PeterPan Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm sure y'all weren't waiting on the edge of your seats about this or anything, but you'll be relieved to know the VT doc found ds3 has just the normal things that seem to come from me (far-sighted, astigmatism) and that his actual convergence, focusing, etc. seem within the realm of ok. I guess they drifted a little, but one of the other parameters was really strong to make up for it. So for now they're just going watch him, keep doing normal things, and recheck in a year. So I'm disappointed that I seem to give my kids these crazy genes (low tone, astigmatism, etc.), but I'm relieved there's nothing WORSE than that going on right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I am glad that you received good news:grouphug:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terabith Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Is he going to need glasses? I have to say, all his stuff with hammering nails and such sounds like delightful vision therapy...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterPan Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 Yeah, I was pretty surprised that she didn't want to go ahead and do glasses, but she didn't. I trust her, because she was great with dd and did a good scrip for my eyes as well. I think if they were WORSE, she'd have done glasses. She said when he starts reading fine print it will become an issue, because his ability to accommodate up close won't be there. So for now we just wait. Besides, I pondered to myself how it would be to put glasses on him even a year from now, and the picture was ugly. He's pretty busy, lol. That's no excuse, but I'm guessing that factors into it from their perspective. He's not focusing up close enough (because he doesn't read) to have the up close be an issue. I don't think she expects it to go away, which was what another optometrist told me about dd when I had her evaluated at age 5. It makes me SICK that that other doc totally blew off stuff that later turned into serious issues for dd. So yeah, I guess basically when he starts doing more up close he'll need the glasses. For now she's letting him go without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 It's always nice to read a positive update or any update actually. I get my two youngest ones' eyes checked regularly since my twins both are far-sighted and have wandering eyes. My ds 3 actually had some issues at 3 weeks of age but they miraculously cleared up and still amaze my wonderful eye doctor. Getting reassurance is the best and all we can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Yeah, I was pretty surprised that she didn't want to go ahead and do glasses, but she didn't. I trust her, because she was great with dd and did a good scrip for my eyes as well. I think if they were WORSE, she'd have done glasses. She said when he starts reading fine print it will become an issue, because his ability to accommodate up close won't be there. So for now we just wait. Besides, I pondered to myself how it would be to put glasses on him even a year from now, and the picture was ugly. He's pretty busy, lol. That's no excuse, but I'm guessing that factors into it from their perspective. He's not focusing up close enough (because he doesn't read) to have the up close be an issue. I don't think she expects it to go away, which was what another optometrist told me about dd when I had her evaluated at age 5. It makes me SICK that that other doc totally blew off stuff that later turned into serious issues for dd. So yeah, I guess basically when he starts doing more up close he'll need the glasses. For now she's letting him go without. Elizabeth, I am just now reading this update and feel conflicted about it. First off, how great of a pediatric ophthalmologist is she in order for you to blindly (pun intended) follow her lead? My girls had eye issues from 14 and 16 months and it was a hassle for especially the one diagnosed later to find the right prescription (by then we had found this wonderful doctor whom we are still with and who rocks). Anyways, if young kids can't see well up close then you are basically laying the foundation for them not focusing and doing fine-motor skills, wanting to look in books (learn to read of course) and all that jazz. Furthermore then I have often seen young kids with eye problems become aggressive or anti-social because they feel threatened and all they can do non-verbally is to bite or lash out. When you can't see well, then you feel others are impeding on your borders. Even if young kids get glasses -if they are the right prescription- then they *will* indeed wear them and if you find a proper frame, then there should be nothing major to worry about safety-wise. I still remember how my first twin looked around in amazement the first time she wore her glasses and she never took them off. Totally different scenario with the other twin who had gotten a wrong (very off) prescription and refused to wear her glasses and ended up hiding them (pretty costly). So, yeah, I am a believer in glasses with the right prescription for any age!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterPan Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 Nadia, I think that's a point well-taken. This was actually a developmental optometrist, not an opthamalogist, but it's the doc who did the VT for my dd's eye problems. I think the amount of far-sightedness and astigmatism may have been very low, which also factored into it. What you're saying makes sense though. So mainly my deference to her opinion was that she fixed dd's eyes so well and seems to have done a very good job on mine (new scrip, very good, best I've ever had). But I definitely see your point and will watch it. What she *didn't* seem to be saying was the line some other docs had said with dd, which was that it was normal child development and that he would outgrow it. She didn't seem to be saying that. But she also seemed contented that it was slight enough that, given that he's not reading or doing close-up work yet (he just turned 3 and doesn't read) that it wasn't necessary to correct. I'll definitely watch it though. They're just an email away if I get concerned or want a clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Oh, ok. Well, my girls' prescriptions were 5 or 6 or even higher, so pretty strong to begin with. I just saw the aggressiveness (as part of a defense) early on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterPan Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 No it's very interesting and I do appreciate it. I think it's a point well-taken. Same thing with my ds and his speech. These issues DO come out as behavior, and I think you're right to suggest that I watch it carefully. She mentioned it would show up in fine motor things, the very thing you said. I immediately retorted back he has awesome fine motor skills (which he does), but I think I was missing the whole point of WHY it would catch up and affect his fine motor. Your point was very well taken. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.