| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » why are prescriptions required for eyes?
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bucky |
 Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com |
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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.
On Jan 26, 1:08 pm, "Bucky" <uw_badg...@email.com> wrote:
Quote: 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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark A |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 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).
If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone to only
make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all refractions have be
done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would have to be.
One could argue about how long a refraction should be valid for before it
expires, and in some states a Rx for contacts expires one year after the
exam date, and in other states it is two years or longer. But expiration of
a professionally done refraction is different than coming up with a new Rx
on your own.
But (if you really, really want to) there is always Photoshop. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bucky |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jan 26, 7:38 pm, "doctor_my_...@msn.com" <doctor_my_...@msn.com>
wrote:
Quote: 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 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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bucky |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Quote: If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone to only
make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all refractions have be
done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would have to be.
No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
prescription, just like we can buy shoes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark A |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169885223.572730.225650@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
prescription, just like we can buy shoes.
You can buy reading glasses at a discount store without an Rx.
If you can legally alter your own Rx for contacts, then you are refracting
yourself without a license.
If you want to purchase lenses outside of the US, then there are some
websites where you can just tell them your refraction without written copy
of an Rx (I know they will do it for glasses, but not sure about contacts).
Most of these sites will ship to the US. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Charles |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bucky wrote:
Quote: On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone
to only make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all
refractions have be done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would
have to be.
No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
prescription, just like we can buy shoes.
You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
with no Rx though.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Charles,
It is also legal to buy blood-pressure measuring equipment
over-the-counter.
Thus if you check you B.P. and find 120/80 you indeed
have no problem.
It is also legal to buy plus and minus lenses and look
through them.
You can buy them on the internet (a pair for $10).
You can also find a Snellen on the internet.
If you are reading the Snellen at 20/70, and find
a -1.25 diopter minus lens "clears" the 20/20 line,
then that is indeed your refractive STATE.
The issue is this. Do you have the right to do this?
If you wished you could go to the OD and have him
check. His methods are the same a per above.
He will check for retinal problems (organic) and
the like. But once it is clear that a -1.25 diopter
will clear the 20/20 line -- then you do have a choice
in where you obtain that minus lens.
Given the availablity of minus lenses of various powers,
you could determine your own refractive STATE if
you choose to do so.
Otis
On Jan 27, 9:21 am, "Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Quote: Bucky wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone
to only make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all
refractions have be done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would
have to be.
No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
prescription, just like we can buy shoes.You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
with no Rx though.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mark A |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Charles" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WdJuh.1160015$084.401166@attbi_s22...
Quote: You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
with no Rx though.
Unless the website business is operating outside the US, then you must send
or fax a copy to them of the Rx, or provide the phone number of the OD so
they can verify. But there are some websites that are outside of the US that
will make any pair of lenses you want without an Rx. I don't know about
contacts, but I would bet you could order whatever you want from some
places.
Even though they will ship to the US, it probably is illegal to do so, just
like it is technically illegal to purchase drugs from Canada and have them
shipped to the US. But I doubt that the customs services has stopped very
many of these shipments of lenses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Victek |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169838513.826547.317770@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CatmanX |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Literally, prescribe means before (pre) and write (scribe). It is
simply putting the numbers down on paper.
Why does it have to come from a licensed practitioner? Because there
are laws that say such. The laws were enacted as professions became
licensed and responsible for their actions, as well to protect the
professions. The wrong glasses can cause problems with depth
perception and acuity, thus causing drivers to crash and injure
people. They can cause eyestrain, double vision and headache.
You can also read posts from Cletis in this NG which is probably the
best reason not to allow open slather prescribing. The government
decided to protect the public from themselves and deluded individuals
like Cletis.
dr grant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <E4Muh.23139$yC5.22576@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
"Victek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
Quote: 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?
The examples you gave are regulated. Still, there's a lot of dangerous
machinery that aren't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
Quote: The issue is this. Do you have the right to do this?
You have a very narrow and distorted idea of the issues.
What are the chances your technique will yield an accurate prescription?
Don't you realize that people OVERestimate the amount of minus needed when
they attempt self-refraction?
And even so, do you just ignore astigmatism?
Quote: If you wished you could go to the OD and have him
check. His methods are the same a per above.
In your dreams.
Quote: Given the availablity of minus lenses of various powers,
you could determine your own refractive STATE if
you choose to do so.
You might get a reasonable estimate but I guarantee that novices, especially
nearsighted young people, will on average OVERestimate their own refraction.
If that's what you want then you can sleep well at night.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Charles |
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victek wrote:
Quote:
"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.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:30 pm
|
|