any copyrighted mat'l following is reproduced consistent with the Fair Use Doctrine, which means it's excerpted for nonprofit educational use.
***quote from 20/20 Magazine, Sept. 2003:
____________________________________________________________ ____
MISCONCEPTION #4:
Glass super-high index is okay in the U.S. with a signed release from doctor and patient.
Super-high index glass is popular in other countries; however, it has not taken off at the same rate here in the U.S. The likely cause for this is our stringent impact resistant standards, as stated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Such thin lenses will not pass the drop ball test (5/8 inch steel ball dropped 50 inches), which is required for all glass lenses dispensed in the ophthalmic market here. For a while, it was thought that, with a signed waiver from the doctor and patient, the dispenser and manufacturer would not be liable if an eye injury occurred. However, the FDA has stated that such waivers are not acceptable, and the dispenser and/or lens manufacturer would indeed be responsible and liable if such a tragedy were to occur. Given the trend for safety and "Duty to Warn," the trend to dispense more plastic-type lenses will probably continue.
____________________________________________________________ ____
***end quote
Is "waivers not acceptable" the truth?
I have seen a large poster on the wall of one of my optometrists for TLC refractive surgery superstores. The poster depicted an Olympic gold medalist and the large heading, "4 Gold Medals - 2 perfect eyes" and something about LASIK and getting the optometrist's referral. On the bottom, in small print, was the disclaimer, "Individual results may vary."
~~~~~How come no amount of warning is sufficient for dispensing glass spectacle lenses, while "individual results may vary" is sufficient for invasive surgery in which a wound is created INTENTIONALLY and then the wound's healing is "managed" in an attempt to reproduce the vision already being achieved with glasses?~~~~~
How come some optometrists or opticians are refusing to dispense glass while seeking and accepting finders' fees for invasive surgery? Somebody in opticianry is not using the same lawyers or the same insurance companies as the surgeons... Why the inconsistency of "no glass lenses because the risk is too great", sometimes in the actual shadows of 30-foot LASIK billboards? With glass lenses, there is an unquantified theoretical risk that you may get a cut in your eye. With heavily-promoted refractive surgery such as LASIK, there is an absolute certainty of cutting, deeply, into BOTH CORNEAS, intentionally, on purpose! How can optometrists take finders' fees or even do a free referral for elective incisional surgery and tell patients that their risk-benefit analysis does not permit them to dispense glass? I'm sorry, but that's insane. I'm sure that even some refractive surgeons themselves are giving this conflicting advice.
Because of photochromic lenses, I have worn glass photochromics since they were fairly new. My first pair was DRILLED, too, although I now enjoy semi-rimless monofilament frames. I read in an industry document that 64% of requests for glass are for photochromic lenses. Makes sense. While I have no connection whatsoever with Corning, I wanted to try updating with Thin&Dark gray and Photobrown Autumn Gold Thin & Dark. (I currently use an older Photgray formulation.) And with roughly -6.25D on both sides, even the dreaded semi-rimless should have the right thickness to groove the lenses. I'm getting tired of switching optometrists all the time and hunting for dispensers who will supply my consumer demand, especially in a climate where invasive surgery is pushed like bad drugs. It's quite ironic. Think about it.
I've spent significant time researching this odd commercial situation. Here are my findings, and if I could have found this info easily, I wouldn't have had to dig it up myself:
1. Suppliers have manipulated demand by actively discouraging glass lenses.
2. Glass lenses are always discouraged for reasons OTHER THAN optical excellence:
a) Plastic weighs less - but the weight of glass lenses doesn't bother everybody.
b) The fear of injury and lawsuits is exaggerated, and risk is much lower than other heavily advertised modes of vision "correction." Incidence of harm attributable to use of glass lenses is so rare that cases are difficult to discover, and glass lenses are subjected to the same shock tests as plastic.
c) Plastic lenses wear out faster because their scratch-resistance is so much lower than that of glass. However, from the perspective of the dispensing optician, this allows more product-replacement sales.
d) Patients are told that plastic photochromic lenses of today are no longer optically inferior to glass, which is false.
Photochromic action reduces over time in plastic, while this reduction of function is insignificant in glass. Plastic also produces more lens-induced peripheral distortion. Even Corning's plastics aren't as good optically as their glass. Also, Corning Thin & Dark (glass) is the only photochromic that has some function behind windows.
e) Suppliers have created a self-fulfilling prophesy in saying nobody uses glass any more; they are the ones in a position to advise patients.
f) The result of the above is a shortage of equipment and skilled professionals who can produce glass lenses.
g) Competition for fast turnaround time works against glass. Plastic lenses are the only ones that can be produced in an hour at a shopping mall by lower-skilled, lower-paid technicians.
3. Glass rimless that's drilled was outlawed by the FDA or the FTC sometime in the 1970s - the government must have been too busy approving RK scalpels and laser surgery machines. [I actually had a drilled glass rimless, one of the first Photograys, that SAVED my eye in a car crash many years ago.]
4. Grooved-edge semi-rimless glasses (using monofilament "fishline") with glass lenses are completely legal in the USA, if you can still find somebody who knows how to do it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. In my search for information, I have also learned that:
nobody in photography wants plastic camera lenses, unless they can't afford glass,
nobody in optometry wants plastic lenses in the exam chair kit.
Although I am a mere consumer researcher, I can assemble a semi-rimless pair of GLASSes as well as the best of you. Just groove 'em for me, will ya? People who like glass semi-rimless lenses are not terrible persons. I used to get service with a smile as I purchased these premium-cost products. Now, too many vendors treat me like I just robbed a bank! There's a matter of professional tact here, too. If vendors can't do it, or won't do it, they should be happy to send you to a competitor -or foreign country- who will. ...as opposed to the old switcheroo. And as for Corning, they could use a better PR department. How about using a LASIK consent form, that says at the bottom, "either party may instead opt for glass eyeglass lenses, as long as we're talking risk."?
Gary Vatter
Massachusetts, USA
Bookmarks