I never thought about it before but the term has come up a lot here in New York this last week. Why do they call it legally blind? Wouldn’t a term like functionally blind be more accurate? Is there actually some law on the books somewhere which sets a exact marking point where a visual disability officially becomes blindness? And if so, why?
Anecdote: I was living in Dallas in the early 1980s, and went to Pearle Vision to get new glasses. And just out of curiosity, I asked the optometrist what my vision measured out as, after a lifetime of extreme nearsightedness. I knew my vision was bad, but nobody had ever given me a “20/20” type of number.
So he did some figuring on a piece of paper, and finally said, “The best I can tell is, you’re about 20/400.” And then he added, “You know, this makes you legally blind in the state of Texas. And I’m obligated to tell you that you shouldn’t try to drive a car without your glasses on.”
I was able to reassure him, “Honey, without my glasses I’d be lucky even to be able to find the car in the driveway, let alone get into it and drive it down the street, so no worries on that account.”
End of anecdote.
And I found this.
I think that to be legally blind, you need to have vision beyond that threshold that also cannot be corrected with lenses. Having 20/200 when you take your glasses off doesn’t count.
I believe that the “legal” part of it refers to one’s legal right to receive benefits services reserved for blind individuals, but I am having some difficulty finding a cite for that.
According to Wikipedia, legal blindness is if your best corrected visual acuity is 20/200 or worse (or if your field of view is less than 20 degrees wide).
Heh. My vision last time I asked was around 20/600. I can’t see the Big ‘E’ without my glasses or contacts.
Beat that.
:eek:
Well, I’d link to my thread I made over the summer, but I can’t find it grumble, grumble, but…
20/800.
Ha! Mine was 20/800 (estimated, of course, these numbers are meaningless in real diagnostic terms) when I was 13 years old, and I’ve gotten at least 5 prescriptions worse since then! 
I keep hoping that the farsightedness that comes with age will work to balance out my nearsightedness, but I hear it doesn’t work like that… :o
The Big E?
I can’t see the whole friggin’ eyechart without my glasses!
I don’t even bother to ask what my uncorrected 20/whatever vision is anymore.
(With glasses, 20/20)
The federal government has a variety of programs for the legally blind, separate from their other disability programs. I used to work in the disability community and there is quite the dislike among other disability groups for the blind groups.
I work in the disability field. I’d never heard this. Why do you think this is so? (Meaning, why do you think people feel that way, not why do you believe that).
Perhaps I should have specified that I worked in the legislative aspect of the disability field. When the federal govenrment is trying to divide up the small portion of the pie dedicated to disabilities, there is a slice for the blind and a slice for everyone else. For instance, there are certain procurement programs just for the blind (the Randolph-Shepard program) and those for every other person with a disability (AbiltyOne).
Thanks for the explanation. That’s good information for me to have. Would I be able to PM you sometime with questions? I am just starting to get into more of the legislative stuff.
OK, everyone else—please carry on.
Whenever I’ve gone for testing in my bad eye they’ve never given me a number for visual acuity past 20/400. It went from that, to “finger counting”, then to “hand waving”, and finally, “light perception”. Now even that’s gone.
There’s a thread up above about some stem cell research in China. You can imagine my interest, but the lack of peer review doesn’t make me optimistic.
In addition to visual acuity, it’s possible to be considered legally blind due to poor peripheral vision. For example, even if you can read the 20/20 line on the eye chart, if you have “tunnel vision” (e.g. due to glaucoma), you can be denied a driver’s license.
~OCS, eye doctor office guy
Interesting. I used to work in the blind disability field (under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day program), and they were always worried about being lumped in with other general disabilities. The feeling was that those programs often focused more on cognitive disabilities, rather than physical accomodation, and that because of the smaller proportion of blind persons in the disabled population, were they all combined together, the blind accomodations would drop by the wayside. (there is never enough funding to go around; something always has to give and be dropped)
Which always made me wonder how the deaf community got by…
Anyway, to the topic: note that “legally blind” does not always mean “legally not permitted to drive.” That varies by state. Several of my coworkers were legally blind, but licensed drivers – and legal as long as they drove in certain states (which I no longer recall, alas). Nonetheless, I always volunteered to drive, 'cause riding with them could lose you entire years of your lifespan out of sheer terror.
No, unfortunately, it doesn’t.
It has the effect that you can’t see at distance without your glasses, and you can’t see close-up with them, and every year or so you have to figure out which aspect of your vision to compromise this time (close up, distance, in-between) when ordering glasses. Or learn to deal with progressive lenses or carry a large purse because you need three separate pairs depending on the task at hand (I finally managed to adapt to “room-distance” progressives after failing at full progressives twice, so I have to have a separate pair for driving). And even with that, you still find yourself looking under the glasses when you have to read something with fine print :mad: .
What does it take to check the box in the IRS form 1040? Is there some level of proof that the IRS requires?
Tris
Yes. We get so many requests for certification of legal blindness that we have a form (in-house, not government issue) for it. It just basically has blanks and check boxes for us to mark how [del]good[/del] poor the patient’s visual acuity is.
As far as I know, we don’t have anything like, say, Lighthouse for the Blind. Now you’ve got me curious. I should do some research.
I know that at least WA state and TX provide for free TTYs (designed in 50s Soviet Russia! Costing five hundred smackeroos! Requiring analog lines! – that last one was fun in terms of the paperwork required for our IT department which had gone all digital a while back and is understandably paranoid).
The University of Texas system might still provide for reduced or free tuition for the deaf, but it’s been more than a decade since I looked. And I went to CA anyway since I didn’t want to try going to a school that had a dorm with its own zip code. 