Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008
Optometrists are too anxious to change perscription?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C - 29 Mar 2008 15:46 GMT Every time I go to the optometrist, they want to slightly change my prescription. I always resist these changes for the following reasons:
1) I used to go to the optometrist yearly. Every year, they would change a lens (and it was always the opposite lens as the year before). They wouldn't change the prescription much, but as soon as they would change a lens, my opposite eye would get a bit lazy and lose some of it's acuity. Ironically, when I quick going to optometrist, my vision never declined any further. Yes, the opposite eye lost some of it's acuity, but as long as they weren't changing lens, it never declined. Thus, I am somewhat suspicious that lens changes permit my eyes to be lazy and they decline. Whereas, if I make the eyes work, they won't decline. I should point out that the corrections they are making are never that large, and my vision is usually 20/20 (or slightly better) in the eye they did the most recent lens change in, and something just less than 20/20 in the other.
2) My vision changes from day to day. If I've had several good nights sleep, and it is early in the morning my vision is clear. If I have been working long hours (with little sleep), my vision will decline throughout the day. But my vision always seems to restore itself once I've had a few days of rest. Consequently, when the optometrist wants to change my prescription, I half suspect that on a different day, the results of the test may be different.
3) It is very costly to change my prescription, because I have contact lens, and two pairs of glasses. I find that when they change my prescription (even when it is a slight change), it is hard to go back to the old glasses. Consequently, a prescription change means a large cost.
Currently, my lens in one pair of glasses is all scratched up, and they will not replace lens without a current prescription. Thus, I need to go back to the optometrist. How do I ensure that they aren't "over-prescribing"? The last optometrist wanted to change the prescription of my one eye slightly, but when I challenged her on it, she agreed it wasn't necessary. But educated professionals don't like to be challenged. What is the best way for me to challenge an optometrist? What questions should I be asking? How do I do it without offending.
Thank you for your insights.
Chris
Zetsu - 29 Mar 2008 16:16 GMT 1. (a) Glasses are detrimental. (b) Eyecare is a profession of guesswork and failure, not of facts and success.
2. (a) Vision is always changing. (b) Rest improves the sight.
3. Eyecare is a lucrative business.
4. "Educated professional don't like to be challenged". I agree, to somewhat of an extent.
Mike Tyner - 29 Mar 2008 20:09 GMT > 1. (a) Glasses are detrimental. Like hearing aids, artificial knees and pacemakers.
-MT
Mark A - 29 Mar 2008 20:24 GMT > Every time I go to the optometrist, they want to slightly change my > prescription. I always resist these changes for the following reasons: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Chris If you don't want to change your Rx every year, don't get an exam every year.
Some opticians will replace an existing lens without an Rx based on the existing lens power.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Mar 2008 02:54 GMT > 3) It is very costly to change my prescription, because I have contact lens, > and two pairs of glasses. I find that when they change my prescription > (even when it is a slight change), it is hard to go back to the old glasses. > Consequently, a prescription change means a large cost. KaaChing!
> Every time I go to the optometrist, they want to slightly change my > prescription. I always resist these changes for the following reasons: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Chris otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Mar 2008 03:00 GMT And of course the expert second-opinion:
I have yet to hear of a research paper confirming the beneficial effect of prescribing compensatory lenses. I am sure most optometrists will confirm the clinical observation that patients who receive compensatory lenses for full time wear are usually the ones who need a stronger prescription every year.
