Advanced search

to think that my daughter doesn't need glasses?

(55 Posts)
nippysweetie82 Sun 04-May-14 11:58:51

I took my dd aged 9 to specsavers for an eye test as she hasn't had one for a few years. She's not had any big problems with her eyes but has complained a couple of times that they were hurting a bit after watching tv or using the computer.
The optician has said that she is slightly long sighted and should wear glasses for reading and using the computer. She said she usually wouldn't prescribe but because my daughter had previously complained of eye strain it would be for the best.I paid towards the NHS voucher to get her glasses that she liked but I'm just not convinced that she really needs them. my dd has now said that it's mainly when watching tv that her eyes begin to hurt and the optician had said that the glasses wouldn't be much use for that.
Her prescription reads R +1.50 L+1.50. Does that mean that she's only very slightly long sighted? I've got no idea how to read the prescription.

EduCated Sun 04-May-14 12:03:26

Well give them a go and see if they help.

ilovepowerhoop Sun 04-May-14 12:03:54

yes she is slightly long sighted (the higher the number the more long sighted she would be). DS has glasses for close work as he said his eyes were getting sore - his prescription is smaller than your dd's. I just got him a pair from the free range though as he wouldnt be wearing them all the time.

DD has a higher prescription (+4.5 and +5.5ish I think) and has to wear glasses all the time.

SuburbanRhonda Sun 04-May-14 12:04:46

I wouldn't take risks with a child's eyesight; I say that as someone who has worn glasses and contact lenses for short sight for 45 years.

I wouldn't wait until your DD's eyes start hurting at other times than watching TV until you decide to take your opticians advice. Her eyesight may well have deteriorated more by then.

1.50 isn't certainly isn't negligible low. As a child mine would change by about 0.25 every time I went for a check-up.

IsChippyMintonExDirectory Sun 04-May-14 12:04:54

If the optician says she needs them then she probably needs them. +1.5 isn't very long sighted no

SuburbanRhonda Sun 04-May-14 12:05:49

certainly isn't negligibly low blush

hellsbells99 Sun 04-May-14 12:07:41

DD has a prescription of about -1.5 (so slightly short sighted) and I made a comment to the optician about does she really need glasses etc. He then put some lenses in his metal frame thing for me to try and said this is what DD sees. He was right - she did need glasses!

nippysweetie82 Sun 04-May-14 12:09:34

Thanks everyone, I just wanted to double check. I paid £35 on top of the nhs voucher because it was the only frame that really suited her. I didn't want to pick the free pair and have her refuse to wear them. I don't feel so bad about putting the money out if she genuinely needs them though.
I was just having doubts because the optician had said she wouldn't usually prescribe and that she'll definitely grow out of the prescription.

HoVis2001 Sun 04-May-14 12:25:18

I have just got a prescription (for the first time in my life - so weird to get used to glasses!), of -0.25 in both eyes and prismatic correction. The optican said they wouldn't prescribe for the very very mild short sightedness alone but that the prismatic correction plus the amount of time I spend reading made it worth it. I can definitely see the difference between glasses and no glasses just with -0.25, so I would think +1.50 would probably be worth it.

CorusKate Sun 04-May-14 12:27:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RainbowSpiral Sun 04-May-14 12:37:26

I'd try suggesting she uses them for a bit. Then if she is not happy in a few months go back and to a different optician chain all together and see what they say.

I would recommend Boots Opticians. It won't matter they did not make the glasses originally.

I am now v short sighted but I think I was given glasses too young as a chid as I was given them at 8, then not told to bother at 9 and then given them again at 11 (when I did need them). Obviously I was borderline in the younger years. At the time as a child it did really confuse and upset me and put me off glasses.

CorusKate Sun 04-May-14 12:37:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FrontForward Sun 04-May-14 12:41:37

My DD has glasses for less prescription and I felt the same however the frequent headaches have stopped....

Nomama Sun 04-May-14 13:43:33

I have the same prescription, I buy cheapy reading glasses, Poundland for example.

But I do know my eyes and their reaction to less than accurate dioptres.

Thumbwitch Sun 04-May-14 13:48:48

YABU, yes. +1.5 isn't massively long sighted but it's enough that writing/reading and computer work could cause her some strain and she could get headaches or have troubles learning/doing her school work.

Her prescription is likely to change as she grows, because her eyes will change too - this is normal. You wouldn't expect her eyes to stay the same until she was in her 20s, maybe even later. I think mine stopped getting worse when I was about 30 (but I am short-sighted, -8 or thereabouts in both eyes).

Now I am in my 40s, I am starting to have troubles reading etc. with my glasses on, unless I slide them down my nose to reduce the focus - the optician has warned me that I'm going to need varifocals soon as this won't work for much longer. To read, I often have to take my glasses off entirely (but as i mostly read in bed, that's no real hardship) - it's too much hard work to read with my normal glasses on.

DocDaneeka Sun 04-May-14 13:53:57

I starerd wearing glasses for long sight at a prescription of +0.75 and + 1.25. Ath the age of 15"

It felt like they weren't doing anything BUT the crippling headaches I had been getting stopped overnight.

I'd get her to wear them. She might thinks she is fine but she will be straining her eyes and will certainly be able to concentrate for much longer periods whilst wearing them.

DocDaneeka Sun 04-May-14 13:55:18

Rainbow- Boots are bloody expensive for glasses. Brilliant at eye tests but charge way way more for glasses than anyone else in my experience.

AreYouFeelingLucky Sun 04-May-14 13:57:28

I'm long sighted, and Wear contact lenses that are +1.5. I certainly notice the difference. Going without would be ludicrous, I might be able to get by but the difference is massive.

KleineDracheKokosnuss Sun 04-May-14 13:58:53

It doesn't take much to trigger headaches. I've had glasses for amost 20 years now (started as a teen) and I always know when they've got worse due to the headaches that start behind my right eye...

Also, sight problems left uncorrected (or under corrected) can rapidly get worse.

lottiegarbanzo Sun 04-May-14 13:59:50

Agree about compensating by straining to focus. I'm long-sighted and my prescription has got progressively stronger with age, because I'm losing the muscle strength to compensate and mask the true prescription.

bluesbaby Sun 04-May-14 14:13:40

I'm slightly less long sighted and do need glasses to comfortably read signs etc in the distance.

Also going from reading on the phone to watching tv at a short distance makes my eyes ache.

Is she playing with her phone while she watches tv? That may be causing eye strain.

CorusKate Sun 04-May-14 14:15:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fooshufflewickbannanapants Sun 04-May-14 14:28:51

Erm that's just silly coruskate

CorusKate Sun 04-May-14 14:32:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FrontForward Sun 04-May-14 15:15:31

I agree with Corus. Long sight is usually struggling to read close up, not at distance. That is classified as short sighted.

Older people (over 40) struggle to move between different reading distances because their lenses are less supple. Kids should manage phone to tv fine

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now