I don't know why Barry and others use the satirical argument of "oh your eyeglass rx is expired I'll go to your house and take all of your old glasses so you don't hurt yourself." I find nothing wrong with using an older Rx, but if the doctor has put an expiration date on there, I'm going to assume that he wants to update the refraction by that time. Most do it for money, but there is the occasional honest doctor that does it because the patient is a raging diabetic or something, and it could be outright dangerous to have them drive with the old rx.
If I were in Canada, someone came in with a 'no expiration date' spec rx from 15 - nay - 5 years go, I would be wary of filling it. It is legal, yes, but if the patient feels all gung-ho about getting their new -2.00 SPH Rx glasses and gets in a car wreck because they need -3.50 -1.00 x100, then I have a hunch the patient would want to blame me.
REALLY! So if I have a patient come in and as I'm talking to them they state there rx seems fine, I can just ignore where it says expired and just fill it? Are you kidding me? How many pharmacists would be put in jail for doing expired rx's. And what if you filled an expired rx and the person ends up with a bad case of corneal edema because the fit changed? Come on OD are you serious! :hammer:
1) Rx expires whenever your board of optometry has convinced the legislature it should expire for the good of public safety. Public safety not really being the motivation behind such edicts, but it's the one you will get from the politicians and O.D.'s
2) Whenever the prescriber says it does on the Rx.
Chip
I would think opticians, and optometrists, would do the right thing when a client is considering purchasing new eyewear, where the cost may be significant, and more than a year or two or three have elapsed since the last time the eyes were checked.
I would consider it unethical to encourage someone to spend hundreds of dollars without a checkup.
I often wonder why some supposed experts go on and on about being accurate in the fabrication of eyewear down to the last degree of axis, and the last eighth of a diopter, and lambast low abbe lenses, yet they would encourage a client to spend hundreds without checking whether a refraction has changed by half a diopter and five degrees over the course of two or three years. Tsk tsk.
What actually happens to the patient after 1yr., 2yrs., 5yrs., that couldn't happen after 6 months, or 6 weeks, or 60 years. Expiration is strictly a gimick to force the patient to get a new eye exam. While this may occasionally (I mean per thousand patients) disclose an unsuspected problem or Rx change, it's no guarantee against them. We go far enough advising patients to have a bi-annual exam. If the patient wishes to go against that advise and can't see well out of his glasses, what's wrong with saying: "I advised you to get a new exam. Now it's up to you to get a new pair of glasses and/or new lenses in the ones you just purchased."
We don't force people to have a physical, or a heart check up or whatever.
What's the matter with you people that you think you or your God given Government can force people to do things?
If there is hope, it lies in the proles. : Emanuel Goldstein
The biggest crying about rx expiry dates that Ive seen are by greedy opticians who will do anything to get the sale on the spot...
Seems to me the greatest protest I have heard is from patients (consumers) who's Doctor won't give them a copy of thier Rx without a hassel and insist that they buy at least a year's worth of whatever product thereby insureing that the Rx probably won't be filled anywhere except the good Doctor's shop before it expires and they must return to him for another.
The Rx isn't a vaciene for small pox, diptheria or polio for which one could make an argument that one must have to protect the rest of the public at large. It's not even something to protect the public from themselves as supposedly helments and seatbelts (which I also have a lot of trouble with also) are. It's just to force the patient (consumer) back into the examination chair whether he thinks he has a problem or not.
If this were truly the case then the exam would be manditory (which some elements of the politburo will go for) and it would be illegal for this patient go on wearing a pair of glasses over two years old. Think of it, your next money grabbing plot, automatic expiration on existing glasses, must be turned in at the end of 730 days may not be worn a day longer.
Chip
I think you mean poverty-stricken opticians who can barely pay the rent because the greedy optometrist down the street puts unnecessary restrictions on an Rx.Originally Posted by kws6000
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
But if it's been two or three years, (and that's what we are talking about here, not one year expirations) don't you think a client should have an eye health checkup as well? Suppose they are 59? Or suppose they are 16? Suppose they have diabetes? Would you feel comfortable selling new glasses without the benefit of a full checkup?
Of course the patient is not going to say "my fault, my problem". They will say "these glasses you sold me don't work".
Also, why do we worry about hyper-accurate lens designs if the Rx is suspect? Why worry about ANSI? An old Rx has likely changed by ANSI tolerances, so who cares? This business of precision is pretty over-rated, don't you think? Hell, we might as well start using offshore cheapie labs.
How often per thousand patients scheduled for a routine exam and refraction is "significant pathology" found?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks