1968, Then you have not been following the thread or reading all the posts. Anyone can say they read them and say what you did. If you read the posts and see what people have posted you can see the true motive. If you can't so-be it:hammer:
1968, Then you have not been following the thread or reading all the posts. Anyone can say they read them and say what you did. If you read the posts and see what people have posted you can see the true motive. If you can't so-be it:hammer:
Ditto to you. I see where some Optiboard members have claimed success with low fit PALs but I don't see where any Optiboard member has claimed that patients should not be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks of any option. If you wish to address the honesty of other Optiboard members, your best bet is to take it up with them directly, rather than through me. Let me know when you plan to bring this back on topic.Originally Posted by jediron1
1968 your sarcasm begets you! You can believe what you want!
1968,
Jediron has been on this thread since it's start and had posting number 4, I jumped in with posting number 16.
In order to confirm our opinion I posted above quote from page 2 of this thread.
I don't think it is necessary to argue who read what, above quote coming from the lions mouth would just about confirm our opinion we have repetetly statet since the beginning of this thread which had already over 4,000 lookers.
Last edited by Chris Ryser; 12-02-2004 at 11:43 AM.
As usual Chris you make a great point! Nice job
There was nothing sarcastic about my post. If I said, "You are the master of the 'Hear! Hear!' argument" in reply to posts #194 and #205, that would be sarcasm. If I said, "Pick up a dictionary and learn the definition of 'sarcasm'", that would be advice.
Chris,
I have no beef with you. Pete’s opinion does “confirm” yours and that of jediron1… that low fitting PALs are not a good idea. And I completely agree with that. What I disagree with is the false alternative between vision and fashion that was posed in posts #163 (when you implied providing “maximum possible vision” is always our primary goal) and #199 (when you implied that the only corollary to that is “vision is not important because we are in fashion”).
My opinion on that particular point is that each patient ultimately decides the balance between vision and fashion that is best suited for him or her. We are indeed obligated to inform patients how that balance may be affected, so that is why I told jediron1 that patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option. If a dispenser feels that a drawback to a particular lens type would sacrifice “maximum possible vision” for fashion, then the patient certainly needs to be informed… to do otherwise is dishonest. (Here, I would add that claiming someone is dishonest for using low fitting PALs and claiming they are unwise for using low fitting PALs are two different things.)
1968 said:My opinion on that particular point is that each patient ultimately decides the balance between vision and fashion that is best suited for him or her. We are indeed obligated to inform patients how that balance may be affected, so that is why I told jediron1 that patients need to be made aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option. If a dispenser feels that a drawback to a particular lens type would sacrifice “maximum possible vision” for fashion, then the patient certainly needs to be informed… to do otherwise is dishonest. (Here, I would add that claiming someone is dishonest for using low fitting PALs and claiming they are unwise for using low fitting PALs are two different things.)
So since this is in YOUR OPINION, you mean to say that if the lens they chose (patient) would not be particularly good for them (visually) but they liked it fashion wise, you would sell it to them as long as they knew the pros and cons of there selection? :hammer:
I never said that it is our obligation to make a job that we feel isn't going to work for the patient.
And I hope the opinion that patients should be informed about the benefits and drawbacks associated with any option is not just mine.
Let me try to bring this back on topic.
I can't believe the number of people that seem to disagree with "low fitting ht" progressives. I wonder if all of you are in your 60's and have over 2.50 add's.
I have sold a couple of HUNDRED of these things and have had very few remakes (usually a patient that wants a shallow frame and a previous wearer that HAS been warned of the diffrence ). It's all about patient profiling!!
These lenses work great for 1st timers, High -, and when switching from st lenses. The facts are low add's (below 2.25ish) have enough residual accomadation to see intermed through the distance portion and the newest bonus is "flat pannel" monitors, they sit further away than a regular one.......do the math.......
I have fit a 3.00 add at 16mm. She needs the glasses in her workplace and is a hyperopic presbyopic. She loves them.
Last edited by For-Life; 12-03-2004 at 10:37 AM.
Big Brother Is watching...........................
Of course she loves them as a MIOP to walk around and go shopping and when she works close up jobs she just talkes the glasses off to get a proper sight.
I can just not get over the thought that professionals have been advised and instructed by the representative spokesman of the largest and original producer of progressive lenses ESSILOR, as per above quote, are still singing the song on how proud they are, having done a job that is wrong but the patient is happy.
I will now tell you something you might not have considered. This thread has gone on for quite a while, and has the following
4230 Visitors on 209 postingson for and against fitting progressive lenses on low heights or the way they should be fitted.
If any of you have followed the way search engines have developed over the last little while and check the Alexa rating (measuring traffic on websites) of the Optiboard which is at 85,846 today, (Yahoo is a 1, ESSILOR a 291,208 and BPI 2,184,825), you will find that many Optiboard topics are picked up by GOOGLE especially.
