Slashdot Mirror
Contact Lens Startup Hubble Sold Lenses With a Fake Prescription From a Made-up Doctor (qz.com)
Alison Griswold, reporting for Quartz: The Hubble contacts sitting in front of me are everything the ads promised: two weeks' worth of soft, daily lenses in robin's-egg-blue packaging. They arrived promptly, one week after I placed an order on Hubble's website, and three days after the company notified me the contacts had shipped. The lenses were packed in cream-colored boxes and came with a five-step guide, illustrated in different shades of pastel. There's only one problem: I don't wear contacts, and I ordered these using a fake prescription from a made-up doctor. Hubble was founded in May 2016 as a direct-to-consumer contact lens brand -- the Warby Parker of contacts, if you will. The company aims to make buying contact lenses as cheap and easy as shopping on Amazon. It has fast become a star of New York's startup scene, raising more than $30 million from investors that include Founders Fund and Greycroft Partners. Its valuation tops $200 million. Since the service officially launched in November 2016, Hubble claims to have sold $20 million worth of lens subscriptions, and says it's growing 20% month over month. Hubble expanded to Canada in August and plans to be in the UK as early as January. Quick service, cheap contacts, and whimsical branding have made Hubble a speedy success. But in its rush to disrupt the consumer experience, Hubble also appears to be playing fast and loose with some basic consumer protections.
Seriously? It's not like someone is going to get high on contact lenses and go commit crimes.
You did something under false pretenses and your an idiot trying to blame them.
The next contacts you get might be from the feds.
Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? Come on editors, news for nerds.
Why ( or even is) it required by law that glasses / lenses only be sold to those who are prescribed them by a Eye DR? What if I just want 10 pairs of different magnification to demo in my science class? I don't see where there should be some kind of problem with getting them even if you don't have a prescription. I suppose their could be a down side of mistyping a prescription but I'm not sure how you would fix that unless you called every DR and verified the persecution , which sounds expensive.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Contact and eyeglass prescriptions aren't routinely verified like drugs are. Usually only in the case that something looks inaccurate on the prescription. The point of the prescription is to keep ophthalmologists in business when you come in for your yearly checkup.
Disclaimer - I work for an large national optical chain in the US and prescriptions are almost never verified.
This is exactly how we wind up with a flood of fake-prescription contact lenses showing up on the dead bodies of young people who've overdosed on astigmatism correction at night clubs.
... so what? Now, if this was a story about someone pretending to be an optometrist or ophthalmologist messing with other people's vision, that would be different. But this? Stop it. Really.
Or maybe the tone of outrage here, is a bit absurd? If you want to deliberately falsify the documentation needed to purchase something you're going to wear in your own eyes to correct your own vision
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I donâ(TM)t need a doctor to tell me what to place in my eye? If the contacts meet government quality standards, then that should be the end of the regulations.
Contact lenses aren't classified as a medical device in Europe, you can get them over the counter in any drugstore. I don't see how this is a problem.
The real problem is some dumb journalist drumming up tension by inventing a doctor.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
The only reason you need a Dr prescription is that they were able to lobby to make it a requirement because they were losing so much contact business from 1800 contacts. Now they've managed to require contacts have a 1 year expiration to make you go toss $100 each year to get a new prescription.
The prescription is there for the buyer's protection. If someone actively tries to circumvent the system, they lose that protection, that's all. You can't get high on contacts, use them to poison someone, etc.
Here in Canada there's been a popular website called Clearly where you enter your prescription and can order glasses or contacts. No 'doctors note' required.
So long as the contacts and glasses are up to spec (like the actual prescription, sterile, etc) I don't see what the big deal is? If I need a new set of contacts after 6mos, why should I have to go and visit an optometrist? Same if my glasses break? My prescription didn't change for nearly 30 years.
What happened to all the 'anti-regulation' attitude that we expect from the US? Why are you letting Big Optometrist tell you what prescription you can order?
If you wanted to damage your eyes, it would be cheaper, faster, and more reliable to just stab them with a fork.
Log in or piss off.
Just because there is a prescription involved, that doesn't mean there is a problem.
in this case a prescription is simply a lens specification. What it DOES mean is that one may order contact lenses made to any particular specification from this vendor.
Take a chill pill
I just had to fix that.
I go to a doctor, he sees my eyes, he passes judgement. I can read his prescription, and I can chose to visit him again when I feel the need, or when he suggests it. I can ignore him, not buy anything. I can even get eye glasses for free and chose not to use them. Cuz, you know, I'm free like that, and so should you.
What I don't need is someone telling me I can't buy a product that I decide to do on the cheap, which I would use solely use for my own benefit, because that product purchase requires pointless REDTAPE - it's not a gun, it's not a car, it's not a strong radio device, it's not a flying one. So who gives a flying fuck?
You guessed right - opticians, doctors, and the money that stops flowing in the direction of overpriced, overmarketed crap that serves the exact same purpose. Those are the ones who care for stuff like this. Don't be an Ajit Pai and sell that stupid requirement as consumer protection.
