Hello - My name is Ineke and I am apparently a Scientific Miracle - according to an article I read on a "news" website, that is.
You see I have been seriously shortsighted since birth. According to the article this is a strange phenomenon - shortsightedness apparently shows itself when a child gets to approximately 6 years of age. By the way - genetics have nothing to do with this - it is all down to the man-made catastrophe called "modern day parenting" (not letting children play outside, etc).
This is slightly strange as I can trace bad sight down from Oma, through Mum, to me.
I am wondering whether the modern idea of testing anything that moves is actually responsible for detecting sight problems earlier and dealing with them quickly?
But are we too quick to turn things into a medical problem for which we need to find a solution anyway???
Allow me to attempt to explain.
Right now it sounds to me as though the "establishment" have decided to put vision on the same level as obesity - however, any idiot should be able to understand that they are not the same thing at all.
For a start - left unchecked - obesity causes medical health complications which can lead directly to death.
Serious vision problems are a medical health complication which can lead directly to death - being run over, etc - however, you actively have to do something to start the chain of events which will lead to it.
People who are seriously overweight are at more risk of dying if they don't take exercise, eat healthily, etc, than people with seriously bad vision are likely to if they actively do the above.
I would also make one other comment. I wonder what level the researchers are calling myopic (or shortsighted)??? I understand that there are atmospheric and environmental circumstances which will affect the development of the eyes, optic nerves, etc. However, I would be seriously surprised if a child went from near 20/20 vision to my level of sight (approx -25 in my worst eye) just because they spent most of their life looking at a screen.
I feel we really need to have a proper debate about shortsightedness - especially the levels at which it is deemed to be a problem (both for those of us who are shortsighted and those who are in the business of trying to "help" us).
I have recently heard that I can now add ASDA to my list of "opticians" who will not deal with my prescription - they now have their cut off point at approximately -6. Do not worry if your prescription is just above that - there are plenty of High Street opticians who will deal with you.
I know I have complained on here before about the discrimination I suffer as a result of my sight when it comes to buying glasses.
In an ideal world - having the skills and techniques to ensure that children with 20/20 vision don't end up needing glasses would make it easier for those of us on my end of the scale to be treated with respect by the High Street opticians (Vision Express, etc) - as well as bringing the costs of high prescription lenses down dramatically.
However, I fear we are still going to be treated as third class citizens - at least until someone with seriously bad vision stands up to the Researchers and the Government and says "without us you (researchers) would not have anything to conduct your stupid experiments on and you (Government) would not have anybody to demonise and force to pay extortionate prices for something we cannot live without".
Here is something for you to think about -
Thanks to the Government someone with my level of vision is actually better off claiming Jobseekers Allowance instead of being in paid employment. It is not because we cannot earn more money in a job but because - if we are in a job we have to pay almost full price (I get a voucher for approximately £13.00 towards a pair which I cannot get for under £200.00 at full price) for our glasses, if we are on Jobseekers Allowance we get a voucher towards most of the cost of a pair of glasses (My last voucher was just under £200.00).
Oh - and before you tell me that an employer should pay for my sight test (which I get free anyway) and glasses (which I wear all the time) - why should they??? As my glasses are connected with my health I feel the only organisation who should pay for them is the NHS - whether I am employed or not.
Unless the differing pieces of research are actually going to lead to improvement in the treatment of their victims - or a better understanding of the subjects being researched - I wish the people in charge of publishing the reports would just refuse to publish. This would also allow the rest of humanity to make their own minds up.
Maybe then people like me would not end up feeling so discriminated against (or even - in some cases - condemned) for what is basically a genetic defect which we are not responsible for.
||Add New Comment