With OTC *Plus* OK, what about *Minus*?

It seems ECPs have made their bones with respect to the OTC availability of "plus" power eyewear (aka *readers*), even if clients end up using them for mild DV farsightness. We've gone over the supposed health-related issues many times before on this board. And, as an extension, we also now see OTC plus bifocals and even "stick-on" segments.

But what about that other poor step-child of need, the myope?

Q: Should light amounts of myopia (of any* kind) be made available as OTCs, and what potential harm is there compared with OTC plus?

Please take the poll, and then read the link below.

http://www.tagheuer.com/eyewear/index.lbl - (skip intro, and follow link for "night lenses" in lower right-hand corner. Read all about it!)

I'm interested in your thoughts...especially from the esteemed ODs that frequent here.

Thanks

Barry
*by "any"myopia, I mean any! (Caution: Trap ahead!)

Disclaimer: This is a subject I've written and lectured on extensively for the astronomy community

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

Disclaimer: This is a subject I've written and lectured on extensively for the astronomy community

---

Barry...............I just wonder what the astronomy community has to be lectured extensively about over the counter glasses.........dont they use telescopes ?

OK, looks like we're tied up! (OK, well, we WERE tied up!:D) I'll fess up, I voted that there is potential harm, unlike OTC plus. Here's my reasoning...

1. Having access to OTC minus may lead to the pt NOT getting full eye exams as directed by their doctor. (Disclaimer: This is not my idea, I read it on Optiboard (more than likely! ;)), and I agree with it, so I'm a'gonna use it :))

2. Driving...yikes...I can't tell you how many times someone with a -4.00 RX has come in here and said 'no, I've never had glasses, I can see just fine without them' :eek:

FWIW...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser

Barry...............I just wonder what the astronomy community has to be lectured extensively about over the counter glasses.........dont they use telescopes ?

---

Yes, Chris, they use telescopes. But they are, as a group, amongst the most (I'll be kind) *frugal* people I've known.

For instance, when it comes discussing what they did when building their telescope to save money, they'll often begin with "...I felled a tall tree..."

You see my point?

Barry

I voted "No - There is great potential harm, including OTC plus" because I don't even like plus readers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barry santini

for instance, when it comes discussing what they did when building their telescope to save money, they'll often begin with "...i felled a tall tree..."

barry

---

roflmao !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

Yes, Chris, they use telescopes. But they are, as a group, amongst the most (I'll be kind) *frugal* people I've known.

---

I've dealt w/ many in the scientific community, and I've found them to very untrusting of everything we do.
-how we make their lenses.
-how we mount them in the frames.
-where we store them.
-what we charge for them.
-and so on...

I ended up telling the last guy(I call them "rocket men") to just go home and make his own. I got tired of him stopping in every night, 5 minutes before we closed, wanting to discuss variations in the weight of different AR coatings. :hammer:

I think "frugal" is much too kind a term for them.:o

Should not fools even cheap fools be allowed to hang themselves?
If the patient chooses to forgo an eye exam who are we to enforce that he have one?
If one has a hernia do we have the right to force him to have it fixed?
All one should do if anything is provide good advise.
Are we so socially concious that we should stop people from eating a Big Mac if they are 40 years old and a little overweight?

Soon we will be telling people that they have to wear seat-belts, wear helments, and cannot swim in the ocean.

Where do the socially concious get off in this world anyway? If this is change count me out. I like a little risk in life. It is after all my life not societies.

Chip

Where do the socially concious get off in this world anyway? If this is change count me out. I like a little risk in life. It is after all my life not societies.


Hummmm. So I don't want an eye exam. I need -4.00's but I am also one of those people who think wearing glasses makes my eyes "weak". So I go to Z-mart and buy some -1.00's over the counter. Driving, I don't see you coming or judge the distance wrong and crash into your car. Now my risk has become part of societies risk, 'cause you are a part of society and I just killed someone.

No thanks. At least if I have a hernia, decide not to get it fixed, there is less chance it will impact you. Right?

S-W

Guys, guys, guys, gals...

Try to remember I originally stated "light" amounts of minus (up to say -0.75D?)

However, also keep in mind that that same *uncorrected -0.75D mid-lifer sometimes also requires a +2.50 add for *close* reading. If they buy OTC readers, then they are, in effect, buying what would be a +3.25 for a supposed emmetrope.

That's "illegal" in NY State. How do we citizens protect oursleves from these outlaws?

The point is that, IMHO, almost no one under 40 is fully corrected for optimal DV driving, particularly at night.

What to do, what to do....

Interesting though, isn't it?

Barry

(I think Tag Heuer is "prescribing")

Are they a Dr.?

Does the recommendation for this eyewear come printed on an official prescription pad?

If a client comes in wearing their -0.25D Tag night driving glass, and I give them an actual plano for sun use, am I "changing" the Rx they're wearing?

Is this Tag Night eyewear out of ANSI tolerance for "plano" eyewear?

Should I call Tag and tell them what I'm doing as a licensed professional?

Is the wearer of Tag Heuer (Rx?) Night Vision eyewear a patient or a customer?

Is this legal in all states?

Is it not my professional duty to inform all licensing bodies of the nefarious actions of the Tag designers?

Hell, what about latent 50 yr. old hyperopes who covet and are drawn to the "tech-speak" of Tag Heuer products?

Well????

Come on, people, there's trouble...I'm sayin' there's trouble...right here in River City, yes?!

Barry

Inform whom about what to what end?

Wolf?