I love stuff like Hubble. I just don't think they'll be lukcy in the UK - Daysoft lenses already has much of Europe covered for cheap, amazing, convenient contact lenses. And most of all, lenses that only need my check stating "I have a prescription for these, make this purchase my responsability". The only thing that can happen after I press that check is not consumer protection: it's consumer litigation because he didn't buy through establishment rules.
That is NOT basic consumer protection. That is basic capitalism.
The US corrective wear industry is a giant scam and a monopoly cornered by a small number of companies and a very skewed set of rules. Routine eye exams are often not covered under medical insurance policy, and "contact lens fitting" even less often. The costs are high, and optometrists do everything in their power to limit usefullness of their prescription. Most will actively resist providing one in writing to be used by a 3rd party. Even when they do (as they are required by law in most states) the prescription will invariably be time limited, usually to 1 year. So, you have to get another refraction test in a year for glasses, and another "fitting" for lenses - which for adults is nothing more than writing the same prescription for the same lens brand, and charging anything from $50 to $200.
This is pretty much US only - in most countries anyone can buy eyewear of any strength they choose (or, if they want, refraction test is usually done by a machine for free on the spot).
I wear both glasses and contact lenses (depending on activity) and due to the state of the optical market here have been buying both prescription glasses and contacts from abroad. In fact, waiting on another pair of RX "transitions" glasses right now for the total price of $55 (from China). Several previous glasses came from China and Korea ($60-$80 total, all "transitions", thin lenses, anti-reflective coating) and the quality is excellent.
I use the same lens brand and type for over 15 years now, and certainly do not require annual "fitting" of any kind. My lenses usually come from the UK, and even including shipping and some price premium, still come out cheaper on an annual basis than if I were to go through the process here.
And, of course, it is all perfectly legal because those countries do not require any "prescription verification", and generally let people deal with their eyesight as they see fit.
When the rules make no sense and are designed primarily to line the pockets of specific industry, why is anyone surprised that some choose to work around them?
I like the part of the article where they mention how the established players in the consumer contact lens market have the same issues.
These guys don't deserve this article, they're just distributing mid-tier (but real, and FDA approved) contact lenses with colorful packaging. Let's have some more investigation into the startups peddling anti-aging pills and diet drinks.
Geez.
Newflash: you can order eyeglasses and contacts without an actual prescription.
The bigger news is how hard it is to pry the prescriptions out of the hands of Luxotica-owned companies like Lenscrafters so you can actually order more affordable eyewear online.
The real reason isn't that there is some potential danger from wearing the wrong prescription (in most cases) since doing so results not in harm, but pretty rapid and self-limiting discomfort. You most definitely do not want to wear corrective lenses of any sort that aren't somewhat close to the right prescription. It takes a reasonably skilled practitioner with reasonably advanced equipment to determine what the right prescription is. MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, most people take good vision for granted despite it being critical for normal life. If you've ever put antibiotic ointment in your eyes, you know what it can be to not see well (although most blind individuals would be ecstatic to see as well as that). So GOING TO THE EYE DOCTOR PERIODICALLY TO TEST FOR VARIOUS DISEASES IS A GOOD IDEA. Thus, the requirement for a prescription for eye wear.
Realistically, we have machines that do a reasonably good job of determining your prescription in an automated fashion, and in under a second. They are simple enough to operate that a non-degreed technician (see "reasonably skilled practitioner" above) could measure your eyes at the corner drug store. But there are many very, very good reasons to see an actual eye doctor when you get your corrective lenses that go beyond just getting the measurements made. Most of those reasons are to prevent you from losing your vision. I study low vision (as in people who can barely see well enough to walk through an unfamiliar room). If you are sighted, you most emphatically do not want to lose your vision.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Amazon let me order size 6 shoes even though I'm a size 10 wide! Don't they know I could injure my toes? Do they know they are stealing money from the poor shoe salespeople who are specially trained to measure my feet and make sure I get exactly the right size?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
No. Underage drinking has consequences. Wearing contacts you don't need? Meh.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
This is one case where I don't want them verifying the prescription.
I buy glasses from Zenni Optical. I enter the numbers from the prescription into their web form, and two weeks later I get glasses. Cheap.
I want computer glasses? Add 0.50 to my correction figure. I want reading glasses? Add 1.50 to my correction figure. I want to make strong reading glasses for my mom, who doesn't normally need glasses at all? Just get her some glasses with "+3.00 0.00 0.00" prescriptions.
This isn't rocket science and there's no room to "abuse" this. Worse, if there's any sort of crackdown on this or change in the law to require that these prescriptions be vetted -- it's going to hit me with either increased costs or decreased flexibility, and probably both.
I'm not worried about them not vetting prescriptions. There is no real path for serious abuse, at most, cheapskates poorly guesstimating their vision, and with a few months of playing "better or worse" with them, they can find something that works well enough anyway.
