> Dear Ace,
> It is good to thing of this "problem" from the perspective of
> an optometrist.
> They must deal with people like Charles, who only
> wnat very, very sharp vision -- and NO DISCUSSION
> of any preventive alternative. In my judgment
> that DEFINES the strength and "limit" of optometry.
> They can not satisfy EVERYONE. And must
> use a "magic pill" that WORKS. To do anything
> LESS would cause you to "distrust" them.
> But, if you "figure" this out -- and the limit
> imposed by the public that DEMANDS that
> quick fix, then you can understand the OD
> and the public, and why an OD can not
> offer "plus prevention".
> Success with the plus would depend on you
> on personal choice to use it -- as Stirling
> Colgate and others have done.
> They did it -- because no OD could do it
> for them -- and they were successful for
> that reason.
> But always think about the "pressure" on
> an OD to "impress" with that minus. It is
> very difficult to "resist" just doing it in 20 minutes.
> Best,
> Otis
> Ace wrote:
> > otisbrown[at]pa.net:
> > > Dear Ace,
> > > > > Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision
> > > from a minus lens.
> > > > Correct, but with a cylindar of -1, he does not need correction, maybe
> > for driving at night or watching a movie from the back seat of a
> > theatre. His uncorrected vision is perhaps 20/25, not only passing the
> > DMV but exceeding this. Therefore glasses are not neccessary.
> > > > > For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that
> > > it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the
> > > second-opinion considered.
> > > > Some smart S.O optometrists are already holding back from throwing the
> > wretched minus lens on their eyes if they pass the DMV. The child could
> > see the chalkboard fine from the front seat and should probably use
> > reading glasses(with prisms if neccessary) for near work or at least
> > *NOT* bury your nose 6 inches! Hold reading material away!
> > > > > But if you are dealing with 20 people a day, it is
> > > virtually impossible to "sort out" or discuss
> > > this issue of prevention with the parents -- or
> > > Charles.
> > > > What I would do is make a website addressing the issue and give every
> > patient a link to it so they can read and make an informed decision to
> > clear their vision or embrace the wretched minus and get stair-case
> > myopia. The choice is theirs.
> > > > > So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and
> > > send the parent and child away "happy".
> > > > That is why you need to see a second opinion OD so the child's vision
> > is preserved and doesnt end in stair-case myopia which happened to me
> > back when I was 12.
> > > > > > Can you blame them?
> > > What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist?
> > > You have a person sitting in a chair.
> > > They read the chart at 20/50.
> > > You put a minus on them and they
> > > read 20/15.
> > > I guess I could tell them they dont need glasses yet and if they take
> > good care of their eyes, they can avoid stair-case myopia and never
> > need the wretched minus.
> > > > > You must look for "medical" issues. And that
> > > takes time.
> > > > I would test for things like amblyopia, strabismus, retina tears, major
> > floaters, cateracts, glaucoma. A slight negative refractive state is
> > not a medical issue and something that can go away if you take care of
> > your eyes.
> > > > > The person like Charles is not tollerant of anything else
> > > other that BVA. You are wasting your time
> > > if you "attemped" that type of discussion.
> > > Further he would question you "motives" if
> > > you attempted anything else other than BVA.
> > > > Then that is his choice and fault for being ignorant. I would just give
> > him what he wants then shoo him out of there as hes a waste of time.

> otisbrown[at]pa.net:
> > Dear Ace,
> > > Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision
> > from a minus lens.
> Correct, but with a cylindar of -1, he does not need correction, maybe
> for driving at night or watching a movie from the back seat of a
> theatre. His uncorrected vision is perhaps 20/25, not only passing the
> DMV but exceeding this. Therefore glasses are not neccessary.
> > For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that
> > it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the
> > second-opinion considered.

> otisbrown[at]pa.net:
> > Dear Ace,
> > > Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision
> > from a minus lens.
> Correct, but with a cylindar of -1, he does not need correction, maybe
> for driving at night or watching a movie from the back seat of a
> theatre. His uncorrected vision is perhaps 20/25, not only passing the
> DMV but exceeding this. Therefore glasses are not neccessary.
> > For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that
> > it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the
> > second-opinion considered.
> Some smart S.O optometrists are already holding back from throwing the
> wretched minus lens on their eyes if they pass the DMV. The child could
> see the chalkboard fine from the front seat and should probably use
> reading glasses(with prisms if neccessary) for near work or at least
> *NOT* bury your nose 6 inches! Hold reading material away!
> > But if you are dealing with 20 people a day, it is
> > virtually impossible to "sort out" or discuss
> > this issue of prevention with the parents -- or
> > Charles.
> What I would do is make a website addressing the issue and give every
> patient a link to it so they can read and make an informed decision to
> clear their vision or embrace the wretched minus and get stair-case
> myopia. The choice is theirs.
> > So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and
> > send the parent and child away "happy".
> That is why you need to see a second opinion OD so the child's vision
> is preserved and doesnt end in stair-case myopia which happened to me
> back when I was 12.
> > Can you blame them?
> > What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist?
> > You have a person sitting in a chair.
> > They read the chart at 20/50.
> > You put a minus on them and they
> > read 20/15.
> I guess I could tell them they dont need glasses yet and if they take
> good care of their eyes, they can avoid stair-case myopia and never
> need the wretched minus.
> > You must look for "medical" issues. And that
> > takes time.
> I would test for things like amblyopia, strabismus, retina tears, major
> floaters, cateracts, glaucoma. A slight negative refractive state is
> not a medical issue and something that can go away if you take care of
> your eyes.
> > The person like Charles is not tollerant of anything else
> > other that BVA. You are wasting your time
> > if you "attemped" that type of discussion.
> > Further he would question you "motives" if
> > you attempted anything else other than BVA.
> Then that is his choice and fault for being ignorant. I would just give
> him what he wants then shoo him out of there as hes a waste of time.

> Dear Ace,
> Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision
> from a minus lens.

> For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that
> it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the
> second-opinion considered.

> But if you are dealing with 20 people a day, it is
> virtually impossible to "sort out" or discuss
> this issue of prevention with the parents -- or
> Charles.

> So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and
> send the parent and child away "happy".

> Can you blame them?
> What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist?
> You have a person sitting in a chair.
> They read the chart at 20/50.
> You put a minus on them and they
> read 20/15.

> You must look for "medical" issues. And that
> takes time.

> The person like Charles is not tollerant of anything else
> other that BVA. You are wasting your time
> if you "attemped" that type of discussion.
> Further he would question you "motives" if
> you attempted anything else other than BVA.

> > It is even more sad and pathetic that you
> have to use a misguided kid as your
> (lone and only)groupie. Aren't you ashamed
> in the least????
> If you really wanted this conversation to be
> private between yourself and Ace you would have
> e-mailed him (I'm sure you have his address).
> So please don't feign any artificial "disgust"-
> simply another example of your dishonesty.
> frank

> Dear Ace,
> Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision
> from a minus lens.
> That is what ODs do.

> Dear Ace,
> How would YOU change this system?

> Dear Ace,