|
|
|
|
|
|
by 542458
1836 days ago
|
|
|
There are two parts to this. One, yeah the optometrist wants your money, sure. You probably don’t need your script checked annually unless you’re old or there’s something serious already known to be wrong with your eyes. But... Not perceiving a change in your vision doesn’t mean your eyes are healthy - there are all sorts of diseases that a decent optometrist is screening for during an eye exam. Most notably glaucoma, which is irreversible and often presents no symptoms. Your eyes are really really good at working around flaws in your vision, which means that you can feel like you are seeing fine when really your vision is failing. This is what a lot of “check your vision at home” things miss - they can hand you an eyeglass prescription (so long as your vision isn’t too far outside the norm) but they almost never screen for disease, and catching those diseases early can be the difference between seeing and legally blind. |
|
|
I’ll highlight the main point, which is that these “check your vision at home” tests never screen for disease. This is 100% true and is one of the biggest issues I have with the “exams” that are currently out there.
There’s a critical element of good vision that exists outside of needing glasses or needing contacts, and that is, are your eyes healthy and functioning well? Are there underlying, silent issues that don’t bother you day to day but may turn into serious problems down the line? All of these are serious considerations that my team and I are thinking through very carefully, and I want to make it quite clear that our end product will at the very least be able to screen for all the major categories of disease (eg diabetic eye disease, AMD, glaucoma, optic neuropathy, etc.)