I am concerned about them being safe. If these contacts are sitting in bleach or will otherwise harm eyes, that's a problem. But this doesn't seem to discuss that.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The kids are all into lensing.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
You want to advertise how good your lenses are, so you use the name Hubble. Genius.
If they sold contact lenses with bacterial infections I'd worry. Providing a product that accurately meets a prescription is what they're supposed to do. If anyone fakes a prescription, they're being stupid. There's not a damn thing you can do with contacts that don't meet your needs. Someone wasted a lot of time looking for a story. Too bad it doesn't matter in any meaningful way.
Costco sells corrective eye glasses without prescription. You just pick them up right there in front of the pharmacy area. They don’t even make sure you’ve gone to the optometrist that’s right there next to the tire department.
...until this same idiot finds out that you can order magnifying glasses from Amazon without even a fake prescription or any requirement to show a physics qualification. These are far more dangerous than a contact lens: you can start fires with them and even use them to read the small print most companies don't want you to see.
But periodic tests for eye diseases are in no way limited to those who need corrective lenses. There may be some diseases that contact lenses wearers are subjected to at higher rates, since they are putting something into their eyes, but the reasoning here is incredibly convoluted.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Can't this guy be put in jail for impersonating a Dr? Pretty sure writing fake prescriptions is pretty illegal.
I have been able to order contact lenses on the internet using whatever prescription I please for well over 10 years. Spectacles too.
So what?
It is convenient and cheaper. I don't need a new optical prescription. Every time I do get an eye test, the numbers are pretty much always the same. And I have little doubt that the factory that churns out glasses or contact lenses by the million to internet customers is no different from the one that supplies the "full fat" high-street stores at several times the price.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Is it just a way how to prevent US startups from getting into very profitable market? Is the "investigator" sponsored by competing lens producers? Or is it just a cheap way how to do bombastic reporting? :-) It is like sun-glasses in my country. You can obtain information what UV filter is good for your health from your doctor but then it is up to you what glasses you actually buy.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
But periodic tests for eye diseases are in no way limited to those who need corrective lenses.
Maybe not, but degrading vision is a sign for many of these diseases. Telling someone they simply need a stronger prescription when they really have a degenerative disease is very bad. As is practicing medicine without a license (for the corner drug store example)
Here in the UK you don't need a special prescription to buy glasses or contact lenses, but if you do need to use them then it is good to know what it is! It doesn't need a doctor, but an optician to test your eyes. VR glasses, Harry?
The actual 'reason' is that you'll typically have a follow up a week or so after your new contacts are being used and they can evaluate if you're having any issues that may cause infection or worse later down the road.
Contacts really are different than eye glasses which if you can see are pretty harmless and tend not to bind to your eyeball if they dry out and rip your cornea off.
If you want to go cross eyed no one will stop you. Just use a real prescription from a doctor, duh. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.
You have been able to do the same with online eyeglass purchases for years - which is great since the american eye wear market has been overpriced for way too long, like 10x overpriced, which is basically the way it is with most of the health care industry. Just be smart and get a real prescription.
You can get pharmaceutical grade opioids mail order w/o a prescription...
Until then, do not commit fraud and then blame somebody else for letting you.
Actually.... I don't think this is an issue. I've seen national suppliers claim that all they need is the numbers on the boxes your contacts come in to ship you replacements. Makes sense as to why the place I go for eyeglasses charges extra for the prescription to be written out and didn't provide the boxes the last time I got contacts..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It just seems like a post-hoc justification for what is clearly a profit-driven practice, with only moderate correlation with actual health. We would likely be better served with these things being tested for every X years.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We would likely be better served with these things being tested for every X years
Well, sure. But I've never been to an ophthalmologist or optometrist. However, I doubt it's solely profit-driven. A proper diagnosis only makes sense. Practicing medicine while skipping diagnosis is generally a bad thing.
[snark]
Do you wear seatbelts? There is only a moderate correlation with wearing seatbelts and health benefit. For the vast majority of the time, they are utterly unnecessary. Sounds like a profit-driven practice.
Oh, wait, except that when they ARE needed, the benefits are potentially avoiding loss of life. That might be pretty big.
[/snark]
Same with eye exams. Most of the time, utterly unnecessary and uninteresting. But, if, for example, glaucoma (which can be totally asymptomatic) goes untreated for long enough, it results in blindness. As in irreversible loss of sight. Game over, no undos. Try closing your eyes and walking around your home for five minutes without bumping into something, or hurting yourself. Try feeding yourself from a plate of food with your eyes closed; you can even cheat by looking first so you know where everything is. Try to make your way to the bathroom and brush your teeth. Or get yourself dressed. Find your keys. Trust me: you do not want to lose your sight.
Get your eyes examined regularly. Please. No, wait, if everyone did that I'd be out of a job. Hold on ...
