 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2006deducing a reading/computer rx from a general rx
Why do some opticians refuse to make reading/computer glasses based on a "zero to infinity" prescription? What is the difficulty in going from -1.25 +1.00 005 +2.50 plano +0.25 35 +2.50 to a reading/computer rx? The best readers I ever bought were made without a special rx in a small 20x20' lab. Thanks, H.K. Because you need someone to decide the proper "add", and that depends on lots of factors. w.stacy, o.d. >Why do some opticians refuse to make >reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > oops I didn't see the add, which is already there. There should be no problem with filling this in a single vision near Rx. w.stacy, o.d. > Because you need someone to decide the proper "add", and that depends > on lots of factors. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> On 9/9/06 10:38 AM, in article s_CMg.8048$tU.2964@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "William Stacy" <wstacy@obase.net> wrote: > oops I didn't see the add, which is already there. There should be no > problem with filling this in a single vision near Rx. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>> >>> Even though I am not a "vision" professional, I strongly disagree with the answer. And for good reason. The principal factor is going to be the distance to the computer screen. Using the gaussian formula, select a lens that places the screen at infinity. It is not brain surgery. The power of that lens is 1/distance to the screen. Add that power to the prescription. I once deferred to the opinion of an OD to single vision glasses. He also winged an additional modification to use my accommodative capability. Big mistake. My best results for computer glasses were from an ophthalmologist who modified my bifocals according my request based upon my calculation of what I wanted. In addition, he told me that some recentering might be useful because pupils get closer together as you converge onto close objects. Bill -- Ferme le Bush >I once deferred to the opinion of an OD to single vision glasses. He also >winged an additional modification to use my accommodative capability. Big >mistake. > > One nice thing about doing that is usually the remakes are free. Nobody's perfect. >My best results for computer glasses were from an ophthalmologist who >modified my bifocals according my request based upon my calculation of what >I wanted. In addition, he told me that some recentering might be useful >because pupils get closer together as you converge onto close objects. > Wow. An o.m.d. who understands pupillary distances. I'm impressed. w.stacy, o.d. > Because you need someone to decide the proper "add", and that depends on > lots of factors. More than the object distance and the particular person's accomodative ability, what? -- Dicky Well, for starters, age, accommodative amplitude, convergence angles (AC/A ratio), convergence reserves, range of near demand (from how close in to how far out), depth of focus, length of arms, expected ambient lighting levels, and the acuity needed for the expected tasks. There are others, but you can start with those. Obviously you can do the simple power/distance formula, and work it out yourself. You could also try prescribing drugs for yourself these days, and buying your questionable medications from highly doubtful sources on the internet, how about an appendectomy. Caveat Emptor w.stacy, o.d. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Dicky > > Why do some opticians refuse to make > reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks, H.K. Hard to know why an individual would refuse. The Rx you posted can be used for single vision reading glasses. If you wanted computer glasses, you would need to contact the prescribing doctor, provide him with the distance to your computer and ask to have a computer Rx written. Dr Judy >> Why do some opticians refuse to make >> reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Dr Judy Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > Why do some opticians refuse to make > reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -1.25 +1.00 005 +2.50 > plano +0.25 35 +2.50 There is no difficulty for a real optician.(like Martello in this newsgroup) Maybe there is a problem in the USA, where opticians aren't supposed or allowed to use their brains. Living in The Netherlands, this is an unknown problem. (that's to say, if you are dealing with a real optician) Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > Why do some opticians refuse to make > reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -1.25 +1.00 005 +2.50 > plano +0.25 35 +2.50 There is no difficulty for a real optician.(like Robert Martellaro in this newsgroup) Maybe there is a problem in the USA, where opticians aren't supposed or allowed to use their brains. Living in The Netherlands, this is an unknown problem. (that's to say, if you are dealing with a real optician) Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Jan's answer scores a direct hit. The optician forwarded our request for reading/computer glasses to the ophthalmologist via the doc's tech, who placed our request on the doc's desk. Two days later we returned to the optician who had the old prescription revised by a +1.25 for reading. I doubt it required an M.D. to divide +2.50 by 2. Close, but still no cigar: The optician could now make me reading and distance glasses, but not reading and computer -- because clearly only the doctor knows how far away my computer screen sits. How could the patient possibly know? H.K. > Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > > Why do some opticians refuse to make [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Jan's answer scores a direct hit. The optician > forwarded our request for reading/computer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reading. I doubt it required an M.D. to divide > +2.50 by 2. I'm confused. The "add" of +2.50 should have been for reading. The -1.25 and the +2.50 should have been added together, giving +1.25 for the first eye, and the zero (plano) should have been added to the +2.50 giving +2.50 for the second eye. There's no division required, AFAIK, which isn't much. > Close, but still no cigar: The optician could now > make me reading and distance glasses, but not > reading and computer -- because clearly only the > doctor knows how far away my computer screen > sits. How could the patient possibly know? How the heck would the OMD know how far away your personal computer screen was without measuring it? And they don't make house calls. The doctor could guess or have you look at a computer in the office. Better yet, measure it yourself.  