|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » In denial
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dan Abel |
 Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167589084.603484.106840@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"Dr Judy" <mpace99@rogers.com> wrote:
Quote: Beyond the legal requirements, it is her choice whether to use the
glasses or not.
Of course, it is also a choice as to who is your friend. If your friend
doesn't listen to you, breaks your fine china and endangers people by
driving when they can't see... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jon via MedKB.com" <u12444@uwe> wrote
Quote: What do you consider to be **full time**
"All waking hours" is a typical description.
Quote: What reasons would make you insist on it for some who is -2.5
I can't think of any and I never insist on full time wear, except where kids
are likely to lose them or you work in a chemistry lab or there's some other
common-sense reason.
-MT, OD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <ws-dnYx2FetQhwXYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote: "Jon via MedKB.com" <u12444@uwe> wrote
What do you consider to be **full time**
"All waking hours" is a typical description.
Although they don't work well when bathing, since they fog up. I
always wore them swimming, so I could check out the girls. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dan Abel wrote:
Quote: In article <ws-dnYx2FetQhwXYnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Jon via MedKB.com" <u12444@uwe> wrote
What do you consider to be **full time**
"All waking hours" is a typical description.
Although they don't work well when bathing, since they fog up. I
always wore them swimming, so I could check out the girls.
Dear Dan Abel,
Now I see why you have retinal detachment.
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
William Stacy wrote:
Quote:
Well, I would think that a .25 cyl doesn't qualify as a significant
refractive error any more than a single sneeze qualifies as an upper
respiratory infection. But a -2.00 cyl certainly is an ICD 367.21 and
can cause a lot of suffering for the patient..
Not what I asked. Do you consider ametropia a disease (no matter what
degree) and do you tell your your patients that they are suffering
a disease? I'm not trying to be confrontational here but curious.
Wouldn't
that mean that refracting opticians are diagnosing and treating
eye disease?
A -2.00 uncorrected cyl can cause some asthenopia but I don't
consider that "suffering"- I've had patients in the past that have
been asymptomatic with this amount as well.
Happy new years!
frank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
