was bound by regulations preventing me from giving the specific information Julia requests. She seems to understand potential risks. However, I think irregardless of her personal decision to want contacts without a current eye exam, one should expect (and hope) any certified eye-doctor giving advice would do so in a researched, ethical and un-biased fashion. Frankly, I would hate to think one day if I was in a emergency room there would be a doctor from in here making money influenced and/or unresearched decisions for me.... > Hi. It appears by reading this thread that Julia is still in the legal > clear from a consumer position to buy contacts without a prescription. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a emergency room there would be a doctor from in here making money > influenced and/or unresearched decisions for me.... . . . and the Award for Best Performance in a Dramatic Role goes to . . . Lee Bishop! Thank you thank you, it's interesting to note how the people I refer to, in question, jump around like conditioned crickets at my words, but thank you anyway! > Hi. It appears by reading this thread that Julia is still in the legal > clear from a consumer position to buy contacts without a prescription. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > room there would be a doctor from in here making money influenced > and/or unresearched decisions for me.... I think part of the response from O.D.'s to this thread comes from the legal-liability issues. The following is from a source reviewing a cl text: "I was especially impressed with a chapter on the medico-legal complications of contact lens wear, by John Classe and Michael Harris. They explain that approximately 40-50% of all malpractice claims involving optometrists arise from the fitting or wear of contact lenses, which makes contact lens practice the greatest source of liability claims within optometry. They succinctly present a set of steps to minimize the risk of litigation. Examples of forms that can be used are provided in this chapter, as well as in earlier chapters." I don't wish to stereotype but the person/patient most likely to sue is the one who wants to take shortcuts and then place the blame game on everyone but themselves when it blows up in their face. The old "I wasn't told by my doctor of the risks that I could go blind if I refused to see him/her sooner than 10 years" gambit. frank I agree with your point, but I think the docs' in here should not support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true (i.e. the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) > > Hi. It appears by reading this thread that Julia is still in the > legal [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > blind if I refused to see him/her sooner than 10 years" gambit. > frank I agree with your point, but I think the docs' in here should not support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true (i.e. it's illegal and the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) I agree with your point, but I think the docs' in here should not support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true (i.e. it's illegal, the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) I agree with your point, but I think the docs' in here should not support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true (i.e. it's illegal, the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) I agree with your point but also agree that docs' in here should not support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true (i.e. it's illegal, the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) > I agree with your point but also agree that docs' in here should not > support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true > (i.e. it's illegal, the Feds will probably not do anything, etc...) I know teenagers who buy contact lenses at the flea market. People can always find a way to circumvent regulations. I'm not a policeman. I've got better things to do. I knew of a private optometrist who was closed down by the feds because he failed to give his patients their eyeglass prescriptions. In what way were the patients injured other than perhaps in their pocketbooks? I can well imagine that they would do the same to a dispenser who systematically sells lenses without a license or without a valid prescription. All it takes is someone to take offense and file a complaint. However, patients who ignore common sense and proper hygiene can quite easily get into serious medical trouble from something as seemingly benign as taking a shower while wearing their contact lenses. DrG I think the original poster only wanted information. Good advice has been given...but, I think most of this thread has turned its head focused on public integrity. > > I agree with your point but also agree that docs' in here should not > > support their opinions with legal justifications that are not true [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DrG Dear Julia, The next thing you will be requesting is a "trial lens" kit, and the educational support to learn to use it correctly. Then you will be able to determine your own "prescription". Then you would by-pass the OD completely. Is there any law against that? I wonder. Best, Otis Engineer THe FDA regulates all medical devices. These regulations carry the full legal weight of statutes and are entered into the C.R. Contact lenses are either Class II (Daily wear) or Class III (Extended Wear) medical devices. They can be imported to distributors who have complied with regulatory procedures. A nonlicensed entity trying to import regulated medical devices may end up with nothing since the FDA or the Customs Dept can seize and destroy the shipment without compensation unless you provide a valid Rx for the device. It's not very likely, but possible. Our borders are porous enough that all sorts of illegal and hazardous things occur. Every medical device must be approved for distribution in the US. The FDA decides what regulatory conditions must be met to sell the product in the US or even import it to the US. Below is just a clip of the regulatory code covering contact lenses: SEC. 514. [360d] (a)(1) The special controls required by section 513c(a)(1)(B) shall include performance standards for a class II device if the Secretary determines that a performance standard is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. A class III device may also be considered a class II device for purposes of establishing a standard for the device under subsection (b) if the device has been reclassified as a class II device under a regulation under section 513(e) but such regulation provides that the reclassification is not to take effect until the effective date of such a standard for the device. (2) A performance standard established under this section for a device -- (A) shall include provisions to provide reasonable assurance of its safe and effective performance; (B) shall, where necessary to provide reasonable assurance of its safe and effective performance, include -- (i) provisions respecting the construction, components, ingredients, and