Glasses for 5 year-old twins

Dear Pat,

If an OD explains WHY he thinks a child with a refractive STATE of
+2 diopters (no symptoms of anything -- visual acuity normal), and
you BELIEVE him, then you should be requested to
sign a statement to the effect that the "plus" in this
instance is not "standard" and you understand that issue.

But let me be clear about this issue.

There is SCIENTIFIC evidence that a +2 -- worn all the time
as was the OD's intention -- will result in:

1. The child's refractive STATE remaining at +2 diopters,
or

2. The child's refractive STATE moving more positive, perhaps
to +2.5, 3.0 (and if the strength is increased to +3 diopters,
then on to +4 diopters.)

3. When this scientific experiment is done as pure science,
then indeed the natural eye's refractive STATE will
"follow" the +2 diopter lens in this manner. This
is intuitively with the ophthamologist understands (I hope),
and the reason that is it stated that a +2 diopter lens
will "interfere" with "emmetropization".

This is why I also suggest you be cautioned about
using the "plus" in this manner -- so you
understand the risks of it.

Best,

Otis

 

Pat may be interested in this article:

British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:542
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECHO

Long sight reduces learning in young schoolchildren
Children are failing educationally because long sight is not seen as a
problem, say doctors in South Wales who have studied more than a
thousand schoolchildren.
Scores for national tests-proficiency in reading and writing English
and progress in the national curriculum in English, mathematics, and
science-were significantly lower for the children who had been
referred to an optometrist and were the most long sighted (>+3D for
both eyes or 1.25 for best eye) than for those who were less affected
(+3D) and for those who had not been referred. Thirteen per cent of the
total cohort had been referred to an optometrist after failing a test
for long sight, and half of them needed glasses or a referral to an
educational psychologist, or both. Many of those referred to the
psychologist scored poorly in the tests.

The local community paediatric service screened almost 1300 children
aged 8 years with a standard vision screening protocol changed to
include a fogging test for long sight. Children failing this test or
others were referred to an optometrist for treatment and possible
further referral to an educational psychologist. Educational test
results were obtained for consenting children.

 

Prove it. Provide one single citation of peer-reviewed research that
supports your ridiculous claim. Go ahead. Or get the hell out of here.

LB

 

Pat may be interested in this article:

British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:542
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

So what you are telling Pat, is that his 5 year old kids with
a normal refracitve STATE of +1.5 diopters have:

1. Reading problem.

2. Psychological problem or

3. Both,

And that justifies putting the child into a +1.5 diopter
lens with NO DISCUSSION of any of these "issues"
the OD "assumed" were true because
of the normal refractive STATE of +1.5 diopters.

Seems to me that the OD should have discussed
these issues BEFORE a +1.5 diopter lens was prescribed.

Or perhaps, the OD does not understand the right of
a person to an informed choice in this matter.

+1.5 diopter for the kid, and sent Pat out
to the "desk" to order the +1.5 -- to be
worn 16/7.

Jeeze!

Otis

 

Is this the conclusion you drew from the article?

That's for sure! LOL!

DrG