why are prescriptions required for eyes?

I can see why prescriptions are required for drugs, because those can
be easily abused or sold in the black market. But to me, eye
prescriptions don't seem that critical.

My analogy is shoes. You could probably mess up your
feet/knees/legs/back by wearing the wrong size or type of shoes, or
improper inserts long term. Yet a shoe prescription from a podiatrist
is not required for people to buy shoes.

Of course, everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally. But what's wrong with buying disposable contacts that
are a little higher or lower than your prescription to see how they
perform? You're not going to be seriously injured. Maybe get some
headaches or eyestrain, that's all. And if you do have problems, then
go see the optometrist (just like you'd see a podiatrist if shoes were
giving you problems).

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"Bucky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I can see why prescriptions are required for drugs, because those can
> be easily abused or sold in the black market. But to me, eye
> prescriptions don't seem that critical.
>
> My analogy is shoes. You could probably mess up your
> feet/knees/legs/back by wearing the wrong size or type of shoes, or
> improper inserts long term. Yet a shoe prescription from a podiatrist
> is not required for people to buy shoes.
>
> Of course, everyone should get an initial refraction done
> professionally. But what's wrong with buying disposable contacts that
> are a little higher or lower than your prescription to see how they
> perform? You're not going to be seriously injured. Maybe get some
> headaches or eyestrain, that's all. And if you do have problems, then
> go see the optometrist (just like you'd see a podiatrist if shoes were
> giving you problems).

I have mixed feelings. There is a podiatrist who visits my father's
Home. He gets a bunch of money for trimming toenails. It's all charged
to Medicare. He wants my dad to get surgery. My sister takes him in to
a doctor. The doctor is not happy. My dad has one kidney. It barely
works. He is diabetic. He has no feeling in his feet. He is 90. He
has no problems with his feet other than needing the corns filed off.
He is not a candidate for this surgery.

Things are weird. I shared an office for five years with a woman who's
father was a pharmacist. They had prescription aspirin. The tens
require a prescription. Of course, you can just take two fives. No
prescription.

Still, I'm going to see the OD. If I had to pay for it, I might think
twice about it.

A better analogy would be "Why do I need a licensed funeral director?
Why do I need a dentist? Why do I need a licensed vet? Why do I need
a lawyer? The answer, obviously, that all of the professions have
evolved over the centuries so that the individuals who practice those
professions have invested a lot of time, money and effort to becoming
masters of their chosen professions. They are the gatekeepers of the
information that you want to "play with" as an unlicensed
non-professional.
On Jan 26, 1:08 pm, "Bucky" <uw_badg...@email.com> wrote:
> I can see why prescriptions are required for drugs, because those can
> be easily abused or sold in the black market. But to me, eye
> prescriptions don't seem that critical.
>
> My analogy is shoes. You could probably mess up your
> feet/knees/legs/back by wearing the wrong size or type of shoes, or
> improper inserts long term. Yet a shoe prescription from a podiatrist
> is not required for people to buy shoes.
>
> Of course, everyone should get an initial refraction done
> professionally. But what's wrong with buying disposable contacts that
> are a little higher or lower than your prescription to see how they
> perform? You're not going to be seriously injured. Maybe get some
> headaches or eyestrain, that's all. And if you do have problems, then
> go see the optometrist (just like you'd see a podiatrist if shoes were
> giving you problems).

"Bucky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I can see why prescriptions are required for drugs, because those can
> be easily abused or sold in the black market. But to me, eye
> prescriptions don't seem that critical.
>
> My analogy is shoes. You could probably mess up your
> feet/knees/legs/back by wearing the wrong size or type of shoes, or
> improper inserts long term. Yet a shoe prescription from a podiatrist
> is not required for people to buy shoes.
>
> Of course, everyone should get an initial refraction done
> professionally. But what's wrong with buying disposable contacts that
> are a little higher or lower than your prescription to see how they
> perform? You're not going to be seriously injured. Maybe get some
> headaches or eyestrain, that's all. And if you do have problems, then
> go see the optometrist (just like you'd see a podiatrist if shoes were
> giving you problems).


If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone to only
make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all refractions have be
done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would have to be.

One could argue about how long a refraction should be valid for before it
expires, and in some states a Rx for contacts expires one year after the
exam date, and in other states it is two years or longer. But expiration of
a professionally done refraction is different than coming up with a new Rx
on your own.

