Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rruxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxv!rruxa!rruxe!debbiem
From: debbiem@rruxe.UUCP (D. McBurnett)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Contact lenses and astigmatism...
Message-ID: <268@rruxe.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 10:44:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: rruxe.268
Posted: Mon Aug  5 10:44:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:54:37 EDT
References: <3420@fritz.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 22

Phil,

As I have had it from several opthmologists (sp?) and optometrists,
the explanation you got is essentially correct.  I have a BAD
astigmatism in one eye, and am therefore doomed to wearing hard
lenses (I've been told that there is a CHANCE I could wear gas-
permeable lenses, but since the experiment would cost me over $250,
I'm not willing to find out).  But since glasses don't correct my
astigmatism completely, and in any case cost more than the hard
lenses, I'm willing to put up with the less-than-ideal comfort of
hard lenses.

P.S.  One virtue of hard lenses is that when they get scratched
up, you can get them polished again for about $10 and they are
as good as new again.  I don't think this can be done with any other
kind of contact lens.  The pair I'm wearing now are four years old
and going strong -- so far they have cost me all of $45.  And when
they are newly polished, they are quite comfortable.

Debbie McBurnett
rruxe!debbiem