Victek wrote:



"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
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).

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally required
is to minimize the risk of operating dangerous machinery, such as
automobiles. Can you imagine drivers, pilots, ship captains, etc.
self-prescribing? People cannot be trusted to be responsible and use
common sense in such situations. How could you even tell if you hit
on the correct prescription?

None of these professions require proof of a doctor's prescription,
only proof that you can see.

In article <e8cvh.325345$FQ1.267115@attbi_s71>,
"Charles" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Victek wrote:



"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
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).

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally
required is to minimize the risk of operating dangerous
machinery, such as automobiles. Can you imagine drivers, pilots,
ship captains, etc. self-prescribing? People cannot be trusted
to be responsible and use common sense in such situations. How
could you even tell if you hit on the correct prescription?

None of these professions require proof of a doctor's prescription,
only proof that you can see.

Not my experience. If you fail the vision screening, then you don't
get a driver's license without a form from an eye doctor. I've done
this twice, my wife once.

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally
required is to minimize the risk of operating dangerous
machinery, such as automobiles. Can you imagine drivers, pilots,
ship captains, etc. self-prescribing? People cannot be trusted
to be responsible and use common sense in such situations. How
could you even tell if you hit on the correct prescription?

None of these professions require proof of a doctor's prescription,
only proof that you can see.

Not my experience. If you fail the vision screening, then you don't
get a driver's license without a form from an eye doctor. I've done
this twice, my wife once.

What I mean is, I can self prescribe my glasses so long as I pass the
vision test. The FAA/DMV doesn't care as long as I can see. The idea
that an Rx is required to protect the public from blind pilots doesn't
make sense.

Dan Abel wrote:
In article <e8cvh.325345$FQ1.267115@attbi_s71>,
"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

Victek wrote:

"Bucky" <uw_badg...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
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).

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally
required is to minimize the risk of operating dangerous
machinery, such as automobiles. Can you imagine drivers, pilots,
ship captains, etc. self-prescribing? People cannot be trusted
to be responsible and use common sense in such situations. How
could you even tell if you hit on the correct prescription?

None of these professions require proof of a doctor's prescription,
only proof that you can see.

Not my experience. If you fail the vision screening, then you don't
get a driver's license without a form from an eye doctor. I've done
this twice, my wife once.What I mean is, I can self prescribe my glasses so long as I pass the
vision test. The FAA/DMV doesn't care as long as I can see. The idea
that an Rx is required to protect the public from blind pilots doesn't
make sense.

--- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Assuming you had a trial-lens "frame", and
a box of trial lenses (in 1/4 diopter steps),
and a days traing and experience you
could probably determine your refractive STATE
that would not be much difference that
a measurement made in an office.

After all they are the same thing.

What the OD can do in his office is to check
for retinal-organic problems. And also
check for eye-ball pressure.

But once these items are cleared off the
table, then verifying your refractive STATE
would not take much training.

Assuming you had a trial-lens "frame", and
a box of trial lenses (in 1/4 diopter steps),
and a days traing and experience you
could probably determine your refractive STATE
that would not be much difference that
a measurement made in an office.

After all they are the same thing.

What the OD can do in his office is to check
for retinal-organic problems. And also
check for eye-ball pressure.

But once these items are cleared off the
table, then verifying your refractive STATE
would not take much training.

Just on man's opinion.

Otis

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Assuming you had a trial-lens "frame", and
a box of trial lenses (in 1/4 diopter steps),
and a days traing and experience you
could probably determine your refractive STATE
that would not be much difference that
a measurement made in an office.

And after all, getting a prescription that is somewhere in the ball park
is quite good enough, right?

After all they are the same thing.

In your little mind, perhaps they are.

What the OD can do in his office is to check
for retinal-organic problems. And also
check for eye-ball pressure.

But once these items are cleared off the
table, then verifying your refractive STATE
would not take much training.

How many patients have you refracted in this manner, and how did your
results compare to actual medically trained professionals who refracted
the same patients themselves?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally required is to
minimize the risk of operating dangerous machinery, such as automobiles.
Can you imagine drivers, pilots, ship captains, etc. self-prescribing?
People cannot be trusted to be responsible and use common sense in such
situations. How could you even tell if you hit on the correct prescription?

"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:

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).

I have mixed feelings. There is a podiatrist who visits my father's
Home. He gets a bunch of money for trimming toenails. It's all charged
to Medicare.

He wants my dad to get surgery. My sister takes him in to
a doctor. The doctor is not happy. My dad has one kidney. It barely
works. He is diabetic. He has no feeling in his feet. He is 90. He
has no problems with his feet other than needing the corns filed off.
He is not a candidate for this surgery.

Things are weird. I shared an office for five years with a woman who's
father was a pharmacist. They had prescription aspirin. The tens
require a prescription. Of course, you can just take two fives. No
prescription.

Still, I'm going to see the OD. If I had to pay for it, I might think
twice about it.