 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2008Visit to Optician
I went to see the optician on Monday. They're usually very good and won't prescribe something unless it's needed. They'll even say I don't need glasses if my prescription amounts to anything like 0.50 longsightedness or astigmatism. They talk me out of glasses. So I had the eye test. They went through very checks. Vertical prism was something like "2", while horizontal prism came out at something ridiculous like 12 base out under the maddox. But of course, that's disassociative and with non-disassociative tests and real life, Im fine. He tried me out with 0.5 dioptre vertical prism in either direction on each lens and I seemed to prefer reading the charts on this. But as it only seemed to change the position of the picture, and other non- disassociative tests (white X and a red +) showed the horizontal lines out of alignment with the prism, I was quite insistant not to go for them. The optician still recommended a pair of glasses with anti-glare as he felt it would help with night driving and computer use. Well. I went through with it. Im now just waiting for them to be made up. But I got home and began to fume as I read my prescription. -0.50 astigmatism in each eye. Is that it? That warrants glasses? Shoul I be trying to get my money back on grounds that I've been swindled, cheated and sold something I don't need, or should I just see if I get any improvement? Was I right about prism? And what should I do about this prescription lark? Worth getting glasses or not? Cya Simon PS 31, usually slightly longsighted, no real change in prescription for 10 years. Otherwise excellent eyesight, but a pair I had made up a few years back makes an incredible difference, but I try not to wear them as another optician said at such a low prescription, the huge improvement they make is actualy unnatural and probably contributed to my visual issues a couple years back. In article <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > But I got home and began to fume as I read my prescription. -0.50 > astigmatism in each eye. Is that it? That warrants glasses? Yes. If you find that they are more trouble than they are worth, then you won't wear them. If they help more than they hinder, then you probably will.  SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net > In article > <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you won't wear them. If they help more than they hinder, then you > probably will. Ok, that's a relief then... I think. I've just known some opticians who won't bother with anything that low, suggesting it could even just be a blip on that day as Im up and down from year to year. Is it just personal preference by the optician then at the end of the day? Glasses will help if you need to read small details at great distance, esp in the dark (eg license tags and street numbers). They might help your near vision but if you don't need near correction most people would take them off except to drive or watch a movie. I get suspicious when someone sells glasses to "reduce glare." In optics, "glare" and "blur" are not the same thing, tho they may have similar results. But glasses normally reduce blur and _increase_ glare, defined as competing internal reflections, flare and haze that come with real-world spectacle lenses, with their fingerprints and nosegrease. Next suggestion is to use prism only to solve problems. If you weren't having performance issues, or problems with diplopia or asthenopia, head tilt or turn, my training says leave it alone. Prescribing for every little anomaly generally makes people unhappy and it's astounding how many would be more comfortable withOUT this or that, but they suffer thru just because someone told them they "need it." Don't fix what ain't broke. -MT >> In article >> <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Is it just personal preference by the optician then at the end of the day? > Glasses will help if you need to read small details at great distance, esp > in the dark (eg license tags and street numbers). They might help your near [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > suffer thru just because someone told them they "need it." Don't fix what > ain't broke. As I can't be asked to go to my car to get the results, I've always been slightly longsighted, never more than about 0.50 in each eye (plus or minus whatever it is for longsightedness). Glasses in the past, even with very slight longsightedness and slight astigmatism as I have said have helped previously. Text becomes a lot clearer, and find text especially becomes black and not grey as it normally appears to me. It's a lot more focussed with glasses. But I can still see without quite well. But with longsighted corrective glasses, my distance vision is atrocious. I can't see how they would help with driving. Maybe I should consult a legal newsgroup, because I think in Britain we have a recourse for being sold something that we don't need. My eye doc reckons I do have a very slight head tilt, but I don't get diplopia (double vision right). I've never heard of asthenopia, but sounds interesting, as the areas around my eyes feels tired constantly. What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?). Cheers Simon > But with longsighted corrective glasses, my distance vision is atrocious. > I can't see how they would help with driving. Maybe I should consult a > legal newsgroup, because I think in Britain we have a recourse for being > sold something that we don't need. Probably not justified, when everyone else eventually wears reading glasses that make our faraway vision much worse than that. If you think this is bad, wait til you're fifty. Glasses should address a problem. If you reported a problem with your near vision, they made an appropriate recommendation. I'm not sure why they would recommend you wear them to drive. I'm not sure they meant to say that. In their defence, many people in your situation find distance correction blurry at first and welcome later. You've reported that the glasses made your vision better at near. Knowing your Rx and guessing at your age, near asthenopia (discomfort) is pretty much expected in the longsighted. Near complaints increase with age. Eventually, +050 will make the difference between legible and illegible up close. Until then, glasses are expected to reduce discomfort. If they help up close, it may not be reasonable to expect them to help far away. Not everything you heard was accurate, but there's no big tort. -MT >> Glasses will help if you need to read small details at great distance, >> esp in the dark (eg license tags and street numbers). They might help [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Cheers > Simon > What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in > the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?). Monocular diplopia. Some degree of it is normal. There are four causes. Usually it's only visible at the extremes of focus, so if you fix the long-or-shortsightedness, the diplopia becomes less noticeable. And it disappears in bright light, or thru a pinhole. Haloes and rings are different. -MT >> What's the term for the issue where if you look at a light with one eye in >> the dark, you see two of them (or at least you see a halo?). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Haloes and rings are different. Halo was the wrong thing I think. It's like if I look at an LED light in the dark from a distance, I see a lighter shadow of itself sort of down and to the right. My last pair of glass I had made up were terrible. Because I was slightly long sighted, they were made to this. It means I could see close up things really well, but distance was abysmal. These new pair of glasses I have are incredible. Near objects are incredibly sharp. And distance objects. I looked at a TV screen about 10 metres away. I didn't realise just how blurry it was until I popped on the glasses. Incredible. I take it this is just the results from the astigmatism correction? But, and here's the question, is it normal to have some blurriness, or should things definitely be sharp? Cheers Simon > I looked at a TV screen about 10 metres away. I didn't realise just how > blurry it was until I popped on the glasses. Incredible. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But, and here's the question, is it normal to have some blurriness, or > should things definitely be sharp? That's a pretty vague question. Is it normal to have blurriness without glasses? Yes. Should things be sharp with glasses? Yes. But there are exceptions; sometimes making the far vision clear "should" make the near vision blurry. And vice versa. -MT In article <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a588498b8@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > I went to see the optician on Monday. They're usually very good and > won't prescribe something unless it's needed. They'll even say I don't > need glasses if my prescription amounts to anything like 0.50 > longsightedness or astigmatism. They talk me out of glasses. Where did you go? Opticians in most states are not allowed to prescribe. Bill SignaturePrivate Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall! > In article > <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a58849...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where did you go? Opticians in most states are not allowed to prescribe. Simon's all kinds of British, if I recall correctly. >> In article >> <34a91a8b-06a0-4060-a87d-753a58849...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Simon's all kinds of British, if I recall correctly. Yeah... Im British. English. Brummish even (that Im from Birmingham and we're called Brummies here). That's your free geography lesson for the day! Cya Simon |
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
|
©2009 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.