When you put a question relating to a subject discussed on the Optiboard you will find an Optiboard answer on the very pirst page on GOOGLE answers just about every time, as the following example shows:
OptiBoard Discussion Forums - Questions on ANSI Standards
... The test should probably be if the progessive has discernable ... fitting height and pupillary distances of a pair of mounted PAL lenses within 1mm ... Posting Rules. ...
www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9959 - 96k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
The world is watching our discussions more and more on this forum as the search engines report more and more on them.
This was just some food for thought.
Last edited by Chris Ryser; 12-03-2004 at 04:43 AM.
lensguy said:Let me try to bring this back on topic.
I can't believe the number of people that seem to disagree with "low fitting ht" progressives. I wonder if all of you are in your 60's and have over 2.50 add's.
Wow very Enlightened lensguy. I don't think I could have thought of that. I mean I have only been dispensing since 1973 so I m sure you know it all! WOW what hypocrisy!
Last edited by jediron1; 12-03-2004 at 07:23 AM.
lensguy said:These lenses work great for 1st timers, High -, and when switching from st lenses. The facts are low add's (below 2.25ish) have enough residual accomadation to see intermed through the distance portion and the newest bonus is "flat pannel" monitors, they sit further away than a regular one.......do the math.......
It must be because of all that Canadian hot air because this guy sounds like he is smoking something. Woops Canadian (cold air) sorry my mistake! This guy seems to be on one kind of ego trip!
I'll jump into this conversation after first admitting that I have not followed the whole thread :0).
I remember when plastic lenses first hit the market. There were many negative feelings about this "new trend", but as time went on there was acceptance, and eventually the product was preferred. Then came High index plastic materials. These offered reduced visual accuity, traded for thin edges and better fashion. People tend to think fashion first, which explains the reluctance to get glasses in the first place, and resistance to bifocals when we get old.
What we're seeing in the low fitting progressives is just the same old, same old. Just as people only do a portion of what their medical Dr. advises, so they will only accept a portion of what you tell them. Make them fashionable to make them happy and they will keep coming back - even if they can't see as well as you would like them to see. You will get them what they want, or lose them to the competition. That's just how it works folks :0)
Shutterbug
Obviously my food for thought posting of this morning has bypassed you. You might have a point by saying that you will loose them to the competition. but that puts you on the same professional competence level as your competition.
So then really it is a matter of greed and not a matter of professionalism. The optical retail gives them what they want for a big lot of money even if the job lacks the quality it should have.
shutterbug,
That's allright, I stopped following this thread when everyone just started arguing the same point over and over again myself.
Chris,
You're right. The public is probably looking at this thread and trying to get information out of it.
Hopefully, what the public will derive from this thread is the importance of finding a good Optician. It looks like a great deal of the advice in this thread involves trying to fit a person with one, all-purpose pair of glasses. We all know in today's modern world, where almost everyone deals with some form of technology or specialized tasks, that one pair of glasses is not going to offer "optimal" vision for many presbyopes.
If a patient isn't willing to shop for eyewear the same way they do for everything else in their lives, including occupational clothing, dress clothing, casual clothing and athletic clothing then they will have eyewear that won't afford them the most comfortable vision for some task in their lifestyles. Take a pair of leather soled dress shoes for example. They might be great for the office and be a bit uncomfortable but tolerable on days off around the house and you could probably take a leisurely walk in them but try and wear them jogging, on snow and ice or on a golf course.
Obviously, if a patient is requesting eyewear that isn't safe then an Optician should refuse to fit the patient with what they are asking for. However, we do need to fit patients with eyewear that compliments their lifestyles, make recommendations regarding what the best combinations should be and make sure the pros and cons of the selected eyewear are understood. Given all of that information, it is up to the patient if they want to compromise complete optimal vision for fashion.
It isn't fair to the consumer not to let them know that specific lens technology exists, especially, if combined with other options, it can improve some aspect of their quality of life. Deny patients that technology and you might do the opposite of what you intend to do and loose their trust.
Good argument and I am glad that we are getting some more supportive arguments for the doing it right side. Thanks Jo.
If penty people look at this thread they will start thinking if they had been given the right choice or should have been dicouraged to make it ,he last time they made a purchase.
jediron, RELAX (maybe start smoking somthing!)
I would like to have your technical insights into why these don't work ?
Why do you think the reading area is smaller than a "regular" fitting pal
I have changed many patients from regular prog to short (at hights up to 20mm) and they prefer the more natural eye movement and get feedback like "the reading area is easy to find and the intermed is not allways in my way but its there if I need it). I have had NO complaints of lack of reading area.
lensguy said:I have changed many patients from regular prog to short (at hights up to 20mm) and they prefer the more natural eye movement and get feedback like "the reading area is easy to find and the intermed is not allways in my way but its there if I need it). I have had NO complaints of lack of reading area.
Apparently you have not been following the thread. Chris and Darryl Meister have given some very convincing arguments against fitting segs that low. Go back and read some of Darryl's comments and papers on the subject of PALS. I see no reason to put down more arguments that run the gambit as Darryl's and Chris. I believe they have more than broached this subject with scholarship and common sense for which I also agree.
