> It looks like my email touched on a sensitive subject, which unfortunately,
> did not generate many answers to my questions. What questions should I be
> asking to ensure that my perscription is not unecessarily changed?

> Every time I go to the optometrist, they want to slightly change my
> prescription. I always resist these changes for the following reasons:
> 1) I used to go to the optometrist yearly. Every year, they would change
> a lens (and it was always the opposite lens as the year before). They
> wouldn't change the prescription much, but as soon as they would change a
> lens, my opposite eye would get a bit lazy and lose some of it's acuity.
> Ironically, when I quick going to optometrist, my vision never declined
> any further. Yes, the opposite eye lost some of it's acuity, but as long
> as they weren't changing lens, it never declined. Thus, I am somewhat
> suspicious that lens changes permit my eyes to be lazy and they decline.
> Whereas, if I make the eyes work, they won't decline. I should point out
> that the corrections they are making are never that large, and my vision
> is usually 20/20 (or slightly better) in the eye they did the most recent
> lens change in, and something just less than 20/20 in the other.
> 2) My vision changes from day to day. If I've had several good nights
> sleep, and it is early in the morning my vision is clear. If I have been
> working long hours (with little sleep), my vision will decline throughout
> the day. But my vision always seems to restore itself once I've had a few
> days of rest. Consequently, when the optometrist wants to change my
> prescription, I half suspect that on a different day, the results of the
> test may be different.
> 3) It is very costly to change my prescription, because I have contact
> lens, and two pairs of glasses. I find that when they change my
> prescription (even when it is a slight change), it is hard to go back to
> the old glasses. Consequently, a prescription change means a large cost.
> Currently, my lens in one pair of glasses is all scratched up, and they
> will not replace lens without a current prescription. Thus, I need to go
> back to the optometrist. How do I ensure that they aren't
> "over-prescribing"? The last optometrist wanted to change the
> prescription of my one eye slightly, but when I challenged her on it, she
> agreed it wasn't necessary. But educated professionals don't like to be
> challenged. What is the best way for me to challenge an optometrist?
> What questions should I be asking? How do I do it without offending.
> Thank you for your insights.
> Chris

> > WWOD in this situation?
> Blame the patient for "lacking personal resolve" or "will" or
> "intestinal fortitude" or "intellectual capacity," or some such tripe.-

> On Mar 29, 11:57 pm, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:
> > The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
> > progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave (minus)
> > lenses themselves.
> > From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of
> > 'Optical Poison',
> > a familiar term a decade ago, many other optometrists appear to have
> > the same idea.
> > Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal
> One year ago I prescribed a minus prescription with a bifocal for a
> young myopic lady who demonstrated nearpoint esophoria and
> accommodative lag. I followed Dr. FA Young's advice to the letter.
> Yesterday I found that her myopia increased a full diopter from one
> year ago (manifest and cycloplegic).
> WWOD in this situation?

> The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
> progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave (minus)
> lenses themselves.
> From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of
> 'Optical Poison',
> a familiar term a decade ago, many other optometrists appear to have
> the same idea.
> Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal

> And of course, rather than being "safe" as the majority-opinion OD
> might WISH,
> there is a problem with it:
> The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
> progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave (minus)
> lenses themselves.
> From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of
> 'Optical Poison',
> a familiar term a decade ago, many other optometrists appear to have
> the same idea.
> Dr. Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, NY, in the Optical Journal

> I can also confirm from first-hand experience that when one gets shoes
> for full time wear, one will need a larger and larger shoe each year
> until adulthood....ditto shirts, pants, etc., etc.

> On Mar 29, 9:00*pm, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:
> > And of course the expert second-opinion:
> > I have yet to hear of a research paper confirming the beneficial
> > effect of prescribing compensatory lenses.
> > I am sure most optometrists will confirm the clinical observation that
> > patients who receive compensatory lenses for full time wear
> > are usually the ones who need a stronger prescription every year.
> > J. Liberman OD, PhD
> I can also confirm from first-hand experience that when one gets shoes
> for full time wear, one will need a larger and larger shoe each year
> until adulthood....ditto shirts, pants, etc., etc.

> And of course the expert second-opinion:
> I have yet to hear of a research paper confirming the beneficial
> effect of prescribing compensatory lenses.
> I am sure most optometrists will confirm the clinical observation that
> patients who receive compensatory lenses for full time wear
> are usually the ones who need a stronger prescription every year.
> J. Liberman OD, PhD