Polycarb REQUIRED by ASTM?

[Pete Hanlin]

Hi All,
Did anyone else catch OptiBoarder Karlen's article in Vision Monday (I've since misplaced the edition) on the recommendation the ASTM has received concerning lens materials? It seems an OD on the board has submitted a proposal requiring polycarbonate lenses for most dress eyewear (e.g., for people who drive cars with airbags, etc.).

Now, mind you I'm a huge fan of polycarbonate- but wouldn't this dramatically effect the fortunes of lens suppliers (and Opticians) who sell specialty materials? Also, I'm the first to admit that poly just isn't practical for all prescriptions- would there be a clause exempting certain Rxs?

I'm looking forward to developments on this topic (I imagine someone will slap some sense into this proposal somewhere along the way)...

Pete "poly, poly..." Hanlin

[Blake]

Yeah, I read it. There are a number of problems with such a proposal. The first that comes to mind is that some people just can't see as well with polycarb lenses. Sure they're safer, but what good does that do the patient if his vision is blurry.
Also, choices are as American as apple pie (or cherry, or pecan, or whatever you prefer:-)). If you don't believe that, go to the nearest grocery store and count how many different types of cereal they have. Imagine the outrage if the grocer was required to stock ONLY bran flakes, because some doctor suggested it in the interest of public health.
Naturally, we should inform our patients of the benefits of a more impact resistant lens, but it shouldn't be the only option. Fortunately, I don't think this proposal will make it off the table

Blake
"still a novice, and proud of it!"

------------------
where you can get a complete pair of glasses starting at $99. :-p

[This message has been edited by Blake (edited 05-31-2000).]

[Bob Rihl]

What else would you expect from an O.D? They like "repeatability." Polycarbonate isn't very good optically, so I guess he figures that when people can't see, they'll come back more often. He's probably one of these clowns that puts "expiration dates" on his RXs, too.
I don't like rules. We all did just fine before we had so many.

------------------

[Diane]

Hi Pete,

I'm an advocate of Polycarbonate lenses, for children and mono adults, and for safety and even sports safety, but I don't believe that poly is the best material in every situation. I believe that the OD's (and MD's) need to stick to what they do (best) and let us do what we do best.

If we demand poly lenses because of airbags, then what about the frame materials??? Zyl may break, too, as will the metals. Come on, someone has to stop trying to police the world. We need to advise our patients what is best for them for their particular visual task, and advise them of ANY safety concerns as well, but we don't need to dictate that all glasses need to be poly (for driving???).

I just had a patient in with retinitis pigmentosa, with practically no peripheral vision. She had been going to the same doctor for 15 years, and was having serious difficulty in seeing detail. She also has a serious hearing and speach impairment, so communication with her was more difficult. Her new husband did not feel that the doctor was seriously listening to her,(which I also doubt). Her sunwear was standard gray 3 lenses in a progressive lens in her old frame. THE DOCTOR just made glasses, without addressing the tints or contrast or anything else. She thought he was the expert, but was unhappy, which is why she came to me. Her husband came to us, and knew that we would ask questions and advise her on the full area of eyewear to improve what little vision she has left. I believe that we can, and will.

Opticians need to do what we do best.

Diane (I'm on a roll) :D

------------------


[This message has been edited by Diane (edited 05-31-2000).]

[Karlen McLean]

Thanks for reading, y'all! Here's a bit of an update: the committee met on May 25, and the proposed standard will be severely modified. The airbag section is out, and only certain sports-specific tasks - each listed - will apply (re: golf, water polo, so on). The committee charter is sports only, so the revision will keep to that charter. The reason for the proposed standard is to bridge the gap between ANSI Z80.3 and ASTM F803 standards; there are no performance eyewear standards for certain sports, according to subcommittee members involved. While the proposed standard is not product-specific, it is still likely that poly will be the only lens material currently available that will fulfill these sports safety requirements. Although there is another lens product in the final stages of R & D that may pass. Keep in mind any proposed standard is very likely to spend at least two years in committee debate and revisions before passing. Read the June 26 issue of Vision Monday for more details, or if you don't get the print version, log onto the on-line version at www.visionmonday.com.