The reason you have no complaints is because we are seeing the complaints from establishments like yours where people are fed up with trying to find answers and go to where there questions can be answered. I see them all day and my cash register just keeps right on humming. So keep right on selling those low segs because I m reaping the rewards! laughts on you guys!:D :bbg:
Chris & Jo,
I couldn't agree more with your statements. The most important thing you both mentioned is choice. In the end, it is the patient that will decide what they want (w/or w/out compromise of vision), and who they choose to fit the product.
I know women that will occasionally wear shoes that are uncomfortable, but they match a certain outfit just right. A podiatrist wouldn't reccomend them, but...
I've often heard contact lens fitters (all 3 O's) say "there may be a compromise of vision with these lenses, but...
As an optician, lifestyle dispensing means that you should fit the glasses for the activity, and one pair certainly won't do for all activities, just as all patients don't require the same amount of reading area in their progressives.
The patient will make the decision, it's our job to make sure they have a good supply of options to choose from. It sounds like many on this thread get locked in to a single mindset and can't let go.
Johns said:The patient will make the decision, it's our job to make sure they have a good supply of options to choose from. It sounds like many on this thread get locked in to a single mindset and can't let go.
I would say that. The original post was: #1
02-28-2004
What is everyone out there using for a 16 high progressive?
My lab rep claims my present companies short lens is having back order problems, but this lab rep has forked tongue, maybe they owe the company $$. (I won't say which lens company because rumours can be damaging if not true).
So, should I need to change lenses, I would like to know what the rest of you have success with at 16 high.
The premis then got into high gear because certain people started to say they love fitting segs at 16mm and lower. Chris, Myself and Darryl jumped in to correct some of the ambiguities that were occurring according to fitting heights in relation to the technical data which is out there. That technical data has been covered masterfully by Chris and especially Darryl in some of his technical papers. The technical data supports our claim that fitting segs that low will compromise your overall reading to a point that it will be uncomfortable and basically un-usable. Now because as I like to call the WAR
scenario has occurred, where they want to win at all costs. Some people are now throwing into the mixture, that you give the people there options and if they don't see well but are fashionable thats ok or just the opposite where they see well but are not fashinable. These are not compromises as some have asserted. You either have the ethics to stand your ground or you don't. The chose is your's!
Last edited by jediron1; 12-05-2004 at 07:59 AM.
Let's spin the thread a little further.......................
As opticians you are the pharmacist of opthalmology or optometry
These are not compromises as some have asserted. You either have the ethics to stand your ground or you don't. The chose is your's!
The doctor, either the ophthalmologist or the optometrist hands the patient a prescription which in his opinion provides the patient with maximum vision for distance, reading, or any other distance wanted.
As optician you are required to fill this prescription so that the patient has the visual capabilities the prescription was made for.
A pharmacist that sells a 100 milligram pill to a heart patient instead of the 500 milligrams the doctors prescription said, can be taken to court and sued for incompetence and damages if the patient dies of a heart attack.
As jediron says, in the optical trade it is matter of ethics, as nobody will die of a heart attack because he or she has a near field of vision that is only 40% of the size it should be. So far I have never heard of anybody suing an optician big time for neglect, and damages for loss of pleasure to be able to see 2 coloumns in the newspaper instead of only half a one.
As most of the progressive lens wearers have started with this type of lenses they do not know better when they buy or switch to a fashionable small frame that has a low fit and little reading space and the optician will not put in to much of opposition as he hears the cash register humming.
Also the manufacturers are supportive of this low fitting craze, even if their spokespoeple admit, right here on the Optiboard they would not prescribe low fitting progressive lenses personally.
Shamir Insight offers the Piccolo lens recommmended fitting ht minimum is 16mm and it is available in standard CR39 plastic, 1.50 transitions gray, 1.60 high index plastic and polycarbonate as well. Shamir's "Office" lens also has a 16mm fitting ht requirement and is an excellent progressive choice for an emerging presbyope working in close parameters of an office cubicle (from reading to computer to distances of 13 feet) This lens gets a 5 star rating according to the feedback i've heard from people who are wearing it!
Grace angel said:Shamir Insight offers the Piccolo lens recommmended fitting ht minimum is 16mm and it is available in standard CR39 plastic, 1.50 transitions gray, 1.60 high index plastic and polycarbonate as well. Shamir's "Office" lens also has a 16mm fitting ht requirement and is an excellent progressive choice for an emerging presbyope working in close parameters of an office cubicle (from reading to computer to distances of 13 feet) This lens gets a 5 star rating according to the feedback i've heard from people who are wearing it!
__________________
grace angel
We have gone over this many times. All you have to do is re-read Chris's previous post. You can look up the technical papers that Darryl wrote on this very same subject. Darryl even though he works for one of the companies, in my opinion gave a very unbaised approach to the technicalities of manufacturing a PAL and the difficulties in trying to get a usable reading area.
Grace Angel you gave us all above details, now I would like you to exactly tell us the size, height and the width of the reading segment when you mount this into a frame that has 38mm total height and you fit it at 16mm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks