Child & Contacts - Should I take him to another doc?

My 12 year old son is near sighted and wants to try contacts because several
of his classmates have started wearing them. He has been seeing the same
pediatric ophthalmologist since he was born (the doc is good). The way
contacts are presribed at his medical group is that his assistant does the
fitting and teaches the child how to use contacts.

My son has had two 30 minutes sessions with the female assistant and he has
not been able to put them in & take them out. I asked her to give me
contacts so that my son could practice at home, but she said, "For safety, I
cannot give you contacts unless he puts them in & takes them out in front of
me."

So, we have another session next week but I highly doubt that my son can
suddenly handle contacts. The point that I'm making is, "Is it a standard
procedure not to give contacts to me (and my son) in this situation?"
Without contacts, how can my son practice and how can I teach him? I don't
know how many sessions my son would need.

Can I ask for the prescription and order contacts on-line? Thanks.

 

Let me tell you something: contacts are very uncomfortable to wear. My
friend who wears them --I wear specs-- says that when she first got
them, they felt like she had sand in her eyes for weeks. Also, you can
lose contacts *very* easily; I doubt your 12yr old would enjoy
spending a good 15 minutes looking for a plastic disc the size of a
dime, when he could be out playing or studying. Just get him a pair of
stylish Flexon --they're the kind you could run over w/ a freight
train and they wouldn't break-- glasses w/ lenses that are:

Apochromatic --correct chromatic abberations in all three primary
colors; not achromatic, they only correct two primary colors--
Atoric --corrects spherical abberations in all directions; not
aspheric, they only correct the x, y, and z axes--
ECM-9 polycarbonate --even thinner than normal CR-39 polycarbonate--
Anti-reflective coating --reduces glare; you can see clearer--
Anti-scratch coating --duh!--
Photochromic coating --makes the lenses change from clear to dark in
sunlight; w/ contacts you'd need a pair of superexpensive sunglasses--

Something cool you can do w/ eyeglasses you can't do w/ contacts:
widen your eyes, look over the lenses, and sardonically grin and show
your teeth; this creeps all my friends out.

If he really doesn't want to wear eyeglasses, get an opthalmologist to
do wavefront LASIK on his eyes.

Hope this helps!!!

 

Almost forgot. Dr. Leif Hertzog in Long Beach, CA is my internist's,
and soon to be my, opthalmologist. http://www.hertzogeyeassociates.com

 

Hi
Your suggestion regarding the use of lens instead of contacts was
good,but lastly you have rocemended Lasik,which is not right,I'm not
sure as to whether you are of the fact that a wave front corneal
correction or a Lasik or Zyoptix for that matter can be done only for
those who have attained the age of 22 years,with a power stability for
two years.Check on this .Read and Refresh for yourself.

You may be a good candidate if you:
Feel that spectacles/contact lenses are a nuisance in your job,
sporting activities or
personal life
Suffer from the effect of scattered light (aberrations)
Have been told that your pupils are too big, or your corneas too
thin,for standard treatment
Need vision correction and have a prescription range of up to - 12.00
dioptres sphere
and - 7.00 cylinder
Have had stable vision for the past 2 years
Have healthy eyes, good general health and are not taking medication
that affects the healing process
Are older than 21
What can Zyoptix correct?
Personal factors to consider
Career Implications:
People in certain occupations - e.g. the Armed Forces or the Police -
may be prohibited from undergoing laser treatment. Always ask your
employer for advice.

Age:
Your surgeon might think it wise to postpone treatment if you are
under 21.

Time, after-care and commitment:
The treatment itself only takes a few minutes, but all the tests and
aftercare visits over a 3-month period will require your time and
commitment. You might also need check-ups at 6 and 12 months.

Money
Zyoptix may be more expensive than standard LASIK.

PLEASE NOTE: Only your surgeon can determine if you are a suitable
candidate for Zyoptix, based on appropriate diagnostic tests and your
medical history.

Medical factors to consider
You will probably be told you are unsuitable for Zyoptix if you have
contraindicated eye or health problems.

Ocular (eye) health:
Your surgeon will examine you for severe dry eye conditions,
infections, allergies, any corneal abnormalities or eye disease
(either existing or within your family) that could affect the healing
process.

General health:
Your surgeon will check with you that you do not suffer from diseases
that prevent you from having laser treatment and may well contact your
GP. You will have to postpone your treatment if you are pregnant or
breast-feeding.

Medication:
Certain medicines might interact with the drops you will be given.
Some examples are - medication for migranes (triptans), hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) antihistamines and others. Your surgeon will
advise you if and how your medication effects laser treatment. Be sure
to tell your surgeon about any current or past health problems.

What prescription range can Zyoptix correct?
People may not realise how suitable they are for laser treatment,
because they wrongly believe that their eyes are not weak enough. In
fact, many patients with mild to moderate prescriptions undergo LASIK.
But because Zyoptix removes less tissue than Bausch and Lomb standard
LASIK, it can be performed on people previously unsuitable for laser
eye treatments - such as those with higher prescriptions.

The limit of what can be corrected varies from person to person, from
surgeon to surgeon and from machine to machine. As a general guide,
the Zyoptix system can correct:

To about -12.00 dioptres of near-sight.
The range for astigmatism is up to - 7.00 dioptres (with near-sight)
Alternatives if you are not suitable for Zyoptix
Most people who want Zyoptix are able to have it, but if not, your
surgeon will be happy to discuss alternatives with you. For example,
PRK or prescription implanted intraocular lenses may be good
alternatives. A few people may have to accept the fact that they are
going to need spectacles or contact lenses - and it is worth knowing
that Bausch and Lomb manufactures a contact lens that can be worn
continuously for up to 30 days. This new range is called PureVision
and corrects up to - 9.00 dioptres.