[Rex]

Originally posted by Blake:
...Also, choices are as American as apple pie (or cherry, or pecan, or whatever you prefer:-)). If you don't believe that, go to the nearest grocery store and count how many different types of cereal they have. Imagine the outrage if the grocer was required to stock ONLY bran flakes, because some doctor suggested it in the interest of public health.
Naturally, we should inform our patients of the benefits of a more impact resistant lens, but it shouldn't be the only option. Fortunately, I don't think this proposal will make it off the table

Blake
"still a novice, and proud of it!"

Since we are in a health profession, shouldn't your Dr be able to specify generic, non-generic, name brand or other? Do you have the same reaction when an Rx comes in with a certain brand of progressive written in the notes?
In the balance of the Medical fields, I believe the Doctors oversee the "appropriateness" of what used to fill a prescription. Not to say I agree that everyone should wear poly (just Brad Gelb). It's just that if we believe we are a medical profession, we must consider how other medical professions operate.

Rex "I don't have to understand it to talk about it"

[Darris Chambless]

Do Dee Do Dee Do. Oh! hi gang :-)

I was just passing by and read the postings on this subject and I have to say, "Do people just not have anything better to do then come up with cockamamie ideas for the so called betterment of public welfare?!?" I agree with Bob when he said "What else would you expect from an OD?"

Now to be fare I am going to say that it isn't all OD's that do this. I will ask a perplexing question though; has anyone noticed that most of these schemes or rudimentary ideologies have all come from OD's? Now there's a question, huh? ;-) Think about it; Behavioral Optometry, The Bates Method, CVS, night lights and myopia, testing visual effects on baby chicks and equating it to humans, The Myopter (even though it was designed and touted by an engineer, but with the help of some OD's) The "wholistic" treatment of eye problems idea (even though they are only trained on the eye ;-) and a host of others. Things that make you go, Hum?

I could put everyone in poly, but why? If it's a cause and affect due to airbags then maybe the car manufactures should make the airbag safer or take them out all together. With or without poly lenses people are being affected by and subjected to things that poly would not prevent. The argument could be made that if some kind of facial trauma occurred that a persons eye site could be protected with poly lenses, but what if that same facial trauma caused a subdeural hemotoma and or extensive brain damage? Where would the fault lye then?

I think what is being said is that we have unsafe things that can cause damage, but instead of fixing those things let's change the rules. Let's protect the people or companies that created the problem, blame society for the lack of personal responsibility and then remove all responsibility from every individual by making the rules for them (because individuals don't know any better, but the rule makers do ;-)

Putting Poly lenses on everyone won't solve anything, it will only take away the patients right to choose. If that doesn't fly then I think everyone should be required to wear armor if they venture outside their house. It won't necessarily make them safer but it will definitely slow them down and make it harder to throw things at some ones eye :-)

Here's what I think the solution is; leave me (figuratively speaking) the hell alone! I'll take care of myself and I'll be just fine because I know what's best for me :-)

Take care people and don't spit into the wind.

Darris "Watchdog" Chambless

[Joann Raytar]

Originally posted by Rex:
Since we are in a health profession, shouldn't your Dr be able to specify generic, non-generic, name brand or other? Do you have the same reaction when an Rx comes in with a certain brand of progressive written in the notes?
In the balance of the Medical fields, I believe the Doctors oversee the "appropriateness" of what used to fill a prescription. Not to say I agree that everyone should wear poly (just Brad Gelb). It's just that if we believe we are a medical profession, we must consider how other medical professions operate.

Rex "I don't have to understand it to talk about it"[/B]

I know our mistakes may not have the same lethal consequences as an MD and pharmacy relation but here goes a thought: Many of the big chain pharmacies have those fancy computer systems today not only because they are convenient but because people were having lethal Rx reactions and families were suing. Basically, Dr's. were missing bad interactions with existing medications and drug allergies. Historically, the pharmacist knows a great deal more about a larger variety of medications and their side effects than a Dr. I know I am off industry here but isn't opticianry the same type of concept. I believe it is our job to interpret a patient Rx and determine the best eyewear to fit their needs. I admit there are certain situations where Dr.'s recommendations need to be followed.

[Blake]

Darris, if everyone is required to wear body armor, will it have a body cooling system? Otherwise, us southerners would be unfairly limited to indoor activities. And what about those who can't afford armor? Will it be provided by Medicaid?
You can't please everybody all of the time, but with careful calculation you can tick a large percentage of them off ;-)

Blake

------------------
where you can get a complete pair of glasses starting at $99.

[Darris Chambless]

Originally posted by Blake:
Darris, if everyone is required to wear body armor, will it have a body cooling system? Otherwise, us southerners would be unfairly limited to indoor activities. And what about those who can't afford armor? Will it be provided by Medicaid?
You can't please everybody all of the time, but with careful calculation you can tick a large percentage of them off ;-)

Blake

Hello Blake,

Bein' a southerner mahself I can see your point about the cooling unit. For safety issues I think we would have to consult with Mr. Nader so that he could recommend what was best for our situation since I'm sure he knows better than we do :-)

Here lies a problem for the wearer; we would probably have armor with airbags, seat belts and rubber breakaway bumper pads to insure the optimum amount of protection while wearing the armor. BUT with the close proximity of the airbag to the face it would bring up other safety issues as well. The airbags would have to be redesigned to comply with these safety issue where upon a switch to turn the airbag off manually would be installed.

Because the suit is made out of metal you could end up with faulty wiring and or grounding of such causing an unnecessary deployment of said airbag creating the same problem. After further review the airbags would become optional and more effort would be put into the breakaway bumper pads and "crumple zones" on the suit. This in turn would have a cause and effect on the now necessary cooling system.

Because of the location of the "crumple zones", if the suit should become damaged it could sever the coolant lines allowing ozone depleting gases to escape into the atmosphere. This being an environmental issue would then cause extensive and costly R&D into either new materials for the coolant lines, or a new type of gas for the coolant system itself not to mention a possible complete redesign of the suit itself. The new gas might prove to be caustic to human skin and possibly volatile causing an explosion and death to the occupant of the suit.

After all options have been exhausted and countless amounts of our tax dollars have been spent in research it will be noted that all armor containing these cooling devices will be recalled. Once recalled, the cooling systems will be removed until further notice. If you install a cooling system after the fact your suit will not be allowed to pass inspection until it is removed and restored to its original condition (e.g. without a cooling system)

You will be allowed to install a blower to move the air around inside the suit (for us southerners that would be like wearing a convection oven all day, but we would be evenly roasted :-) Other types of cooling devices would be created and sold through "info-mercials" at three o-clock in the morning on channel 51 on the "E-Z pay option" listed as item 1869 on your screen.

The items you find on the info-mercials will not work very well if at all so my recommendation is to not spend the money :-) The best solution will be to take your suit into Mexico and have an "illegal" cooling system installed that can be easily removed before inspection. You will have to hope that you are not in an accident while the unit is installed or your insurance company could disallow your claim for damages due to unlawful modification of the suit.

By the time all modifications are made to meet safety standards the suit will be rendered useless. At this point people will begin venturing out of their houses without wearing the suit and will be arrested on the spot. You will be approached by policemen instructed to say these words "Are you completely insane?!? Do you realize what could happen to you out here without having your safety approved suit on? Is there a reason why you feel that you need to venture outside without having your suit on? Was there a fire in your house or another reason that would prevent you from daunning your suit before leaving this dwelling?" At which point you will be written a citation for being an idiot :-)

The funny part will be watching your neighbors mowing their yards. They will be the stationary metal pylons in the front yard standing next to the running lawnmower, which won't move from that spot. After standing there for 30 minutes (because that will be all the heat they can take) they will climb out of their suits shut the mower off and go straight inside their houses.

Your neighbors will however, receive citations for having an overgrown yard (after all, we can't have an unsightly yard according to city ordinances:-). Provisions will be made to discount the citation as long as your neighbors maintain the 22 inch mowed spot in the grass where the lawnmower sat while running :-)

All in all it will be a wonderful world once we reach that point ;-)

Darris "I've got the answers. Just ask me :-)" Chambless

PS. I hope this clears things up for some people :-)

[Rex]

Hope my point wasn't missed. I wasn't trying to say that the Dr's should be able to tell us how to fill every Rx.
If they feel in certain situations that a specific lens or material is in (what they believe) to be the patients best interest, then we should follow that direction just like a pharmacy. Which should include contacting the Dr to discuss how that request may not be in the patients best interest.
I guess the biggest problem with this idea is expecting the Dr to take our comment or suggestion as "informed".
Can't we all just get along.