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I ordered them from 1800 contacts once and entered the wrong prescription, they had no problems delivering them. Of course I had to order the correct ones after that so I could see. Then again, I had the doctor write my new prescription in my file once, only to have someone type it into the computer incorrectly. I didn't find out until years later, after my eyesight got worse in that eye that had the wrong Rx
As others have pointed out, this is a non story. I do wonder if the source of story is from somebody that has an interest in a different lens company.
I need different powers of contacts depending on what I'm doing that day. If I'm on a computer all day, there is a pair for that. If I'm going stargazing, there is a pair for that. If I'm walking in the woods hunting for shrooms, yup, another pair. Night? Completely different script too.
I have only found 1 optometrist that understood my need for dialing in lenses given the application. The problem was that their computer system wouldn't allow the different contact prescriptions. Sure, she gave me a paper copy, but I had to keep the paper copy, because their system wouldn't allow for the multiple 'scripts.
This company offers a service to me. Please let me decide what specifications I need for my eyes.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I thought the main idea behind the script was so that you had the right magnification... if you order the wrong contacts, its your eyes that are going to get fucked up... it's not like you're going to use them to cook meth or some shit. I'd be more concerned of the contacts were built of dangerous materials or not being cut to spec.
The "prescription" requirement for contacts is a racket. A mature person can go a decade or more without their eyesight changing significantly, and is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they need a new prescription or not. No other country has this stupid nanny government requirement.
I live in America, and buy my contacts from the UK. They take a few extra days to arrive, and cost an extra $2 in shipping, but I save $100 in doctor fees and 2 hours of my time commuting to a doctor and sitting in a waiting room.
There are also good online sources of contacts that ship from Mexico and Canada.
Who cares if the person uses a fake prescription. If they want to do this, then they take their chances. This article sounds like propaganda for the Luxottica monopoly, the one that owns 90% or more of the optics industry, including the optics clinics. These guys are so evil, that when Oakley tried to protest/fight them, the Luxottica monopoly removed Oakley sunglasses from all their stores (which means basically ALL of the glasses stores). Oakley's stock tanked, and Luxottica swooped in and bought Oakley at a bargain basement price. The reason why glasses are so expensive is entirely the fault of Luxottica.
Seriously, this should not be on Slashdot. It is entirely corporate propaganda.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Perhaps you need a brain scan, because you clearly lack the ability to read. I clearly said that EVERYONE should probably have regular tests for things like glaucoma. You just said that it's often asymptomatic, which means that people who don't need glasses go unchecked, while people with glasses and contacts are subjected to lots of extra costs on something only somewhat correlated with the risks of disease.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's another branch on the same tree. It's "I successfully lied to someone, how dare they?" To put it another way if I were to cut the brakes on someone's car and they get in an accident, it's their fault for driving their car with faulty breaks, right?
It's Slashdot. We MUST have a car analogy!
I'd argue that for every person who buys ill-fitting contacts with incorrect parameters with a fake prescription, there are THOUSANDS of people with perfectly valid prescriptions risking injury by wearing old/damaged contacts because they can't afford to replace them as frequently as they should. Low-cost replacements are a GOOD thing.
The truth is, most disposable soft contacts have SO MANY engineering compromises (especially toric ones), even flawlessly-fit lenses have pretty mediocre results, so comparing the best and worst is more like "kind of mediocre, vs not great"
It's like glasses... any halfwit with a ruler, a collection of lenses, and 5-10 pages of notes on fitting theory can come up with a reasonable set of +/- sphere values that are a net improvement over "none at all". Mitigating small amounts of astigmatism when looking straight ahead isn't much harder. Most low-cost glasses (under $100 lenses) aren't much better than this anyway.
So, what *does* require a skilled optometrist with substantial gear? 2-surface freeform aspheric lenses. Normal (sphere-only) lenses are molded as-is, cut, and polished. Cheap (sphere+cylinder) lenses have the sphere molded into them + the cylinder ground into one side. In both cases, visual magnification or minification occurs, which makes new lenses hard to "adapt" to & compromises depth-perception. But if you grind curves into BOTH the front AND rear side, you can SIMULTANEOUSLY correct focus errors AND neutralize-out magnification/minification.
For astigmatism, that's still not quite good enough... to correct sphere & cylinder (while neutralizing-out magnification/minification) across the entire lens field (vs "straight ahead"), you need to grind complex curves into both surfaces that are calculated via ray tracing... AND know how to properly measure additional parameters like the angle at which the lenses are tilted & their precise distance from the pupil... not all stores selling "HD lenses" do this properly, and if they don't, the results can be WORSE than cheap molded lenses. When done correctly, glasses with 2-surface freeform aspheric lenses won't distort your peripheral vision or distort geometry (or at least, won't do it nearly as badly as cheap glasses). You'll put them on, and things will just be sharper.
2-surface raytraced freeform lenses aren't something you'd WANT to buy online... a "normal" prescription (sphere+cyl+axis) doesn't have enough information, and every pair of non-identical frames will produce slightly different measurements for things like tilt, vertex, etc.