But (if you really, really want to) there is always Photoshop.

On Jan 26, 7:38 pm, "doctor_my_...@msn.com" <doctor_my_...@msn.com>
wrote:
> A better analogy would be "Why do I need a licensed funeral director?
> Why do I need a dentist? Why do I need a licensed vet? Why do I need
> a lawyer? The answer, obviously, that all of the professions have
> evolved over the centuries so that the individuals who practice those
> professions have invested a lot of time, money and effort to becoming
> masters of their chosen professions. They are the gatekeepers of the
> information that you want to "play with" as an unlicensed
> non-professional.

I think you're misinterpreting my question. You're talking about
licensed vs unlicensed. I'm talking about being legally required to
have a prescription to buy something.

Sure, the licensed professionals would be better choices for all of the
above examples, but I'm not required to have a prescription or see a
licensed professional to have a funeral, buy a toothbrush, buy dog
food, or hire a lawyer. I have a choice to do it myself (amateur).

On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
> professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone to only
> make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all refractions have be
> done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would have to be.

No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
prescription, just like we can buy shoes.

"Bucky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
> initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
> idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
> licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
> for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
> prescription, just like we can buy shoes.

You can buy reading glasses at a discount store without an Rx.

If you can legally alter your own Rx for contacts, then you are refracting
yourself without a license.

If you want to purchase lenses outside of the US, then there are some
websites where you can just tell them your refraction without written copy
of an Rx (I know they will do it for glasses, but not sure about contacts).
Most of these sites will ship to the US.

Bucky wrote:

> On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
> > professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone
> > to only make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all
> > refractions have be done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would
> > have to be.
>
> No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
> initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
> idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
> licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
> for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
> prescription, just like we can buy shoes.

You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
with no Rx though.

--

Dear Charles,

It is also legal to buy blood-pressure measuring equipment
over-the-counter.

Thus if you check you B.P. and find 120/80 you indeed
have no problem.

It is also legal to buy plus and minus lenses and look
through them.

You can buy them on the internet (a pair for $10).

You can also find a Snellen on the internet.

If you are reading the Snellen at 20/70, and find
a -1.25 diopter minus lens "clears" the 20/20 line,
then that is indeed your refractive STATE.

The issue is this. Do you have the right to do this?

If you wished you could go to the OD and have him
check. His methods are the same a per above.

He will check for retinal problems (organic) and
the like. But once it is clear that a -1.25 diopter
will clear the 20/20 line -- then you do have a choice
in where you obtain that minus lens.

Given the availablity of minus lenses of various powers,
you could determine your own refractive STATE if
you choose to do so.

Otis


On Jan 27, 9:21 am, "Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Bucky wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 8:30 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > If you agree that everyone should get an initial refraction done
> > > professionally, how are your going to enforce only allowing someone
> > > to only make an minor adjustment to the initial Rx? Either all
> > > refractions have be done by a licensed OD/MD, or none of them would
> > > have to be.
>
> > No, I didn't say that people should be legally required to have an
> > initial refraction done. I just meant that it would probably be a good
> > idea. And I also believe that refractions should only be done by
> > licensed professionals. However, I also think that it should be fine
> > for anyone to buy any pair of glasses or contacts without a
> > prescription, just like we can buy shoes.You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
> using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
> sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
> agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
> with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
> legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
> with no Rx though.
>
> --

"Charles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:WdJuh.1160015$084.401166@attbi_s22...
> You can readily get prescription glasses for any Rx you want to invent
> using the pull-down menus on the web sites. It must be legal since the
> sites are easy to find. Contacts are a different story. I happen to
> agree with you that people should we within their rights to experiment
> with their own eyeballs if they so choose, but it's not currently
> legal. If you try hard enough, you can find sites to sell you contacts
> with no Rx though.


Unless the website business is operating outside the US, then you must send
or fax a copy to them of the Rx, or provide the phone number of the OD so
they can verify. But there are some websites that are outside of the US that
will make any pair of lenses you want without an Rx. I don't know about
contacts, but I would bet you could order whatever you want from some
places.

Even though they will ship to the US, it probably is illegal to do so, just
like it is technically illegal to purchase drugs from Canada and have them
shipped to the US. But I doubt that the customs services has stopped very
many of these shipments of lenses.