Contact Lens Startup Hubble Sold Lenses With a Fake Prescription From a Made-up Doctor (qz.com) 325
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.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? It's not like someone is going to get high on contact lenses and go commit crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't all online contact places do this?
I've definitely changed the date on an RX once, and a few times I've ordered using random eye doctors as mine but not providing an RX (they're allowed to ship if there's no response).
I have about a 3/4 success rate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not all. I went to Publix the other day and bought a five pound bag of flour... while wearing a fake chef hat! They didn't take even a moment to check that I was a real chef! This is the kind of sloppy taking short cuts thing I wouldn't expect from a respected retailer.
Perhaps they thought you were Swedish [wikipedia.org] and gave you a pass on the hat.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously? It's not like someone is going to get high on contact lenses and go commit crimes.
In "nanny-state" Europe, no perscription are needed for contact lenses... Only in "free" America is that kind of corporate-welfare needed to keep doctors feed.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't have your latest prescription from your eye doctor, most eyeglass shops will be happy to measure your current glasses to determine your old prescription, then grind duplicate lenses.
The bigger issue IMHO is Luxottica [snopes.com]. Ever wonder why a few pieces of plastic and metal you place on your face cost $200+ before you even buy lenses for them? And why those Taiwanese mail-order glasses places can sell you frames for only $15? It's because one company owns or has controlling interest in most of the popular eyeglass brands and a large fraction of stores worldwide, and they rig the prices.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"Prescription" in this context means the optical characteristics of the lenses needed to correct your vision. Not a doctor's authorization to purchase, like a drug prescription.
If you don't have your latest prescription from your eye doctor, most eyeglass shops will be happy to measure your current glasses to determine your old prescription, then grind duplicate lenses.
That's an interesting assessment and completely out of line with other anecdotes here on /. as well as out of line with the supposed "news" in this story. that OMG OUTRAGE someone bought contacts without a correct doctors prescription.
If what you were saying is true, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a doctor to get "prescription" eyewear. They have a machine these days that allow any minimum wage optometrist technician to get the data required and fill out the "prescription". If you had an extra $100k somewhere, you could easily get a machine yourself and write your own prescriptions.
I haven't payed for an optometrist even in the US in about a decade. I go to the glasses-store, they measure my eyes and then I get the stuff I need. Insurance picks up ~$150 of the cost (thanks to ObamaCare
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does sound like misplaced outrage to me.
TFA had all sorts of outrage about how these are medical devices, not "socks". I'm sympathetic to the idea that you want to make sure the contacts are manufactured by a reputable factory and won't damage your eye. Corneas don't heal very fast. It sounds like that's not an issue.
Not being an optometrist or ophthalmologist, I have no idea whether you could damage your eye with an incorrect prescription. My guess is it's unlikely but I really don't know. I would tend to trust people with their eyes. I only get one pair and I'm pretty fond of them (misshapen as they are).
Re: (Score:3)
Contact lenses may subtly not fit your eye, and so every year you need a new prescription specifically so the doctor can look at your eyes and decide if the lenses you're wearing need to be switched out for a different brand, same prescription. It's usually okay; you might have that one brand that isn't quite okay, and your doctor will notice a couple short years before it damages your eyes permanently.
Just wait... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really.
I can't see what sort of ghastly things might happen as a result of being able to order contacts with a fake prescription.
This is Propaganda for the Luxottica Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [forbes.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine by me, so long as you then sign a document stating you won't be going to any publicly-funded hospital as a result of fucking-up your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I get the same for all the fat McDonalds eaters who don't have health insurance? All those coke drinkers. Smokers. Vape? All those with high risk behaviors?
I mean, if we're gonna restrict self inflicted illnesses and injuries, lets do it right.
And that's Hubbles fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
You did something under false pretenses and your an idiot trying to blame them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll admit they committed fraud, but by law I'm pretty sure they have to vet the prescription before filling it.
Re:And that's Hubbles fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain amount of verification required by law - for any prescription. If they didn't get the physical original script, they're required to contact the doctor.
Re:And that's Hubbles fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's incorrect. They're ALLOWED to verify a prescription. Apparently, if there's no return contact from the doctor within a day, they'll fill it.
Again, there's NO reason to do anything more than this. Contact lenses aren't addictive, toxic, or a public health issue like antibiotic resistance.
In short, who cares? I for one am glad that people can get corrective visual aids with minimum red tape.
Re: (Score:2)
8 business hours. [ecfr.gov] But if the medical office doesn't exist (e.g. you get the voicemail greeting of some guy named Steve), then that doesn't count as an attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the law. There doesn't need to be another reason. If you don't like the law, get it changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that's Hubbles fault? (Score:5, Informative)
I am a physician, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
My office sends out about 20-30 prescriptions a day. Unless it's for a controlled substance (ie: narcotics), there's NEVER a call back to the office to check if a script is legit.
And even if it is a controlled substance there's no call to the office unless the script comes in an unusual format (ie: a printed out script rather than an original signature of the provider).
