I just got glasses ?!

I just got glasses ?

Im nearsighted that means i cant see far a way! i only need them at school looking at the smart board...... in a couple years will my vision get worse or better if i keep wearing my glasses?

What happened to my own eyes at the age of twelve is happening to the eyes of millions of children today. That was some sixty years ago, but I remember it as if it were yesterday. I had no eye trouble before that. Living on a farm in Carroll, Iowa, the only comics we had in those days, were those in the Chicago Sunday Examiner newspaper. We did not have stacks of "comic" books, such as children and young people have today. With my head in my hands, on my elbows and on my stomach, I read the comics, lying on the floor. When I finished and got up, my vision was bleary-eyed and myopic. I figured out what caused it, but I did not report it to my parents. In those days, parents would not have paid any attention to it. A few did, consulting a poor eyeman of those days, and he fitted, or misfitted glasses. I remember a few who did that. They all grew worse and went into thicker and thicker lenses. But I quit what caused it, and without help of parents, eye doctor, drops, or glasses, my sight came back. Later on in my late teens, when I got into optics and studied for eyework, as students testing and examining each other's eyes, I found that my eyes were perfect.

I now know that if my parents had taken me to an eyeman, that he would have fitted, or misfitted me with nearsighted glasses, and if so, today my eyes would no doubt be of high diopter nearsightedness, possibly up to twenty-five diopters, all because I once used my eyes wrong by reading comics on the floor. I know now that it takes only a few minutes of using the eyes in the wrong manner to cause the first nearsightedness, and that keeping up such bad eye habits, with or without glasses, brings on progressive nearsightedness. Of course, it gets progressively worse faster and farther with glasses than without them.

Rather than allow even one child or young person to go nearsighted, it would be best to watch all of them carefully to prevent it in the first place, or improve it in the second place, if they have already been stricken. Discipline in the use of their eyes is what they need, not glasses. I will get back to my own case after the following.

As a typical case, a fifteen-year-old girl, a Miss A. was brought to me by her parents who knew me and my work, for an eye examination. She had never worn glasses. She was an honor student in high school, in high standing, and active in student activities. She was a bookworm. Her vision was 20/40. Dynamic skiametry was plus 2.00. Her Rx was minus .75; it was a case of pseudo-incipient myopia. I wanted to treat her case with corrective measures. She demanded glasses, stomping back and forth on the floor, saying she did not want to be a "sap;" she wanted to see like other boys and girls, with glasses. We could not reason with her. The parents weakened and had me go ahead with glasses, which I did. She was in her glory with her new glasses. I did not see her for some years. She went through high school and college, majoring in dramatics. I understood she was putting on shows in New York. Meanwhile she went to other eyemen.

Some eight years later, at the age of twenty-three, while she was visiting her parents she phoned me for an appointment. In checking her case then, her vision was 8/200, dynamic skiametry was minus 6.00, and her Rx was minus 7.75. All such cases go more or less that way, with glasses. She wanted to know if I could help her. I asked her how long she would be here; her answer was for three or four days. I thanked her for her confidence, but advised her that her case had gone so far that I would do well, if she would do what I asked to help her in three or four years, or more.

Since she could not stay, or do what I called for, I advised that the next best thing for her to do was to use her glasses as little as possible - only for emergencies or something important, and never for close work. Even then she was stubborn, and would not consider bifocals, or a reduced Rx. This was nine years ago. I shudder to think of what her Rx for nearsightedness is now. No doubt she has gone from progressive myopia into degenerative myopia.

Her case is typical, and shows how eyes go with bad eye habits, which she had, and glasses as the supposed remedy. Beginning nearsighted cases never realize this. All believe that glasses will solve their case and see them through life.

Citing this one case of beginning nearsightedness, and then its progressiveness, is citing all cases. They will all go that way, more or less. This should be an indictment against nearsighted glasses, whether there is a better way or not. She would not have gone as bad without glasses as she did with glasses. Many would improve or cure themselves if they stopped bad eye habits, and never, never resorted to glasses. Miss A. who did not want to be a "sap," turned out to be a "sap" by turning to her first glasses. No doubt my own case would have gone the same way.

I cite a typical case that did do as I directed; the case of John R.

I checked his eyes every year for seven years, from the ages of six to thirteen. His mother brought him in every year. For seven years he checked out as normal. I gave the usual advice of how he should use his eyes right and warned him not to use them wrong.

At the age of fourteen he came to me for his checkup alone, refusing to come if his mother came with him. He must have known something was wrong with his eyes, and did not want his mother to be there if there was. On this checkup, his eyes were 20/200, and it took minus 2.00 nearsighted lenses to make him see 20/20; dynamic skiametry was plus 1.00. He had acquired pseudo-myopia sometime during the past year. I stormed about it, questioned him closely, and phoned his mother. His mother made light of it, having full confidence in me, saying "What of it? You can correct it, can't you?" I said that I could if he would cooperate and be a good patient. I traced the cause of his acquired myopia to his doing the one thing I warned him not to do - keeping a stamp and coin collection. His parents allowed him to work on his collection lying on his stomach on the floor with no more light than that which came from the television screen, in a darkened room. He did as I advised, gave up the collection, and stopped all unnecessary close work. What close work he had to do I had him do at a distance, under lots of good incandescent light, looking up and away often, blinking and squeezing his eyes often, and I prescribed my corrective measures. However, I feel that he would have responded as he did even without my corrective measures, if he did as otherwise directed. In my case, my eyes did just that when I was his age.

In the two weeks time I set for his checkup, he was back to normal eyes, with 20/20 vision, and the dynamic skiametry findings were still plus 1.00, which I call normal. After regular checkups thereafter, in two weeks, and then once a month, he stayed normal. He is now twenty-one years old, and still normal. In fact, he passed the eye test for his military service.

His case is one of many that I could cite. If I had given him the minus 2.00 nearsighted lenses for wear, there is no doubt in my mind that his eyes would be minus 4.00, minus 6.00, or even higher diopter nearsighted today. He was saved from a life of misery with nearsighted glasses and progressive myopia. The same can be done for millions of other cases, if caught in time and before the first glasses have been put on.

Going back to my own case, after completing my studies in eyework, and becoming registered to practice in the State of Nebraska, I located in Kansas City, Missouri. At that time, Missouri had no State law governing the practice of optometry. Later I assisted in getting such a law, and became registered under it. I was associated as assistant to a well-known high-class optometrist, Dr. W., for five years. He had a high-class following and delivered eye service on a silver platter. I mention this to make a point.

Dr. W. knew the tricks of practicing eye work. The point I wish to bring out is about astigmatism, and how he used it. The same trick is still being used today by too many eyemen. Dr. W. would examine eyes and say as little as possible, knowing that sooner or later the patient would ask, "Well, Doctor, what did you find?"

Invariably Dr. W. would lean close to the patient, and in almost a whisper, he would say, "You have astigmatism," whether the patient had it or not. That did it. No more questions asked. It clinched the sale and wearing of glasses without further argument.