Author Topic: Legal Issues (Medical).  (Read 983 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Legal Issues (Medical).
« on: November 20, 2014, 01:02:17 PM »
Subject: What are the LEGAL REASONS that prevent all ODs and MDs from advocating prevention - under YOUR control.

Discussion Topic:  I had been able to "deduce" that the plus could be used for "mild nearsightedness", or for people who could still read some of the 20/40 line, but were not yet wearing a minus lens.

Item: I will always agree that we must personally check their Snellen and always exceed the 20/40 line.  With skill and resolve, I believe that most people could pass the DMV required 20/20 line, (i.e., both eyes open, read at 20 feet).

I thought that perhaps some ODs had "figured out" the same thing.  But I wondered why no optometrist would ever "volunteer" preventive information to me, when I could still pass the 20/40 line, and perhaps could "change my refraction" in a positive direction, by "personally directed" wearing of a plus for all close work.

I think the reason is "purely legal".  The OD's do not even want to BEGIN thinking about this issue.

This is what my friend, Don Rehm, calls this problem, "The Myopia Silence".  There are many reasons for the silence, but the result is that you never "hear about" successful plus-prevention, until a person like Todd Becker and Brian Severson actually work their way out of 20/50 vision to self-checked normal - to pass the DMV requirement.   Here are the reasons you will never "hear" about protecting your distant vision - for life.

FIRST REASON:  I talk about a natural eye with refractive STATES, not errors or failures.  I indeed do that for "legal reasons", but I also do it because in pure science, I can prove it.  The MD or OD, simply ignores all science that he can not use on you - in his office.  He presumes that "nearsightedness" will never be prevented.  He feels that if he says anything, he will be sued for fraud - if you do not get yourself back to 20/20, (refractive STATE of 0.0 diopters.)

SECOND REASON:  Prevention (or clearing your Snellen from 20/50 to 20/20) takes about a year of long-term wearing of a plus lens (for all near work.)  No exceptions and no complaints from you. Unless you have a strong scientific education, and resolve, no one is going to wear a plus for one year - if "prescribed" by an optometrist. 

THIRD REASON:  From conversations with Raphaelson (50 years of practice), I found he could get his own children to wear the plus (because he had a clear understanding of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye), but he could not prescribe the plus to the (short tempered general public), nor could he explain why it is so necessary to wear the plus for near, when everyone assumes that is part of an effort to MAKE MONEY - for something that has never been proven to "work", AS MEDICINE. 

The above truths, are the reason why I never use the word, "cure" or "therapy", when I mean prevent "negative status" (self measured) for the natural eye.

You must help yourself, by in fact making all the measurements yourself.

If an OD were to attempt to do this, you would not wear the plus.  Further, if any nuance happened, (i.e., double vision, or ghosting), and you though it was because it was because you were WEARING THE PLUS FOR NEAR -- FOR A YEAR, you would certainly sue the OD who "prescribed the plus".

Thus -- the plus is not a prescription.  But the plus can be used for prevention, if you have the intellectual judgment to do it yourself.

For me, these reasons are rational, logical and science-based.  They are the reasons I accept that if I need prevention, I must to do it myself.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 12:44:01 PM by OtisBrown »