The problem? In the US, at least, chain vision stores are fixated on promoting things like "ultra-thin" lenses and "no-line progressive bifocals". The same technology behind them can be used to make near-ideal lenses for customers with astigmatism, but most front-line sales associates at those stores have no idea what you're even *talking* about if you say "custom-raytraced 2-surface (digital/HD) freeform aspheric lenses". The OPTOMETRIST might... but s/he's not the one who'll do the half-dozen extra measurements required to complete them. Most times, it'll be done by an employee who's literally winging it & doing it for the first time in weeks/months/ever.
The moral: if you have astigmatism & want genuinely better glasses, find an opthamologist who does Lasik (ie, who has the eye scanner & above-average training/experience) with on-site store & ask about "custom digital/raytraced/HD 2-surface freeform aspheric lenses". If the opthamologist looks confused or does anything besides confidently grin with delight because he'll get the satisfaction of fitting the best glasses money can buy... go somewhere else.
They won't be cheap, but you'll never be able to stand normal cheap lenses again. In theory, an optometrist could do it... but because the scanner is so expensive, they're usually only found at places that do Lasik (and by extension, have at least one opthamologist) since you NEED one for Lasik, and they're too expensive to buy JUST for eyeglass-fitting. And chain stores tend to "simplify" the fitting process, leaving you with compromised lenses.
You can just buy contact lenses without any prescription. Sure, they come with serious warnings, and the occasional rare moron damages their eyes, but all in all, this works pretty well. And it keeps opticians honest with regards to the prices they charge for check-ups and lenses. So either the US population in general is too dumb to follow instructions and heed warnings or this is a scam to keep prices high. Possibly both.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This. I mean, there are good reasons to get a regular eye exam, like determining what your prescription should be, watching for signs of cataracts and glaucoma, etc., but it's absolutely baffling that if I have been more than a year since getting an eye exam and accidentally drop my glasses and break them, I can't get replacements for those glasses that were obviously still working fine up to that point (or else I would have gone for an eye exam to get a new prescription).
There's absolutely no sane reason why a current, valid prescription should be required when getting glasses or contacts manufactured. None. The worst-case scenario is you waste a lot of money and buy something that doesn't work or causes eyestrain, and you stop using them.
Worse, the prescription-required policy isn't even consistently applied. I can walk into Wal-Mart and pick up a set of pre-made glasses that have various levels of farsightedness correction (positive values) for reading, but correction for nearsightedness requires a prescription, as does correction for astigmatism. I understand the reluctance to have arbitrary formulations available off the shelf, because there are a near-infinite possible number of them, but when it comes to refusing to fabricate them on demand, that distinction seems completely arbitrary, and expecting a lens manufacturer to investigate every optometrist to make sure they're legitimate... well, that's just absurd.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
...we need a prescription to buy eyeglasses or contact lenses. Although, when I view it as a protection racket for established players that charge a premium for their protected services it starts to make a lot more sense.
No. Underage drinking has consequences.
Not getting an updated prescription also has consequences: An optometrist fails to earn $100 for doing unnecessary busy work, he gets mad and calls the AMA, and then they call the politicians and threaten to withhold their millions in campaign donations, mostly to Republican candidates. The Republicans then set aside their claim to represent small government, and pass even more draconian laws to clamp down on terrorist optical products.
We can't just have people buying whatever eyewear they want. For all we know, they could be nearsighted from watching kiddie porn on the cellphones.
I go to the eye doctor about once every six years, prescription is only good for two years. Never had an issue ordering glasses, I don't see what the issue is, don't ruin cheap and easy to get glasses for the rest of us by complaining.
Why should anybody care. We don't need prescriptions for most lenses we order.
Just last month an Indiana man wearing contraband eye contacts while driving struck another vehicle killing the teenage driver and passenger. The driver wearing contacts was uninjured. Toxicology reports later showed both teens blood alcohol levels were above the legal limit for the state of Indiana.
"Some things just have a way of taking care of themselves." -Steve Hofstetter
damaged by dogma
There's absolutely no sane reason why a current, valid prescription should be required when getting glasses or contacts manufactured.
Quibble: A recent prescription is NOT required for glasses. Only contacts.
The AMA is in bed with Republicans? Riiiight.
No. The point of the prescription is that wearing contact lenses without regular checks is dangerous. With them, it is very safe, but some complications can creep up on you slowly and when you notice yourself, it is too late. One is that contact lenses reduce the flow of oxygen to the eye. Usually not a problem, but in some cases that means blood vessels start to grow into your lenses. The check-up will catch that early, before you have any impairment. When you notice yourself, the damage is done.