Rex "Former Southerner, I lived in LA"

[Blake]

Okay, so the body armor idea will take some work, but there is a bright side! After all their painstaking work, the frustrated engineers who design such suits will have strained their eyes so bad that they need new glasses.
Of course, they will probably not be able to wear polycarb ;-)

Blake
"the glass isn't half full OR half empty, it's just twice as big as it needs to be"

------------------
where you can get a complete pair of glasses starting at $99.

[Jim G]

In the interests of accuracy (and when has that ever deterred many of us?), the "Doctor" in question was NOT an O.D. but the very activist Dr. Paul F. Vinger, Professor of Ophthalmology at Tufts Medical School. Dr. Vinger is on a quest to eradicate eye injuries from existance irrespective of the lengths necessary. Tho slowed in his quest by the outcome of the meeting, we can rest assured he will return to wage another battle on another day.

[Pete Hanlin]

Sorry for misstating the board member's credentials (like I said, I lost the original copy of the article and was going from my obviously faulty memory 8^).

Anyway, I'm happy to see that most of you have come to the same conclusion that I did: i.e., this is another attempt by a governmental body to control our lives. Now that I've watched everyone else "have at it," I will rant for a brief time...

Why do we tolerate "special interests" and "government agencies" who nibble away at our rights? Yesterday, it was smoking (anyone else notice all the anti-tobacco ads on the TV these days... paid for by money stolen through court settlements from the tobacco industry). Today, its the gun industry... tomorrow, who knows (mandated polycarb sales don't look so surprizing in this light, do they?).

When did we decide the government should live our lives for us? If you take present trends to their logical end we will all be wearing the same "safe" clothes, driving the same "efficient" automobiles (assuming we aren't all forced into mass transit by people like Al Gore), and eating the same "healthy" foods! Come on!

Pete
PS- a qualified Optician should choose material and lens type with the patient- unless the OD has a VERY good reason to specify otherwise

[Darris Chambless]

"Anyway, I'm happy to see that most of you have come to the same conclusion that I did" Body Armor? :-)

"Why do we tolerate "special interests" and "government agencies" who nibble away at our rights?" Because stupid people are in charge. "Yesterday, it was smoking (anyone else notice all the anti-tobacco ads on the TV these days... paid for by money stolen through court settlements from the tobacco industry)." Yup! "Today, its the gun industry..." Guns don't kill people. I do. "tomorrow, who knows (mandated polycarb sales don't look so surprizing in this light, do they?)." Never did :-)

"When did we decide the government should live our lives for us?" When Slick Willie was elected...twice. "If you take present trends to their logical end we will all be wearing the same "safe" clothes, driving the same "efficient" automobiles (assuming we aren't all forced into mass transit by people like Al Gore)" That's pronounce Algore as in Igor :-)", and eating the same "healthy" foods! Come on!" Yeah! Tofu sucks! Let's hear it for Spam and other potted meat products :-)

Pete
PS- a qualified Optician should choose material and lens type with the patient- unless the OD has a VERY good reason to specify otherwise[/B][/QUOTE]

Enjoy Dude. :-)

[Chad Huber]

Just to add to the already right-thinking line of this thread.
I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show the other day (if anyone doesn't like him, don't tell me about it...I'd rather think you were uninformed rather than a complete idiot ;))
Anyway, Rush was out for the day but Tony Snow was hosting the show and as I jumped in the world polluting SUV to run an errand I caught the tail end of a discussion involving a VERY sincere congressman (didn't catch the name)who was lobbying with several college professors to put a NEW TAX on....are ya'll ready for this???.......RED MEAT...yes it's true, I promise I didn't make it up. They want to add a surcharge to the cost of ALL RED MEAT to "help offset the societal cost of the medical care required by meat eaters" It was explained that those of lower socio-economic status were three times more likely to develop heart disease, be overweight, and generally have the "Funks" (my word). Therefore if they or any of us rich folk want to eat that terrible, awful, dangerous red meat; we should be prepared to re-imburse the government for the costs of taking care of our sorry butts when we have that heart attack eating that Big Mac.

Just thought you'd like to know that not only is Big Brother coming into your office, he's sitting at your dinner table and looking through your colon.

Chad "I can see all the Black Helicopters from here" Huber