Zyoptix: widening the scope...
Zyoptix means that people whose eyes were unsuitable for laser surgery
may now be able to undergo treatment... reflecting your outlook

Improving your working life is not the only reason to choose Zyoptix.
Many active people who wear glasses or contact lenses feel they can
never realise their full potential in the sports and games they enjoy
so much... Talk to the clinic today, change your whole perspective.
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Program Policies - Google Home

 

Certainly. the last thing you would want is for your son to get home
and not be able to remove his contact lenses. the rule in my office,
and in most all other offices I imagine, is that if you can't put your
contacts in, then take them out, and then put them in again, then you
can't leave the office with them. no one wants to answer an emergency
call at midnight because a child can't remove their contact lens.

some people require a long time to learn to put their contacts in.
when I started wearing them it took me 2 visits on successive days to
learn to get them in and take them out. its difficult to overcome
your innate blink reflex.

what part of the contact lens insertion and removal process is the
most difficult for your son? if his problem is that he blinks
excessively then he can practice at home touching his sclera (white
portion of eye) with the edge of his finger to desensitize himself.
sometimes it helps to switch contact lens trainers-- someones style or
technique in teaching a person may work better for a particular
personality.

if you live in the US, then yes. if your son gets a final approved
contact prescription then it is your right under law to get a copy.

 

Oh yeah...

 

I know that I can order contacts online in the US. Are you saying that my
son's contact prescription still need a final approval? The lenses were
ordered according to the ophthalmologist's prescription. So, I thought that
instead of secheduling sessions with the assistant, I might simply order the
same contacts and train my son at home (I'm a long time contact user, so I
know what to do.)

 

Sigh of relief or ignorance or both accept and try to be practical.

 

The prescription is not generally given until the fitting process is
complete, which includes the follow-up visits. Your son cannot have a
follow-up visit unless he has been able to take the lenses home and
wear them, and he won't be permitted to take them home until he can
handle them. There is no use arguing about this situation, and it
appears as though your son is just not ready for contact lenses. Why
are you forcing the issue?

There are things you can do with your son at home, including teaching
him how to hold his eyes open and touch his eyes.

DrG

 

don't give up yet on trying the contacts - he'll eventually get the
hang of it.
if at the ophthalmologists office it doesn't work out try going
elsewhere for another trial/fitiing.

 

I think you are offering advise based solely on your personal
experience and hearsay from your friend.

The majority of patients find soft disposable contact lenses to be
quite comfortable. And that is the whole reason for giving trial
lenses anyway. A patient can wear lenses for a brief time and then
decide whether thats what they want to do or not, without buying
anything first (except the professional services for contact fitting
and training).

 

Thank you for your stupid advice. Many people find them comfortable.
When I first tried a contact, the doctor asked me how it felt. I
replied that I couldn't feel a thing. Of course, other people have
different experiences.

I'm only surprised that you still have any friends left. I guess they
are the kind that like this kind of stuff.

 

They are.

 

Moreover, you won't even know if they fit properly until he can wear them
for a while. Whenever I've been fitted for contacts, it's taken at least a
dozen iterations to find something that MOSTLY works, and even then the
results aren't reproducible.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================================
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

Why does that sound like an ad?

 

Churie DOES seem to be pimping Zyoptix lasik around here.

Would he like to divulge an economic interest, by any chance???

 

Hi
Im not doing what you had mentioned.This was the reply given to a
wrong post by Dark Portoman to convert him to Light Portoman.The
reason being he had recommended Lasik for a twelwe year old,hence the
post.

 

This is a typical statement of Neil Brooks:

1. First attack and insult, then

2. Accuse of "hidden" economic interests.

3. And then slather with blather.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

 

LOL

 

Actually, Otis, I seek to understand.

Would you mind answering a few questions for me, please?

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?

2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?

3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?

4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?

5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
position.

6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?

7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?

9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?

10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.

11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia

13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?

14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his book?

15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license?
[http://www.chinamyopia.org/otis &joy.htm]

16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.

17. You enjoy citing the Francis Young 1969 Eskimo study, claiming
that it is "proof that near work causes myopia." Are you aware of the
contemporary theory that states that, in fact, myopia in the Inuit
population was a result of the introduction of a "Western" diet high
in simple carbohydrates (junk food)?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/myopia.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2120

18. You enjoy using the term "closed-loop feedback system" to
describe
your concept of the "dynamic eye," yet (see question #3) the following
is
a much BETTER representation of a closed-loop feedback system:

Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
INcrease in temperature.

If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
DEcrease in temperature.

IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature
--
then the thermostat will not signal any change.

Please explain why your position is at variance with this analogy.

19. You seem to stop by sci.med.vision for the sole purpose of
"roiling
the waters--" adding posts designed only to harrass and annoy
optometrists
who, universally, do not agree with you.

You then excerpt--often improperly and with incorrect attributions--
these conversations on other sites, adding your little 'comments'
WITHOUT the doctor having any ability to challenge what you say.

Do you think this is intellectually honest?

If you are interested in debate, exchange, argument, or discussion,
wouldn't it be better to actually ANSWER questions directly?

20. Presuming that your theories are based, at least in large
part, on the emmetropization process, at what age does this stop in
humans? In other words: you are recommending a particular therapy to
halt myopia progression that--based on your arguments--should be
equally
effective at REVERSING it. If so, then why are all of its advocates
(and
most of its known 'test subjects') myopic?

This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?