This is still not a reason to require a prescription, as idiots that ignore clear warnings can do damage to themselves in various ways, but it is a reason to have those checks done.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Just to add... this is basically a somewhat new application of several older technologies:
* a wavefront scanner that maps the actual shapes of the cornea, lens, and retina
* raytracing software, to calculate the shape of a complex, 2-surface lens. The hardest part about developing this software was learning where to step back and NOT try to fix some specific higher-order aberration. Glasses will never be positioned precisely (they slip, frames bend, etc), and if you try too hard to fix HOAs precisely, you'll make matters WORSE if the lenses deviate from their ideal positions. With scleral RGPs and Lasik, you can be more aggressive because the resulting lens is more stable. The trick was finding the happy medium that makes things "sharp" without making things "weird" when the glasses slide down your nose or the frames get slightly bent.
* CAD/CAM, allowing a robot to precisely grind a complex shape (calculated from data from the above) into two sides of a lens.
* Much of the lens theory originally developed for progressive bifocals... but applied to precisely correct focus, mag/minification, and astigmatism instead of merely transition different magnification strengths.
IMHO, if you have astigmatism, freeform digital aspheric lenses (when expertly-fitted) are a huge improvement over the mass-market norm... but if you have astigmatism AND need bifocals, it's absolutely a non-negotiable requirement. The catch is, you'll probably want to experiment with a few pairs of cheaper progressive lenses first to see what progressive shape you prefer (you might hate one layout, but be ok with another), and THEN spend the cash replicating that shape (but with improved optics) into freeform lenses after determining what it is that you actually *want*. It really isn't something you can determine through research alone... it takes some live experimentation, and you'll rarely be happy with your first attempt.
...the not-actually nearsighted terrorists have ALREADY WON, people.
-Styopa
-EOM
If the patient forges the doctor's prescription, that should be on the patient!
It has always irked me that you need an eye doctor's prescription to get lenses or contacts. I view it as collusion between the optometrists and the lens providers since the prescription expires after a period of time.
They are my eyes. I should be able to do whatever I want to them. Make me sign a legal disclaimer, but let me have control over my own prescription!
You mind saying where in the UK, specifically? I've run into this problem myself recently.
But for two reasons I would mod this post up: 1) I don't have mod points at the moment; 2) this is already a 'Score:5, Insightful'.
You forged a doctor's prescription, had it filled, and are now writing about it? Have you talked to a lawyer about this?
And you blame a company for falling for your forgery?
Either you don't really think that it is a big deal that you should require a doctor's permission to buy contacts, or you don't think that forging such a prescription is a big deal. Either way, you probably should not be writing about it.
Another quibble. If my experience is any guide, there's no need for eye checks for cataracts. If they become serious enough to require treatment, you won't need an optometrist to tell you that your vision is deteriorating. You'll know.
Periodic glaucoma testing, however, really is a good idea.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)....what's the big deal if someone gets some that are prescription?
Hell, who would actually WANT prescription contact lenses that aren't in a prescription that would help their vision in the first place?
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them, just will make their vision blurry....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Maybe not by law (I haven't checked), but most glasses shops won't cut a set without it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
All prescriptions have an expiration date. That is set by the optometrist, who is under no obligation to follow the ultra-conservative "guidelines" of his professional organization. You may be able to talk your optometrist into giving you a more distant expiration date. You can buy more contacts (or eyeglasses) at any time before that expiration date. It seems like 3 years for persons over 50 yo is now the common length of contact Rx. (It might be shorter for younger persons since vision changes in youngsters are common and also in the period between 35 and 50 when the eye's lenses are losing plasticity).
Another thing: most places filling eyewear prescriptions will sell you as many boxes of contacts as you ask for. Buy enough to get you to when you think you should have a follow-up appointment.
Nothing about this story belongs here - not "news for nerds," not even tech, not even some kind of crime of remote interest, just some "journalist" blogging about how he committed fraud over the most victim-less crime imaginable and it's somehow someone else's fault? No way legitimate users upvoted this garbage in the firehose, not even the users who call themselves legitimate which post blogspam - this going well beyond blogspam. MODS PLEASE BAN OR REVOKE THE KARMA OF EVERYONE WHO UPVOTED THIS IN THE FIREHOSE - probably the best filter you'll ever get of spammers.
and AMA may just sue them!
The prescription requirement probably dates back to the days when contact lenses first appeared on the scene around 1960. Those were hard lenses, not the modern soft ones, and they might have had a certain potential for mechanical eye damage.if not used under the supervision of someone with appropriate knowledge and training. ... I guess .... maybe.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
In all seriousness, a crash that actually happened like that would be reported as an alcohol-involved accident. That's largely why the stats are so high.
This. I mean, there are good reasons to get a regular eye exam, like determining what your prescription should be, watching for signs of cataracts and glaucoma, etc., but it's absolutely baffling that if I have been more than a year since getting an eye exam and accidentally drop my glasses and break them, I can't get replacements for those glasses that were obviously still working fine up to that point (or else I would have gone for an eye exam to get a new prescription).
There's absolutely no sane reason why a current, valid prescription should be required when getting glasses or contacts manufactured. None. The worst-case scenario is you waste a lot of money and buy something that doesn't work or causes eyestrain, and you stop using them.