Re: (Score:2)
This is when the patient sends a copy - not electronic prescription or physical script in hand. Whether pharmacies follow the law in general on this would be another matter entirely - as nobody generally cares, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I should mention that this rule is specific to contact lenses: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t... [ecfr.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the reading glasses you can buy at teh pharmacy for $5 a pop. They all have a little number on them. +1, +2, etc. That's the prescription number. If all you have is a +1 or +2 spherical prescription with no astigmatism (minorly farsighted), you can walk into any drugstore and buy them, no prescription necessary. If your eyes are much worse than that (mine are around -11), it really pays to go to
Re: (Score:2)
They definitely do: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t... [ecfr.gov]
Whether you think it's worth their time or not is a separate matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I will revert to my backup argument:
I am sure most places don't actually do that because of the time involved verifying every script, and I think the FDA has much much bigger fish to fry. It'd be the rough equivalent of a jaywalking crackdown. Also there is not much incentive for people to outright falsify a bogus prescription, unless of course you are a 'journalist' doing a hit piece on contact lens providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Federally they only have to verify Schedule II medications, at the State level I'm not sure. Schedule II is the stuff you see Dr. House swallowing like candy - Oxy, Percocet, Vicodin etc.
Most 'honorable' pharmacies will verify things if it seems off but as long as they can justify that they acted in good faith, they aren't by law required to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for contact lenses: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t... [ecfr.gov]
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? Come on editors, news for nerds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's not another bitcoin article (Score:3)
-EOM
So ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Made up Doctor (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
prescriptions are almost never verified.
In person, maybe, when it's on a prescription pad. But if you get a scanned copy, I'm very certain that you're legally required to contact the medical office to verify.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true. I've been mail-ordering glasses and contacts for over a decade and have only ever entered numbers in by hand. Surely all of these places aren't disreputable?
Re: (Score:3)
Read the rule yourself: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t... [ecfr.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room in:
It seems to me that you have satisfied the law by having an image of the purported "prescription". There is no requirement for verification if you have the original or a facsimile. So in the case of this article, Hubble appears to be in the clear. In my case of ordering contacts, the company should have demanded a scanned copy of my prescription.
No wonder we have a contact lens overdose epidemic (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The kids are all into lensing.
So? (Score:2)
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.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I just pay for a 6-month supply of monthly contacts and then wear them 2-3 months each, making them last at least a year. I had one eye infection about 15 years ago in high school, but other than that no issues. And that's with regularly sleeping in them as well. I take them out for maybe 1 weekend every 2 months or so to let my eyes rest and breathe.
Re: (Score:2)
UK Price 12.5 BP [contactlenses.co.uk] and no prescription required
US price 39.99 USD [walgreens.com]
That's for 3 pairs of 2 wk disposables. OP's post is for daily disposable garbage at 30 USD a month.
Who cares? (Score:2)
Not sure what the big deal is..? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, Clearly violated the law so thoroughly it was disgusting.
Then they changed the law to allow what clearly was doing. I know companies who were trying to get into the direct to consumer mail-order contacts business legally but the overhead and complexity made it a more complex and expensive transaction, and Clearly just came along and... uber'd them. (That's the verb I'm looking for right? Where a company just shows up and wantonly breaks the law and succeeds.)
Everyone in the industry was initially waiti
Complicated (Score:2)
If you wanted to damage your eyes, it would be cheaper, faster, and more reliable to just stab them with a fork.
Contact lenses aren't a controlled item (Score:4, Insightful)
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
FIXED: basic *establishment protections (Score:2)
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 purch
Wish I knew about them before (Score:2)
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 prescr
Re: (Score:2)
So I read the article. Its all pointless dribble. Apparently the regulation requires the vendor (ie: 1-800 Contact) to call the doctor and leave a message to verify. If the message isn't returned in 7 days, then proceed as if verified! Apparently Hubble does do that. However, they ask basically the doctor's name, city, and clinic and then google it. Then call the nearest match and leave a message.
Do they do due diligence? Of course not, they want to sell contacts. They could have asked for phone num
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a friend who photoshopped an eyeglasses prescription that had expired.
I'm pretty sure you might even be able to fake a prescription entirely if you knew the correct values/terms to put in. There's no way any third party glasses provider will actually check.
an epidemic (Score:2)
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.
One of the dumbest slashdot articles of all time? (Score:2)
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.
Oh the Humanity!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Wrong area of concern (Score:3)
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.
That's great marketing there (Score:2)
You want to advertise how good your lenses are, so you use the name Hubble. [nasa.gov] Genius.
In this case, the business isn't the problem (Score:2)
What about Costco? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Lenses can do serious damage to your eyes longer term. Glasses can just give you a headache. The main problem is that the lens in the eye gets its oxygen from the tear-fluid that wets the eye. With a lens in between, that is less and if the oxygen drops below a certain level, blood vessels start to grow into the lens. That causes permanent damage unless caught early. So have a check-up every 6-9 months to be on the safe side. It is not expensive. For me, it is about 20% of what the lenses cost. And my optic
The big question (Score:3)
Can't this guy be put in jail for impersonating a Dr? Pretty sure writing fake prescriptions is pretty illegal.
You've finally caught up the rest of the world (Score:2)
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
You need a prescription? Sponsored article? (Score:2)
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.
Fake news (Score:2)
Its your own eyes... (Score:2)
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.
Call me when... (Score:2)
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..
1800Contacts (Score:2)
Thank you, I'm now a Hubble customer! (Score:2)
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 i
Why are contacts even perscription? (Score:2)
Old contacts are more dangerous than wrong contact (Score:2)
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
And in the rest of the world... (Score:2)
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.
You are admitting to a committing a crime? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Fake Prescription (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fake Prescription (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fake Prescription (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fake Prescription (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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 des
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
[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 lo
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Underage drinking has consequences. Wearing contacts you don't need? Meh.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Slashdot. We MUST have a car analogy!