On Jan 26, 7:38 pm, "doctor_my_...@msn.com" <doctor_my_...@msn.com>
wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting my question. You're talking about
licensed vs unlicensed. I'm talking about being legally required to
have a prescription to buy something.

Sure, the licensed professionals would be better choices for all of the
above examples, but I'm not required to have a prescription or see a
licensed professional to have a funeral, buy a toothbrush, buy dog
food, or hire a lawyer. I have a choice to do it myself (amateur).

A better analogy would be "Why do I need a licensed funeral director?
Why do I need a dentist?  Why do I need a licensed vet?  Why do I need
a lawyer? The answer, obviously, that all of the professions have
evolved over the centuries so that the individuals who practice those
professions have invested a lot of time, money and effort to  becoming
masters of their chosen professions.  They are the gatekeepers of the
information that you want to "play with" as an unlicensed
non-professional.

I can see why prescriptions are required for drugs, because those can
be easily abused or sold in the black market. But to me, eye
prescriptions don't seem that critical.

My analogy is shoes. You could probably mess up your
feet/knees/legs/back by wearing the wrong size or type of shoes, or
improper inserts long term. Yet a shoe prescription from a podiatrist
is not required for people to buy shoes.

Of course, everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally. But what's wrong with buying disposable contacts that
are a little higher or lower than your prescription to see how they
perform? You're not going to be seriously injured. Maybe get some
headaches or eyestrain, that's all. And if you do have problems, then
go see the optometrist (just like you'd see a podiatrist if shoes were
giving you problems).