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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

The most obvious reason why lens prescriptions are legally required is to
minimize the risk of operating dangerous machinery, such as automobiles.
Can you imagine drivers, pilots, ship captains, etc. self-prescribing?
People cannot be trusted to be responsible and use common sense in such
situations. How could you even tell if you hit on the correct prescription?

 

Never thought of that. We had a mandated financial report at work that
was needed Right Now. It was a yearly report. The software had a bug
in it, and the numbers simply didn't add up. It was one page. The
accounting folks knew what the numbers were supposed to be. I suggested
to the Little Cheese that I just edit the print file and fix it. I told
her it would take two hours, a few seconds to do the edit and the rest
to figure out how to make it editable and then convert it back to a
print file. The Big Cheese came by and asked what the problem was. He
said my solution was ridiculous. Just import into Excel, or retype it.
Å clerical person could do that, you didn't need a computer programmer.

 

My father has US$300 shoes. They look like regular tennis shoes. They
were prescribed by a podiatrist.

 

Literally, prescribe means before (pre) and write (scribe). It is
simply putting the numbers down on paper.

Why does it have to come from a licensed practitioner? Because there
are laws that say such. The laws were enacted as professions became
licensed and responsible for their actions, as well to protect the
professions. The wrong glasses can cause problems with depth
perception and acuity, thus causing drivers to crash and injure
people. They can cause eyestrain, double vision and headache.

You can also read posts from Cletis in this NG which is probably the
best reason not to allow open slather prescribing. The government
decided to protect the public from themselves and deluded individuals
like Cletis.

dr grant

 

The examples you gave are regulated. Still, there's a lot of dangerous
machinery that aren't.

 

None of these professions require proof of a doctor's prescription,
only proof that you can see.

--

 

Not my experience. If you fail the vision screening, then you don't get
a driver's license without a form from an eye doctor. I've done this
twice, my wife once.

 

What I mean is, I can self prescribe my glasses so long as I pass the
vision test. The FAA/DMV doesn't care as long as I can see. The idea
that an Rx is required to protect the public from blind pilots doesn't
make sense.

--

 

You may be correct - no agency has ever required me to present a doctor's
vision prescription before issuing me a license. Practically though, the
need to pass a vision test effectively forces me (and most everybody else)
to get a proper exam and prescription. My point is it's a public safety
issue. Even if you could evaluate your own vision accurately and write your
own prescription, who would fill it? Opticians I have dealt with have
always required a doctor's prescription (not more than two years old) before
they will make lenses/glasses.

 

Assuming you had a trial-lens "frame", and
a box of trial lenses (in 1/4 diopter steps),
and a days traing and experience you
could probably determine your refractive STATE
that would not be much difference that
a measurement made in an office.

After all they are the same thing.

What the OD can do in his office is to check
for retinal-organic problems. And also
check for eye-ball pressure.

But once these items are cleared off the
table, then verifying your refractive STATE
would not take much training.

Just on man's opinion.

Otis