You could carry this logic to it's rediculous end. If a cardiac patient refuses to take his medication. He could drive, die and wreck his care into someone (which could also happen if he does take his medication).
However an eye test at least if not an exam is required in all states for a drivers license. It is also required for a pilots license. I do find it odd that it's not required for a hunting license.
But unless one is going to perform some activity for which a license is required were do we get the right to tell them that they must have and eye exam, they must purchase and wear corrective eyewear.
Do we have the right or the power to tell anyone that they can't wear eyewear that is not suited for them, or someone else's. We have all seen couples swap readers and a few individuals borrow someone else's glasses to drive.
Should they be arrested by the eyeglass police? Sounds like the same people that would approve the thought police. Or the cigarette police.

Chip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chip anderson

Wolf?

Should they be arrested by the eyeglass police?

Chip

---

Gee, and I thought that the only job *eyeglass police* had was scooping up eyewear that had "expired"

Barry:hammer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

(I think Tag Heuer is "prescribing")

Are they a Dr.?

---

The problem is that Tag can't be held accountable because they aren't licensed. Without a license there is no accountability.

Therefore you can't do that Barry. But Tag can get away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chip anderson

You could carry this logic to it's rediculous end.

---

Yes, you could Chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcE

The problem is that Tag can't be held accountable because they aren't licensed. Without a license there is no accountability.

Therefore you can't do that Barry. But Tag can get away with.

---

This is the *best* arguement I've heard yet for ending the licensure of ophthalmic dispeners.

Education yes. Competancy, yes. Licensure, ahh...no!

Barry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by specti-wolf

Hummmm. So I don't want an eye exam. I need -4.00's but I am also one of those people who think wearing glasses makes my eyes "weak". So I go to Z-mart and buy some -1.00's over the counter. Driving, I don't see you coming .................................

Right?

---

Wrong........................

You would not get your drivers license as you would not pass their vision test. :bbg:

In simplest form, logically/theoretically/philosophically everything should be controlled or nothing should be controlled.

But in practice in the U.S., some things are controlled ad hoc: alcohol, pharmaceuticals, mercury.

As Chip has interjected, Barry's question is not solely of minus-powered OTCs' worthiness of control, it's also a question of the philosophy of the controlling entity.

In this case (U.S. F.D.A. or F.T.C.?) you do what lawyers do in the absence of a clear-cut, simple philosophy (e.g. stated in paragraph one above): you go to precedent to ascertain the general drift of similar regulation.

To that point, note that vision standards have been devised for the military, aviation, commercial motor vehicle, and "regular" motor vehicle use. There is a precedent that good distance vision is required for these hazardous activities.

Loosening existing laws regarding vision or means of obtaining vision correction would require a very strong reason. There is none presented here.

Pure? No.
Ad hoc? Yes.
Reality? Yes.



Side-note:
As has been intimated in Barry's immediately prior post, optical and optometric licensure is inextricably linked to the above argument. If one is for liberal vision standards and regulation of vision correction, then one has to be consistent regarding liberalized licensure, IMHO.

Excellent post, drk!

Continuiong with your thinking, I believe we have inappropriately almost institutionalized the idea that a person's present or new Rx correction can or should not be modified by anyone who is not the actual refractionist.

This, then, is *not* a regulation of the FTC or FDA, yes?

So let's challenge our thinking here!

Thoughts

barry

Amateur astronomers are a odd bunch, they will spend untold thousands on their scopes and eyepieces and CCD cameras yet most of them wear non A/R coated lenses and cheap frames.

I do find it interesting that Tele Vue optics sells correctors for astigmatisim called DioptRX (a lense placed in front of a telescope eyepiece with a given correction for astigmatisim, ie PL-1.50. most telescope focusers can accomodate spherical focus correction) without any need for regulation.

OTC readers should be banned, I guess minus powers are bad and must be regulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scriptfiller

Amateur astronomers are a odd bunch, they will spend untold thousands on their scopes and eyepieces and CCD cameras yet most of them wear non A/R coated lenses and cheap frames.

I do find it interesting that Tele Vue optics sells correctors for astigmatisim called DioptRX (a lense placed in front of a telescope eyepiece with a given correction for astigmatisim, ie PL-1.50. most telescope focusers can accomodate spherical focus correction) without any need for regulation.

OTC readers should be banned, I guess minus powers are bad and must be regulated.

---

Dioptrix was *my* idea for years, but I couldn't persuade TVO's president of its value until he manifested 1.0D of lenticular astigmatism from incipient cataracts.

Voila! Dioptrix!

Barry

Barry, using precedent and common sense, I think the interpreter of the the prescription is obligated to preserve the intention of the distance vision prescription*.

As we know, however, to design functional correction for nearpoint tasks there is no such obligation to the specified add power.

If you think about it (and this is illuminating), most (but hardly all) of the optician's lens-design skill is for presbyopic corrections. Ergo, the older the consumer is, the more important is a good optician relationship. I think that is borne out in reality.**

*The word intention, of course, is used since we now face distance Rx "as worn optimization" (a la wrap sunwear, vertex distance correction, the whole ball of wax with individualized progressives). Slavish compliance, though, with the written distance Rx obtained with current vision-testing technology is counter-productive. A true optical professional must have absolute fidelity, though, to the prescriber's intention for the distance vision correction, or risk practicing vision correction themselves.

**Being overly expansive, the more involved a consumer's vision problem is--regardless of age--the more important is a good optician relationship.

An addendum I thought of:

If opticians are so keen to "refract"* (for purposes ranging from noble to ignoble), realize the above argument illustrates that you currently do practice vision correction for a very prevalent and difficult condition: presbyopia.

Can't that be a balm?




*I reserve the right to not equate "refraction" with "vision correction", as the former is a procedure and the latter is a discipline.

Barry,

Was it Al or Dave.