On Aug 29, 1:35 pm, "JWard6971 via MedKB.com" <u45776@uwe> wrote:

what kind of clear picture do you expect to see?

whats clear to me from what you've written is: 1) that your child's
academic skills are behind, 2) his refraction is +3.25D indicating
that he is significantly farsighted, and 3) farsightedness is clearly
associated with inhibition of academic development and performance.
The path forward is pretty clear from what my experience is, and I
think that you know it.  But for some reason you seem to be averse to
the idea of your son wearing glasses.

do you want "wait and see" for your child's development?  whats the
downside of using readers part-time?

your child's young age allows you to be a little "sloppy" in your
decision-making now because he hasn't started into any prolonged
reading and writing exercises yet.  regardless, a reasonable course of
action for you would be to simply get a weak pair of readers, say
+1.50, and have him use those to read along with you or color or
whatever.  he's not going to tell you that he sees better, or that he
feels better-- the only proof that you would get that they are
benefiting him is if he improves his academic development.  kids
notoriously give poor clinical feedback.  its not the clear evidence
that you seem to be looking for but visualize the alternative-- do
nothing and ignor the likely cause of my son's slow academic
development.

i guess i'm not sure why you don't just jump at this as a real
possibility to improve your sons situation?

On Aug 31, 12:02 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:

Is this true:

The child's manifest (Snellen and trial lens) refractive STATE is +1/2
diopter.

(That means that more plus will blur the Snellen -- significantly, say
by about 20/100 through an additional +3 diopters.)

Thus, while the +3 diotpers might be "good" for near, the child's
distant vision will be seriously bad -- as I described it.

Have you explained this to the mother?

Enjoy,

Otis

ses yet.  regardless, a reasonable course of

Well, I think it's time to take what I've learned and move on from this
discussion.  To those that educated me, even if it was with more questions or
options -- thank you.  But, I resent the comment above and the rest of the
message's implication that somehow I know what to do and just didn't want to
do it.  To clarify - I have NO problem getting my child glasses - I've
considered every day walking right in and getting them ordered, but keep in
mind that even here a variety of opinions abound on even what strength of
glasses he should have. My reputable optometrist associated with my medical
clinical gave me no clear direction on which option to take (pretty much that
either was equally acceptable), and left me with questions.  Questions any
reasonable mother would want answered before potentially doing something that
could slow his own natural eventual correction of the problem or cause
problems (maybe +3 is too strong right away) if no were currently manifesting.
(The local opinion was that any natural "growing out of it" wouldn't occur
until 7-9 years of age. And correction could slow that process.)

I now have more information, and more options to discuss with a second
opinion which I intend to now seek.  To say that I somehow just didn't want
to do this and statement that I am now making "sloppy" decisions as a result
of wanting to learn more is uncalled for and a little egotistical.  Taking
the advice of a bunch of strangers on the internet as anything more than
educational material to consult with a credientialed optometrist face to face
is not the kind of person I am.  I am thankful for the education on options
that exist so I can have a better conversation with my own optometrist and
the second opinion.  I have a better understanding of some of the published
literature on the subject as a result as well.  I am about as unsloppy as it
gets on this one considering its only been a week since my appointment and
school hasn't even started yet.

So thank you and good bye.

Janice

--
Message posted via http://www.medkb.com