J. Liberman OD, PhD
On Mar 29, 9:54 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> > 3) It is very costly to change my prescription, because I have contact lens, > > and two pairs of glasses. I find that when they change my prescription [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dr. Leukoma - 30 Mar 2008 03:35 GMT On Mar 29, 9:00 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> And of course the expert second-opinion: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > J. Liberman OD, PhD I can also confirm from first-hand experience that when one gets shoes for full time wear, one will need a larger and larger shoe each year until adulthood....ditto shirts, pants, etc., etc.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Mar 2008 05:57 GMT And of course, rather than being "safe" as the majority-opinion OD might WISH, there is a problem with it:
The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave (minus) lenses themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade ago, many other optometrists appear to have the same idea. Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal
> On Mar 29, 9:00 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for full time wear, one will need a larger and larger shoe each year > until adulthood....ditto shirts, pants, etc., etc. Neil Brooks - 30 Mar 2008 06:35 GMT Until my wife finally had PRK, she was a stable low myope for some 20+ years, through school, college, and a Master's degree.
She wore her minus lenses the entire time.
What happened, Otis?
Why does your theory fall apart in the real world?
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Mar 2008 15:04 GMT On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> And of course, rather than being "safe" as the majority-opinion OD > might WISH, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the same idea. > Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal, March 15, 1946.
Yes, blow the one inch of accumulated dust off that journal so we might have a look, eh?
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Mar 2008 15:26 GMT On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of > progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave (minus) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the same idea. > Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal One year ago I prescribed a minus prescription with a bifocal for a young myopic lady who demonstrated nearpoint esophoria and accommodative lag. I followed Dr. FA Young's advice to the letter. Yesterday I found that her myopia increased a full diopter from one year ago (manifest and cycloplegic).
WWOD in this situation?
Neil Brooks - 30 Mar 2008 16:03 GMT > On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > WWOD in this situation? Blame the patient for "lacking personal resolve" or "will" or "intestinal fortitude" or "intellectual capacity," or some such tripe.
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Mar 2008 22:30 GMT > > WWOD in this situation? > > Blame the patient for "lacking personal resolve" or "will" or > "intestinal fortitude" or "intellectual capacity," or some such tripe.- Wrong. He would ignore the data because it didn't fit the hypothesis.
Neil Brooks - 30 Mar 2008 06:34 GMT > I can also confirm from first-hand experience that when one gets shoes > for full time wear, one will need a larger and larger shoe each year > until adulthood....ditto shirts, pants, etc., etc. My hair didn't REALLY start growing until my first haircut.
Otis? The evidence all contradicts you, there, buddy.
Even in the chicken and monkey tests that YOU love, short breaks (NOT suturing a lens onto an animal that sees 20/20 and doesn't NEED the lens) prevented any change in the underlying vision.
But why would anybody suture a lens onto an animal that doesn't need the lens?
Frequent breaks, lots of fresh air and exercise, meticulous visual hygiene, and "periocular warming."
Better than ANYTHING Otis Brown will EVER say, AND based on science, not faith.
C - 01 Apr 2008 01:42 GMT It looks like my email touched on a sensitive subject, which unfortunately, did not generate many answers to my questions. What questions should I be asking to ensure that my perscription is not unecessarily changed?
Thank you,
> Every time I go to the optometrist, they want to slightly change my > prescription. I always resist these changes for the following reasons: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Chris Charles - 01 Apr 2008 02:00 GMT > It looks like my email touched on a sensitive subject, which unfortunately, > did not generate many answers to my questions. What questions should I be > asking to ensure that my perscription is not unecessarily changed? I don't think the optometrists are anxious to change prescriptions The optometrist goes by what you tell him/her during the refraction. If you recall they put up lenses and say is this better, or is this better. Is this better or is this better until you can't tell the difference. You don't say how old you are but if you are myopic it will change for a number of years and then stop. That is normal.
Have a discussion with the optometrist and tell him that you are satisfied with your current prescription. If the changes are really small as you say then you can probably convince him not to change your prescription. I have in the many years I have had exams, every year, both convinced, the optometrist not to change the prescription. And I have also convinced the optometrist to make a small change. It is not a matter of challenging them but of getting the best prescription and you being happy with it. I don't see why you think they would want to over prescribe. They can only figure out your prescription from you feedback during the exam!
 Signature Charles
|
|
|