I’ve always seen an opthmalogist, not an optometrist. I had some eye problems when I was a wee one, and had surgery twice (once at about 6 months, once at about 7 years; the worst experience of my life). Apparently, the doctor somehow deluded our insurance company (and my parents, so he’d get the hefty co-pay) into thinking it was nessecary as post-op care (yes, for over ten years).
When I was 17 and wanted to get contacts, my dad was a voice of reason, against my opthamologist, and declared that no, we didn’t need to drive 40 minutes for him to fit me for contacts; we could go to my dad’s optomitrist three blocks away. The optomitrist saw no problem with that.
Also, every time I went to see the opthamlolgist, he’d ‘need’ to put those godawful drops in my eyes (the ones that keep you from focussing), in order to properly shine bright lights in my eyes and nearly blind me, apparently, to look at my retinas or something. The last time I went to him, I asked, “Do you really have to do that? I’d rather not.” He said, ‘okay’, put the dropper down, and I was free.
My point in this rambling? Is it possible that we’re just a nation of eye-hypochondriacs? Really, don’t serious problems generally have some symptoms? If your only symptom is ‘I can’t quite see far/near as well as I used to’, and a machine-generated perscription would handle it, what’s the problem with that?
Just since I have been seeing the terms tossed around kinda interchangeably.
Opthalmologist = MD who specializes in medical issues related to eyes. IIRC they CAN do lens exams/prescriptions and such but generally do not since they are often dealing with other issues on people who require no correction like eye infections, injuries, correction of structural problems, tumors, cataracts, detached retinas, RK, lasik…the list goes on
Optometrist = Non MD who has undercgne specialized training and licencing to conduct eye exams for the purpose of determining if correction is needed and if so how it is applied. They are also well versed in eye diseases and problems in general (they see alot of eyeballs) but IIRC they don’t write many prescriptions other than for glasses or contacts.
I have worn glasses for 20 years and contacts for about 6 mo now. The only time I saw an opthalmologist was when I was 12 and managed to scratch my cornea screwing around with a stiff springy piece of wire. If I never get to go through that again it will be too soon…my eyes are starting to hurt just thinking about it…
Oddly enough, I can tell when I can see fine. Last summer I had to get a new pair of contacts (because they wear out) and it turned out that it had been more than a year since my last prescription so, by state law, I had to be re-examined, rather than just say, “another one like the last one, please.” Couldn’t even get them on-line because apparently anyone who sent them, from anywhere, would be in violation of Colorado’s state law. (Although if I can trust my email I could get Viagra, Valium, Paxil, and whatever else w/o a prescription. . . just not contact lenses.)
The optometrist noted that my eyes seemed to be very different than my last prescription. I said, “Really? I can see fine, but the contacts are awfully scratchy.”
Three sets of contacts and a couple of anguished weeks later, during which I was a threat on the highways (which I have to drive to get to work), he finally conceded that the original prescription was, in fact, the correct one. Just as I thought.
We all have things we know nothing about, and for such needs, professionals are required.
However, we all have things we know plenty about too. As it turns out, I think I know more than my optometrist. Or at least I’m confident I could know much more if I put my mind to it.
I don’t see why I need to go to some credentialed, government-approved person for glasses. Makes no sense to me.
How would we ensure that Joe’s Discount Specs -n- Exams was operating an accurate machine (if such were Joe’s tool of choice), or had the expertise necessary to select the correct lenses? Sure, there’s no guarantee that the MD who charges through the roof will get it right either, but my chances go up thousandfold. Licensing does ensure one thing - that Joe Blow on the street can’t set up his own little shop where he might be endangering the welfare of others.
The wrong prescription can cause misery to the patient, and occasionally CAN be dangerous to others (ever driven with someone who’s wearing the wrong glasses? Not advised). And whilst I agree that some prices are simple gouging in some places, it’s also a simple clear and obvious matter of “designer” versus “generic” when it comes to frames…Chanel charges much more for a purse than K-Mart, and the “frame wars” market appears to be the same type of thing. Both purses will work…but only one will garner “oooohs” and “aaaaahs” at the next Lady’s Association Meeting.
Not that I’d ever be able to tell the difference, but there we have it.
Oh…and the yeast infection analogy? (/hijack) Yeast infection symptoms can mimic some other rather more serious gyne conditions and infections. That’s why we can’t often rely on our own powers of self-diagnosis.
And you should’ve seen the trouble we had trying to recruit patients for a certain popular yeast infection treatment… they picked a MALL intercept recruit method for crying out loud…“Scuse me Miss…but do you, or have you ever, suffered from a yeast infection?”. How many of us are going to say “yes” when we’re on the way back from the jeweler’s, boyfriend in tow? :smack: (/end hijack. With apologies)
If you can’t see, how on earth are you going to find such a machine in your mall and read the prescription it spits out
Most optometrists I’ve been to do have a little gadget that attempts to find my prescription. It’s not terribly accurate, especially since I started to develop astigmatism in my twenties.
And just to clarify what drachilix mentioned, both optometrists and opthalmologists are doctors, but they specialize in different areas. Opthamologists focus on disease and surgery, while optometrists focus on various forms of vision correction.
The safety issue strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Perfect eyesight is neither required nor expected for most activities including driving. If you must insist on the driving/safety thing, then what about people who don’t drive? Even here in Texas there are those who don’t drive, and in New York City I’m sure there are lots of folks who will never drive. Why do they need a specialist?
Finally, let me say one more time that we will all concede that there are vision problems that lie outside self treatment, but the same can be said of any malady. In every other case I can think of we are allowed to decide for ourselves whether we need a specialist or not.
I am amused by posters who drag out the driving safety argument. Have you seen the people who actually fix cars? Every day we are trusting the lives of millions of individuals to the workmanship of mechanics who can barely read, and no one is outraged.
Got my last pair of glasses online for about 40 bucks using my old prescription. Could have gotten them from another place for 20 if I wanted metal frames instead of plastic. I’m tired of being ripped off by the glasses industry.
Why? Because if you get bad glasses, you can damage your eyesight. Which is not as easy to fix as getting a stronger anti-fungal agent for a yeast infection.
But more than that, many eye diseases are asymptomatic. You don’t know you have them until the damage is done. It wasn’t until DeHusband got out of the military and started seeing my eye doctor that he was diagnosed with glaucoma. He had no pain or high eye pressure or trouble seeing. It wasn’t until Dr Benji saw something slightly weird and did more thorough testing that it was found. My sister has high blood pressure which was found during an eye exam in her teens. Her high blood pressure had “scarred” her macula, but because it was found early, she isn’t blind today.
Dr Benji says that with my eyes, slight astigmatism and miopia, I could easily go every 2-3 years if I wasn’t diabetic. My health insurance typically only allows for exams every 2 years. My prescription rarely changes but because of the diabetes, I need to be annually monitored to see if my vision is being effected. But DeHusband has to go every 6 months so they can keep track of the damage to his optic nerves.
You think you know more than someone who has years of specialized study and experience. Allrighty, then. Might one ask what you’ve based this opinion on, other than “it doesn’t look that hard”?
I’ve always heard this, but I’m very skeptical of the claim. Do you have a cite?
Once again: *many * diseases are asymptomatic, but we don’t *require * anyone to gat colonoscopies; we don’t *require * anyone to get their cholesterol checked.
Maybe this varies from state to state. When I first needed glasses, the optometrist told me I needed a simple prescription that was available in any drug store. Most drug stores in Maryland carry these reading glasses. You can try on one pair after another until you find what you need. No prescription needed. Now I use progressively ground bifocals…prescription needed. No one would want to whip up a pair of glasses for me and have me then want something else. They want a prescription so they know that they can get it right the first time. If it turns out the prescription isn’t right for me, the doctor is to blame. Not the optician who ground out the glasses. I think this has a lot to do with it.
I can be philosophical about this since I have now glaucoma so I see my ophthalmologist 4 times a year anyway. He checks my persciption with each visit.
Actually we do require people to get their cholesterol checked if they’re going to take cholesterol-reducing drugs. Nobody is forced or required to go to an optometrist. The Gestapo isn’t going to drag you into the office at gunpoint. You have every right to go without corrective lenses, just as someone has every right to not take their Lipitor or their blood-pressure medication. But if you’re going to get certain treatments, you have to be seen by a doctor.
I know this because I am “mechanical”, and can quickly pick up these sorts of things. I’m sure that doesn’t impress you, and it shouldn’t. But it’s gotten me through life, and I’ve had nothing but successes in the past quickly learning things much more difficult than this.
I know this because I’ve seen two optometrists in particular at their work and based on past experiences in my life came to believe that I am more apt at this skill of technical understanding than they were.
I know this because I have a cousin who is an optometrist, and I’ve had discussions with her on the technology, and it is my belief that it’s a fairly simple technology.
Now, could I walk into an optometrist’s office today and with no guidence or help deliver even a semi-accurate prescription? No.
But give me a couple hours to read up on it and do a couple of test runs, and I’m certain I could do just fine. I’d be willing to wager on it.
Yes, they are. If you need glasses to drive, you’ll need a prescription, and for that you’ll need to see an optha-something.
The issue of comparing vision problems with other diseases has been discussed at length here, so I haven’t bothered to restate it all over again, however if you like I’ll be happy to summarize it for you.
I’ll bet that the technology does exist that would give a layman a reasonably accurate prescription. The question is just how accurate does the readout need to be, and what might be the consequences of falling outside the tolerances.
I have to cite Dr. Benji. He explained that he was lowering my prescription slightly so that my eyes wouldn’t become “dependent” on the stronger prescription. Wearing a prescription that isn’t strong enough (or not wearing your glasses) will not effect your eyes at all. Of course this is what **my ** doctor told **me ** in **my ** appointment. Perhaps this is a question you should ask your own eye doctor?
Where, exactly, is it a legal requirement that someone drive? Driving is a choice. Nobody’s dragging anyone to the DMV at gunpoint. Yes, not driving seriously limits your options for a whole lot of things, but driving is still a choice.
I can see how a machine could run a patient through the necessary choices to determine the general correction needed, and could do measurements to figure out the other things that make lenses that are right for one’s needs.
However, I have a harder time imagining how a machine could do the other things that are part of an eye exam. For example, the dilation of pupils to examine the retinas, as DeVena and others have mentioned. I have very thorough eye exams–I’m beginning to wonder if they are outside the usual experience.
Most of what any expert does is routine. When I go to my doctor and she doesn’t have to do anything out of the ordinary I think this is a good thing. When she does find something out of ordinary that’s when I’m glad she went to college and then medical school and then internship so she knows the difference.
Um, that’s just silly. And I’m sure you know it is. People have a right to drive. In order to drive, by law (and good law, might I add) you must be able to see properly. In order to see properly, you must have a prescription and glasses.