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > Jan's answer scores a direct hit. The optician > forwarded our request for reading/computer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > doctor knows how far away my computer screen > sits. How could the patient possibly know? I should say you can. Take a seat in front of your screen as you are used to and measure the distance eye - screen, not difficult at all. The addition of +1,25 dpt on top of the prescription for distance gives a working distance of 100/1.25 = 80 cm. (no accommodation needed) If you still have the possibility to accommodate 0.5 dpts on your own , you get a working distance range from 100/1.75 = 57cm to 100/1.25 = 80cm If you have +0.25 dpt left to accommodate the range is 67cm to 80 cm If you want a working distance of about 67 cm and having no accommodating left you need an addition of +1.50 dpt. The above is is only meant for your (Herbert) needs. Your first addition of +2.50 for reading close (40 cm) says you have little to non accommodation left. As far as I know an optician in the USA is not allowed to make this decision on his own. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Jan, you and Dr. Abel missed the sarcasm in my question, "How can the patient possibly know?" Of course the patient knows; it's the doctor who does not know the distance to the computer. So why must the optician consult the doctor? The upshot is that we didn't have time for a third iteration with the doctor, filled the original prescription, and now my wife is using non-prescription readers from the drug store. I believe the story would have concluded better in your country. H.K. > Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > > Jan's answer scores a direct hit. The optician [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Jan, you and Dr. Abel missed the sarcasm in > my question, "How can the patient possibly know?" > Of course the patient knows; it's the doctor who > does not know the distance to the computer. So > why must the optician consult the doctor? Because opticians are not legally allowed to write or alter a prescription. In Canada they are allowd to add distance and add together to generate a SV reader, but cannot change the add to generate a computer Rx. This would have worked better if you had called the doctor yourself and asked for computer glasses, giving the doc the distance to your computer. Dr Judy > The upshot is that we didn't have time for a third > iteration with the doctor, filled the original prescription, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Jan, you and Dr. Abel missed the sarcasm in > my question, "How can the patient possibly know?" That's newsgroups. People say the most outrageous things, so the tendency is to take people literally, unless they follow their sarasm or joke with a smiley symbol like this: :-) SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > Jan, you and Dr. Abel missed the sarcasm in > my question, "How can the patient possibly know?" I have thought about it, but being careful, I did go for an safe answer. > Of course the patient knows; it's the doctor who > does not know the distance to the computer. He could have asked for what purpose you wanted your prescription, a quite normal question for an optometrist and quite normal to prescribe according to these findings. BTW, you mentioned you have visit an ophthalmologist instead of an optometrist. Seeing the "+" notation of the cylinder it could be true. Although an ophthalmologist should be capable in prescribing for glasses, it is my opinion an optometrist (in general) performs better in this field of eyecare. > The upshot is that we didn't have time for a third > iteration with the doctor, filled the original prescription, > and now my wife is using non-prescription readers > from the drug store. Then your wife's vision when working at the computer isn't what it should be, namely comfortable. > -1.25 +1.00 005 +2.50 > plano +0.25 35 +2.50 For the computer only your wife's prescription should have shown this S+1,00=C-1,00 95 S+1,50=C-0,25 125 For bifocal or progressives (multifocal) at the computer and reading nearby it should be. (no distancepower) S+1,00=C-1,00 95 add 1,25 S+1,50=C-0,25 125 add 1,25 BTW, in The Netherlands we have glasses just designed for such a purpose and I'm almost certain they exist to in the USA. Differences in spherical power and in cylinder power made your decision to buy a drugstore spectacle a more or less bad choice. THE reason why of the counter glasses are NOT preferred in general, they simply are only meant for use in need, when you forgot your glasses. Why? Right and left the lenses of these kind of glasses have the same spherical power and that's not what your wife is needing. My advise? Buy her a pair of glasses made properly, she love you (even more)for it. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Herbert.Kocks@gmail.com schreef: > Jan, you and Dr. Abel missed the sarcasm in > my question, "How can the patient possibly know?" I have thought about it, but being careful, I did go for an safe answer. > Of course the patient knows; it's the doctor who > does not know the distance to the computer. He could have asked for what purpose you wanted your prescription, a quite normal question for an optometrist and quite normal to prescribe according to these findings. BTW, you mentioned you have visit an ophthalmologist instead of an optometrist. Seeing the "+" notation of the cylinder it could be true. Although an ophthalmologist should be capable in prescribing for glasses, it is my opinion an optometrist (in general) performs better in this field of eyecare. > The upshot is that we didn't have time for a third > iteration with the doctor, filled the original prescription, > and now my wife is using non-prescription readers > from the drug store. Then your wife's vision when working at the computer isn't what it should be, namely comfortable. > -1.25 +1.00 005 +2.50 > plano +0.25 35 +2.50 For the computer only your wife's prescription should have shown this S+1,00=C-1,00 95 S+1,50=C-0,25 125 For bifocal or progressives (multifocal) at the computer and reading nearby it should be. (no distancepower) S+1,00=C-1,00 95 add 1,25 S+1,50=C-0,25 125 add 1,25 BTW, in The Netherlands we have glasses just designed for such a purpose and I'm almost certain they exist too in the USA. Differences in spherical power and in cylinder power made your decision to buy a drugstore spectacle a more or less bad choice. THE reason why of the counter glasses are NOT preferred in general, they simply are only meant for use in need, when you forgot your glasses. Why? Right and left the lenses of these kind of glasses have the same spherical power and that's not what your wife is needing. My advise? Buy her a pair of glasses made properly, she love you (even more)for it. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > He could have asked for what purpose you wanted your prescription, a > quite normal question for an optometrist and quite normal to prescribe > according to these findings. But, not a normal question for an optician, which, at least in the US, is quite different from an optometrist. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Scott Seidman schreef: >> He could have asked for what purpose you wanted your prescription, a >> quite normal question for an optometrist and quite normal to prescribe >> according to these findings. > > But, not a normal question for an optician, which, at least in the US, is > quite different from an optometrist. > Of course the patient knows; it's the doctor who > does not know the distance to the computer. It is clear I did respond on "the doctor" as seen above. However, in The Netherlands it's quite normal to have glasses prescribed by opticians , legally of course. About 97% of the glasses are. And our blindness percentage is still small, thanks to these opticians who are sending every suspicious looking refraction to an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. I suppose real opticians in your country are clever enough to perform the same. Look at the history of America's optometrists, who lays the foundations of the optometry profession you think, ophthalmologists or opticians? Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Scott Seidman schreef: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) They may be clever enough, but they're certainly not trained enough. Pharmacists are pretty smart too, but they don't write prescriptions. I presume you guys also have an orthoptist or two hanging around. You won't see those in the US very often, if at all. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Scott Seidman schreef: >> Scott Seidman schreef: >> I suppose real opticians in your country are clever enough to perform >> the same. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > They may be clever enough, but they're certainly not trained enough. You are right, the profession has forgotten there earlier skills. > I presume you guys also have an orthoptist or two hanging around. You > won't see those in the US very often, if at all. Orthopsy and optometry are melting together nowadays in my country , the real orthoptists left(almost only women) are working under supervision of ophthalmologists in hospitals. In general you can find optometrists working together with ophthalmologists in the same office (hospitals) ore in optical shops. Some optometrists have tried to make a living just as an optometrist however in my country there is no way to earn your money properly doing so. In the USA it is easier, opticians are not allowed to prescribe for glasses. In general prescribing for glasses didn't concern ophthalmologists either in the US. (also not in my country) So work enough besides your job, in finding, or finding no pathology as an American optometrist. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Scott Seidman schreef: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Look at the history of America's optometrists, who lays the foundations > of the optometry profession you think, ophthalmologists or opticians? In Europe, many countries do not have optometrists and "opticians" function much as optometrists. In NA, opticians are not trained or licensed to do refractions. Dr Judy >> Scott Seidman schreef: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >function much as optometrists. In NA, opticians are not trained or >licensed to do refractions. In the UK I believe it's the difference between Ophthalmic Opticians and Dispensing Opticians. The former do the eye testing and the latter don't. Ann >In NA, opticians are not trained or >licensed to do refractions. or to dispense ophthalmic lenses (in the U.S.), except for a handful of states that require an AAS degree in opticianry, and about 15 more states that require ABO certification. In the other 30 states anyone can fit (sell) prescription eyeglasses. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr Dear Herbert, This tends to be a Majority/Second Opinion issue WIth plano, you most likely have 20/20 in that eye. You would pass the DMV leve test. Further with a -1.25 in one eye, you have natural mono-vision. Thus, if you are over 45 years old you have the best of both "worlds". You can see clearly at distance, and would have no need for a lens at near (the refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters will take care of your near vision quite nicely. So the second-opinion would be to omit the use of glasses -- unless you have a strong desire to wear them. Best, Otis > Why do some opticians refuse to make > reading/computer glasses based on a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks, H.K. |
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.