Worse, the prescription-required policy isn't even consistently applied. I can walk into Wal-Mart and pick up a set of pre-made glasses that have various levels of farsightedness correction (positive values) for reading, but correction for nearsightedness requires a prescription, as does correction for astigmatism. I understand the reluctance to have arbitrary formulations available off the shelf, because there are a near-infinite possible number of them, but when it comes to refusing to fabricate them on demand, that distinction seems completely arbitrary, and expecting a lens manufacturer to investigate every optometrist to make sure they're legitimate... well, that's just absurd.
My understanding is, (and IANAO/O) that the eye adapts itself over time, and using an outdated or incorrect or fraudulent script to buy glasses or contacts, and then wearing them, could cause ocular injury, exacerbating existing eye problems or creating new ones, which may be more difficult to correct or lead to uncorrectable problems, up to and including blindness.
OR, it could be that if optometrists and/or ophthalmologists (whichever it is,) DIDN'T have this repeat business, they'd have to charge MUCH more money for the INITIAL diagnosis and prescription, putting corrective lenses beyond the reach of most people who need them, OR, it wouldn't pay for them to go into that specialty, meaning you would spend MONTHS or YEARS waiting even to get in to SEE one...
Of course, I could easily be wrong, I'm just a guy with a computer and a keyboard, and, (like virtually every human being,) an opinion.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Because contact lenses are not opioids, nobody has an interest in faking prescriptions for them. This story is just "mediscare" from some established, overpriced optical company that is fighting the holy way of medallion taxicab companies against Silicon Valley interference with its racket.
I pay a doctor for my prescription but they only give it to the glasses store they are associated with.
I should get the prescription which I can fill out wherever I prefer.
And soft contacts are not rocket science. You should be able to purchase them like reading glasses.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The "prescription" requirement for contacts is a racket.
This is the first time I've heard of a requirement for an actual doctor's (or optometrist's, I guess) prescription to order corrective lenses. I've ordered numerous pairs of eyeglasses on line, and I have never been asked to identify the prescriber. Some research on the FTC website reveals this is a requirement only for contact lenses, and does not apply for eyeglasses. For reasons not clear to me, contact lenses are considered to be "medical devices", and eyeglasses are not. Maybe because you don't stick your eyeglasses in your eyes.
If I say that I don't have a prescription, but claim that my eye doctor is Dr. Daff E Duck, Warner Bros Clinic, Los Angeles, I'm providing false information, but I can't see how it would be considered forgery. (not sure about fraud...)
Contact Lenses are a gateway to things like larger screens and telescopes. Think of the children.
The company has drawn the ire of the American Optometric Association (AOA), which earlier this year lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
I see absolutely no financial interest in people visiting AOA members for prescriptions here, none at all.
Quartz Media is shilling for the opthamologists. There's no other explanation for it. No wonder their website provides no contact data for themselves, no place to leave feedback, no way to comment.
Maybe not by law (I haven't checked), but most glasses shops won't cut a set without it.
I have never, not once, had a problem buying glasses with an outdated prescription. I currently buy from Zenni Optical. They don't even ask for the date. There is no legal requirement for them to check. I just type in the data from my old prescription.
I have ALWAYS, every time, had a problem buying contacts ... until I started ordering overseas. It is ILLEGAL for an American company to sell contacts without a current prescription.
I think the real reason is that Democrats wear contacts and Republicans wear glasses.
Libertarians just squint.
In The Netherlands I can go into a normal supermarket and buy prescription disposable contact lenses in boxes of 10 or 20 for under 10 euro. No formal prescription needed.
But fuck that, I just had my eyes enhanced with lasers so I don't need em anymore.
Periodic glaucoma testing, however, really is a good idea.
If you are non-diabetic, normal or low weight, and have low or normal blood pressure, it is very unlikely that you have glaucoma.
It is only the other 65% that need to worry.
You mind saying where in the UK, specifically? I've run into this problem myself recently.
I got them from Vision Direct. I picked because they were the first link when I Google for "no prescription contacts". Their prices seemed reasonable, but the shipping was slow. Order at least a few weeks before you need them. The quality was exactly the same as any local company.
OR, it could be that if optometrists and/or ophthalmologists (whichever it is,) DIDN'T have this repeat business, they'd have to charge MUCH more money for the INITIAL diagnosis and prescription
This is exactly the opposite of how economics actually works. If there is an oversupply of ophthalmologists, and not enough demand, competition will push prices DOWN until enough of them quit.
Since many medical insurance plans often don't cover vision, this is one of the few medical fields with actual competition.
hearing aids are an even bigger ripoff.
Just sayin.
As far as I've been told, you're wrong on many points... unless my doctors lied to me.
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)
Wrong. Those require a prescription. They may not be corrective lenses (ie. they might not have any magnification power), but they will have BC (curvature of the lens) and Dia (the diameter of the lens), and those are needed in order for the contacts to fit.
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them...
