Labels are just labels. For adults, wearing glasses full-time or part-time
is a matter of preference.
-3 is "mild" only when compared to -6 or -10. You don't want -3 myopes
driving or operating cranes without glasses.
Other than treating amblyopia, I can't think of a reason to require anybody
to wear glasses during all waking hours.
Wearing full-time keeps them from getting lost. At $100-500 a pop, that's a
pretty compelling reason.
-MT
>I read that 'mild' myopia is up to -3 diopters. If it is mild as described
> can that justify wearing glasses full time?
> Labels are just labels. For adults, wearing glasses full-time or part-time
> is a matter of preference.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
The label mild doesn't imply not worth correcting. Many people with
myopia at the 1.00 level find their unaided vision annoying enough to
wear glasses full time. At -3 diopters everything further away than
33cm (about 1 foot) is blurred and since most of us do most of our
viewing at distances further away than 33cm, wearing glasses full time
usually is preferred.
Other than treating refractive amblyopia, there are no reasons to
require wearing glasses full time. In the same vein, there is no need
to "justify" wearing them full time, it is a matter of personal
preference. I know people who wear -0.50 most of the time and others
who wear -2.50 only to drive; the first likes to be able to see leaves
on trees, facial detail from across the street, etc, the second
doesn't care if the world is hazy.
If you, personally, prefer your vision with glasses, then wear them
full time; if you, personally, prefer a hazy world with soft edges,
only use them when detail matters. Don't expect others with a
similar refractive error to have the same preferences and don't harass
them to wear or not wear their glasses.
Dr Judy
Klaus - 01 Apr 2008 18:34 GMT
Dr Judy
Thank you for your well considered response to my question.
Klaus