Re: [APML] LASIK

["Joseph O'Neil" <joneil@multiboard.com>]

>>Let me tell you a story for perspective:
>>In London, Ontario, where I used to practice, an eye surgeon offered FREE
>>LASIK to any optometrists and ophthalmologists that wanted it and there
>>were NO TAKERS.

-snip-
         I had a good laugh reading Dave's post, because I live in the same 
city Dave used to practice in and my expereince was exactly the same.  I 
asked my opthamologist about Lasik, more out of curiosity than anything 
else, and he didn't advise agianst, but he did say it was best for extreme 
cases.   He than  made the point of telling me he had been offered it for 
free, but turned it down, and said decide for myself at that point.  Hmmmm, 
tough choice, eh?  :)

>Now for some more perspective, my eyes slowly degraded to where I could 
>not focus on distant objects by the time I was 50. My natural focus point 
>was about 2 ft in front of my nose. This is commonly called myopia, or 
>near vision. In my case it was caused by my working closely at my 
>engineering desk without reading glasses. My eyes just slowly wandered to 
>that focus because I spent the majority of my time looking no further than 
>2ft from my nose. When I could not pass my driver's eye test anymore, I 
>decided to train my eyes for distance vision. It is well known among 
>pilots that you can "pull" your eyes to a different focus point by wearing 
>glasses that force your eyes to change focus.
>By the way, pretty much every opthamologist knows this but remember where 
>their income comes from.
>Roland Christen

-snip-
         It may not be quite as sinister as you imagine.  :)

         Michael Covington, who used to be on this list, once wrote on 
s.a.a many moons ago how his much difference it made to him to buy a really 
good pair of prescription eyeglasses.  I think, if memory serves me 
correctly, he bought Zeiss prescription glasses.  Zeiss, Rodenstock, Nikon 
and others make prescription lenses.  Rodenstock for example, offers 
bifocals and trifocals in ED glass, according to one of their catalogs.

         ( But - for goodness sake - don't ask me if it's real or fake ED 
glass or what Schoot corresponding catalog number it is, those are for 
endless arguements over on s.a.a.  :)

         So, hearing this, I decided to go for a good pair of glasses a few 
eyars back - in my case Rodenstock lenses (but not the ED glass :).  I had 
one hellva time convincing my opthamologist to make me a pair.  Actually 
two pair - one clear, one tinted brown for daytime use - the brown tint 
helps me see contrast becasue of my colour blindness.  He said they had 
only ahve two other customers  who have had made/ordered this quality 
before  in all of their years of business  - one each for the two guys who 
actually run the office.

         I was getting nowhere fast at I was litterally at the point of 
hauling out my large format camera with my collection of Rodenstock lenses 
view camera lenses becasue they were amazed I knew about 
Rodenstock.  Sheesh!  Even then, I paid the entire cost cash,  up front.

          I finally get my glasses in about two weeks later, and wow, yes, 
what a difference.  First, you do not notice it untill you have something 
to compare to, but eyestrain is is non-existant, compared to your average 1 
hour lab type of stuff.    It's hard to expalin, but everything is tack 
sharp -  maybe because your eyes are not working as hard as with cheaper 
glasses.

         To put things in perspective, most prescription glasses from 1 
hour labs are, in effect, like Chinese refractors.  They look great by 
themselves, but set one up beside one of Rolland's refractors and - 
hmmmmmmm.  :)

         I really believe if most people blew the bucks on a really superb 
pair of prescription eyeglasses, the demand and/or interest in things like 
LASIK would suffer a dramatic decline.  Maybe that is the point too.  The 
problem is, good luck finding somebody who can or will do a really good 
pair.   As my opthamologist & optomitrist pointed out (two of them, both 
work out of the same office), they'll have a guy in a brand new Mercedes 
who'll howl bloddy murder about the cost of glasses.  Conversely, somebody 
has medical insurance benefits from work, the insurance company will howl 
bloody murder about he cost of glasses to.  For example, what I paid $400 
Cdn for, I could of bought the same prescription from Wal-Mart for about 
$150 Cdn. . So, most people in the business don't even bother to try 
anymore, they just get a job at Wal-Mart and offer the lowest prices on eye 
glasses.

          (That's the "conspiracy" for you Rolland.  Sorry I couldn't make 
it more interesting by involving aliens or the CIA or something  :)


         So, for all of you guys who have gone out and blown the big coin 
on a brand new Nagler, you are about the only members of the "general 
public" that can probally understand why it's worth the money. As my 
opthamologist pointed out, it's a completely lost battle to try and educate 
the public other wise, or fight insurance companies other wise.

         Without exaggeration, a pair of glass lens spectacles from 
somebody like Zeiss or Rodenstock, especailly if a complex prescription, 
will cost you the same as a Nagler, maybe even the 31mm Type % 
(gasp!),  but when you use them, bang, all doubt disappears.  Mine is a 
simple prescription, plastic lens, not glass,  but even at that,  but I 
tell you, what a difference compared ot my old glasses.    It really is 
worth looking at long before you consider LASIK, IMO.

joe




http://www.oneilphoto.on.ca
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
"Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem"


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>