properties of the device and its compatibility with power systems and connections to such systems, (ii) provisions for the testing (on a sample basis or, if necessary, on an individual basis) of the device or, if it is determined that no other more practicable means are available to the Secretary to assure the conformity of the device to the standard, provisions for the testing (on a sample basis or, if necessary, on an individual basis) by the Secretary or by another person at the direction of the Secretary, (iii) provisions for the measurement of the performance characteristics of the device, (iv) provisions requiring that the results of each or of certain of the tests of the device required to be made under clause (ii) show that the device is in conformity with the portions of the standard for which the test or tests were required, and (v) a provision requiring that the sale and distribution of the device be restricted but only to the extent that the sale and distribution of a device may be restricted under a regulation under section 520(e); and (C) shall, where appropriate, require the use and prescribe the form and content of labeling for the proper installation, maintenance, operation, and use of the device. This passage gives the FDA the authority to require all contact lenses to be dispensed ONLY with a written prescription, which it DOES! That is why all contact lens boxes have the little disclaimer stating that they are available by Rx only! You can find it under chapter 5, FD&C act, subchapter A. It even mentions the other regs and statutes that give the FDA authority to enforce it. The selling of contacts without a prescription violates distribution and labelling laws of potentially dangerous medical devices. They are approved for use in the US only under certain therapeutic circumstances. The sad thing is that most of the regs punish the seller, not the buyer. It can even punish overseas sellers by seizing their shipments and legally preventing them from doing business with US customers. Would you jeopardize a foriegn merchant's privilege to sell a medical product to US customers just to get out of meeting your responsibilities as a contact lens wearer? You could always just go back to glasses if you are unwilling or unable to meet the responsibilities of wearing contact lenses. Carl > The reality is that it isn't breaking the law. There are no United > States legal statutes prohibiting a consumer from buying contacts [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > credibility nor, >> I suspect, induces any other readers to help you with your quest. I think I might understand the risks, LarryDoc. But how about the risks of buying regular, non-contact lenses from a prescription more than two years old. What are the risks in that, LarryDoc? >>Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United >>States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > LB, O.D. > I think I might understand the risks, LarryDoc. > > But how about the risks of buying regular, non-contact > lenses from a prescription more than two years old. > > What are the risks in that, LarryDoc? If you are talking about spectacle lenses, no direct eye health risks other than that which might arise from undetected pathology from not having regular examinations. But lots of people don't get regular exams and deal with pathology when symptoms arise. If you fill an old spectacle prescription, and assuming no active pathology is causing the optical prescription, the worse thing that might happen is you wouldn't see as clearly as possible. The other risk is that your new spectacle lenses, free of scratches, nice and clean, might make you aware that you could be seeing more clearly and then you decide to get an updated prescription and pay twice for new spectacle lenses. Personally, if a patient of mine wants to fill an old spec Rx, I just have them sign off on it and make it their responsibility if something goes wrong---with their vision or eye health. Informed consent-- that is OK with me. But for contact lenses, it's different. You are placing a foreign object onto your eyeball. Physical contact. If the lens doesn't fit correctly, if the cornea is not getting adequate oxygen and is swelling or growing a blood supply to compensate, if the cornea epithelium is damaged from non-compliant lens care or delayed replacement of worn out lenses and is open to bacteria or virus infection---there can be serious eye health consequences. New materials and designs might be able to provide lens wearers with healthier, more comfortable lens wear or better vision. If they avoid check-ups, they might be using inferior, outdated or plain old unhealthy lenses. So I'm quite adamant about contact lens prescription and compliance. If a patient of mine doesn't do the right thing, I try to educate them. If they still don't listen or don't care, I show them the door and send them off to deal with the consequences on their own. Simple. The end result is I have a 100% hassle-free contact lens practice. The interesting result of that is that I see less patients with cornea pathology and therefore loose out on income derived from treating their eye disease. I just prefer to help people see great and be happy with their vision. The primary reason I bother to reply to posts here is simply to help educate people on how they can best take care of their eye health and vision. It's up to the reader to make his/her own decisions that relate to their health. Knowledge is power. --LB, O.D. LarryDoc wrote (in part): > The primary reason I bother to reply to posts here is simply to help > educate people on how they can best take care of their eye health and > vision. It's up to the reader to make his/her own decisions that > relate to their health. Knowledge is power. . . . and if I haven't said it before, please allow me to do so now: my humble thanks. Anybody that's seen my posts over the years knows that I have a fairly complex ophthalmologic history that involves significant experience with a litany of eye doctors. The only ones who have been able to help me in the past have a keen intellect, a love for their profession, and are excited by, not bothered by, a medical challenge. Further, they have opened themselves up to my participation in the medical process, sharing information with me and allowing me to bounce information off of them. You have those qualities, Dr. B. Bravo. Neil >Where can I buy contacts without a prescription outside of the United >States? I understand risks concerning my eye health, have had them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >February while I was buying contacts online in the states. Thx for any >info. I know you said outside the US, but have you tried the retailers you used in the past? 1-800-contacts is the *only* one I've used that actually tried to verify the prescription. All others accepted the order & shipped the contacts w/o prescription (even as a first time customer, with no record whatsoever on file). I'm sure they all check a certain percentage of orders... but they sure don't check 100%.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.