It actually can, and quite a bit. Part of getting a prescription involves the doctor telling you what you can and can't do with them in, and some of the side effects can quickly lead to blindness.
That said, the only one that should get in trouble in this situation, IMO, is the guy that forged the prescription and knowingly submitted false information in order to get a prescription product.
Okay, thank you.
...let me reiterate this:
* so in a country with a liberal gun ownership regime, choosing your own method for ordering lenses has to be government-controlled?
So, what's the original problem we were trying to solve?!
The story isn't about what you say.
The story is about someone claiming that they had a valid prescription when they did not; that is a form of forgery. It is true that in an ideal world the software that the Hubble company used should have disallowed the sale, but the more important truth is that the perpetrator (an appropriate word for this forger) was violating the law.
The company used poor judgment in allowing the transaction to go through when its screening process said it could not complete the screening, but that probably does not rise to level of criminal negligence. Alison Griswold, the guy who did this, wrote the story, and made this slashdot submission, is an admitted criminal who has written at least one fraudulent prescription.
The only take-away from this is that no-one should have any dealings with Alison Griswold. The man either has no concept of what is legal and what is not, or he thinks that laws do not apply to him. Isn't that special.
You can do the same thing with any online Contact Lens vendor.
Also no plano. They clearly offer just the easiest prescriptions in the most common physical size (many contact brands come in ONLY one size). If you guess at your prescription based on your glasses prescription and you're happy with the results, I don't see a problem.
I live in Canada and for a number of years had been getting mail order contacts from daysoft in the UK, with no doctor's prescription. Was always happy about the cost and service. I've since had PRK done, so no longer need their services, but would definitely recommend them (and have) to anyone looking for daily wear contacts. So, yup, I agree, the "prescription" requirement is something of a racket. My 2 cents.
There's absolutely no sane reason why a current, valid prescription should be required when getting glasses or contacts manufactured.
Quibble: A recent prescription is NOT required for glasses. Only contacts.
A recent prescription has been required every time that I have gotten glasses. In some cases, the prescription must be from the same place.
That said, the only one that should get in trouble in this situation, IMO, is the guy that forged the prescription and knowingly submitted false information in order to get a prescription product.
Agreed, along with the competitor that likely paid them to do this in the first place.
Optometrists aren't medical doctors, so are not members of the AMA. A quick Google search shows that their professional organization is the American Optometric Association, or AOA. So it'd be the AOA who is complaining to their local congressman. (Ophthalmologists are medical doctors and don't prescribe glasses/contacts; they do surgery on eyes.)
An even bigger racket is needed a prescription to get parts of a CPAP.
On a trip I dropped and stepped on a mask. There was a medical appliance store at the shopping center right next to a Subway. Could I get a new mask? NO, not without a current prescription within six months. This isn't for the programmable breathing appliance but for the plastic mask on the end of a hose.
I had to pay way too much for express shipping to get one out of Canada.
NRRPT/RCT
Alison is a woman's name and this Alison is indeed no exception.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
My bad (about getting the creep's gender wrong). I should have googled her.
I know a Brazilian who follows soccer, and I was once chastised for confusing a Brazilian beach ball player with a soccer player: both are men named Alison. It is a man's name in some parts of the world.
Even outside of the whole lens and frame racket with Luxottica artificially keeping prices high there is the optometrist racket, at least here in Canada. There was an owner of an online glasses place here in Canada that is currently in prison because the optometrist lobby made sure the laws will put him there.
I'd say almost without exception every single optometrist is associated with a store that sells lenses and frames. They get a cut from every sale they reference. If you get a prescription from them, they will actively try to sell you stuff from their store. Some (although they are not supposed to) will not even give you your prescription personally, and will rather only pass it on to their store for you to use. Some you have to strongly ask for it, and they will argue with you about it and tell you all sorts of horror stories of people buying things online etc... They will make it as difficult as they can for you to use your actual prescription because they make money off sales. They likely make little money off the simple eye exam and prescription itself. So this activity while illegal and unethical is widespread and pervasive.
So the fact they the writer made up a fake prescription to prove a point doesn't really bother me about the fact that it worked. In fact I would be a bit more concerned if it didn't. That said it should be the consumer's responsibility to get a good prescription from a certified optometrist , not the onus of the company providing the lenses to check to make sure they did.
Anyway the whole industry from so called doctors who are supposed to be of high moral standing with a code of ethics to the sales of the Luxottica monopoly is so shady, scammy, and a racket I literally couldn't care less about the writers concerns. They are all a bunch of people that are taking advantage of folks with a medical condition which requires aids to fscking see, and they are all profiteering off the backs of people who have little choice of paying whatever they these jerks say they should pay, or not being able to see. I've worn glasses my whole life, with a pretty severe prescription, and regularly pay 700-800$ for glasses, which god forbid you ever break, scratch, or lose them as you are going to have to replace them out of pocket. Anyway I'm pretty sure the general public has about zero sympathy for these bums at this point.