What Glasses Should a Two Year Old That Seems Fine Get, When The Specialists Say Confusing Things?

I am a random MeFite with a son who has very poor eyesight. Not a specialist. We found out he needed glasses when he was 6, just after he entered elementary school. I was shocked, to say the least, because I had assumed his eyes were fine. What took me by surprise the most about finding out about my son's poor eyesight was that it hadn't been a gradual decline, but that he had been born with it. I couldn't believe it. I'd been careful to watch out for signs of poor vision because both my husband and I have needed to wear glasses since childhood ourselves (just ordinary nearsightedness and astigmatism, but still). But I was told by our doctor, a specialist in pediatric ophthalmology (is that right? I'm not sure what the equivalent is in English, I'm in Japan), that the shape of my son's left eye was the cause of his poor vision and that it was something he had been born with. My son had basically been getting by using his right eye only ever since he was born, and I hadn't noticed at all. I felt terrible. I could go on about this, but to get to the point, please don't assume that your daughter's eyes are fine because she gets around all right or that she can see small things or faraway things or what have you. I did it, and I really regret not getting my son diagnosed sooner. If it worries you, take her to another doctor, get as many opinions as you want. But don't assume. Also, I understand how your wife feels about glasses... I wish I didn't have to rely so heavily on mine and I also wish my son didn't have to wear them, either. But what puts things in perspective for me is that if my son hadn't been diagnosed when he was, he might have gone blind in one eye. Well, now at least he can see, albeit with glasses. Hooray for glasses. Really. Hope things turn out OK for your daughter.

Seems like the kind of situation that would call for a third opinion. You keep mentioning how good your daughter's vision seems to be, as though you're trying to convince yourself to go against doctor's orders because you don't want to get the glasses. This is probably not a wise route to go down.

her vision is poor and she needs correction. all two-year-olds are somewhat farsighted(?), and so, I'd compensate her with +1.5 glasses so she will be just like everyone else her age. I think the two doctors are actually agreeing with each other as to the weakness in your daughter's vision - to bring her from being farsighted to 20/20 close vision, she would need about +5 or so correction. The first doctor seems to be saying that she should be brought to perfect close vision. The second doctor seems to be saying that most young children are naturally far-sighted to some extent (after all, they don't need to do a lot of close work yet), so he's saying that you should just correct her vision slightly to bring her in line with other 2-year-olds. Perhaps http://www.eyecaretyler.com/pediatrics.htm will be helpful for you and your wife:People are often confused about the importance of glasses for children. Some believe that if children wear glasses when they are young, they won't need them later. Others think wearing glasses as a child makes one dependent on them later. Neither is true. Children need glasses because they are genetically nearsighted, farsighted, or astigmatic. These conditions do not go away nor do they get worse because they are not corrected. Glasses or contacts are necessary throughout life for good vision. ...

are you seeing a paediatric opthamologist or optometrist or what? It makes a huge difference - a friend is an optical mechanic and swore blind that baby anachronism had sight issues (crossed eyes at 3 months) but the paediatric optho we were already seeing since both my partner and I have sight issues not only said she wasn't cross eyed but that babies have that tendency anyway. So yeah, get another opinion, preferably from a paediatric specialist.

I can tell you that I needed glasses early, and nobody believed me. Get a 3rd opinion from a pediatric opthalmologist. Part of the major issue is that your child's ability to process vison in the brain is developing now, and the more time your child has with appropriate interventions as necessary, the better the neural connections and integration of sight will be later on. But those pathways need to be there (this is one reason why the poster above would have had a child blind in one eye...to super-oversimplify, if you have a kid who is only using one eye, you have to force kids to use the 'poor' eye somehow--correction or patches or whatever is appropriate--or the brain junks the input and allocates the space to other functions, and the eye becomes useless permanently).

and with the way she walks around the house, were it not for a doctor two years ago telling us to make sure her eyes were OK then (and that doctor meant an astigmatism, NOT farsightedness) we would never had dreamed she might need glasses... Are you sure she hasn't memorised the layout of the house? I can navigate my house without my glasses, and my script is -9.50 (and getting worse all the darn time). I once went 2 years with glasses that were 3 dioptres weaker than I needed, and didn't realise until I went back to uni and found I couldn't see the board. People adapt to crappy vision. my daughter sees fine, as far as we can tell... whether its a tiny ant crawling on the window or a candy stashed out of (our) sight. I am confused...you say you are being recommended +5.5 or +1.5 glasses. Those are far-sighted prescriptions (reading glasses). A farsighted person would be conceivably be able to see things stashed out of sight - it's close work they struggle with. This is not to say your kid needs glasses! And I agree you should get another opinion from a pediatric specialist. (And get that doctor to explain why his 3rd opinion is correct, and the other 2 are perhaps not, because all these conflicting reasons sound pretty confusing.)

I'm just here to support the idea that you really don't know what she's seeing from her behavior. The day I got my glasses, four days after my third birthday, is the first day as I child I really remember because there was such a change in the way I saw the world. And bear in mind that I was already reading before I got my glasses, so its not like it was obvious there was an issue with my vision. this doctor warned us that if we do not get her glasses she could possibly become cross-eyed. It was actually my right eye beginning to turn in that alerted my mother that there was an issue. I ended up having to wear an eyepatch over my dominant eye for a few years, trying to give my "lazy" eye a chance to work harder, but it didn't work, so I eventually needed surgery (which was botched the first time, leaving me with double vision for six months at the age of 7, so they had to do it twice). Glasses are not some huge stigma. They're a tool to help your daughter's body work correctly and to assist her in being able to see the world as clearly as she can. Two experts agree that she needs glasses. Get her glasses.

"I can see the leaves on the trees!" I had a similar moment. Nobody had any idea I needed glasses until my teacher sent home a note about how much trouble I was getting into for "wandering around the room," and--being the good little oppressed kid I was--that wasn't like me. But I was getting up to try to read the blackboard, and didn't realize everyone else could see it just fine. I "got around" just fine; *I* certainly had no idea that I couldn't see as well as everyone else. Then I got glasses, and...you're supposed to be able to SEE that? And that? And look at all the detail! "Leaves on the trees" was definitely among the first "wow" moments. I still have a fondness for Impressionism, though, as that's how I think of the world even to this day.

I am not a doctor, but what I am getting out of this is that two specialists have agreed that your daughter needs glasses, just disagreed on what correction to give her, so I think you perhaps should accept that she does need some kind of vision correction, at least for now. Kids are growing and changing, and so are their eyes, so you never know how that may ultimately turn out for her vision so she may indeed "outgrow" the problem. I think a third specialist - a pediatric ophthamologist - is not uncalled for, and I would tell them what the other two have said (though what the second doctor said sounds very sensible to me, i.e. this: "this doctor indicated that "her vision is poor and she needs correction. all two-year-olds are somewhat farsighted(?), and so, I'd compensate her with +1.5 glasses so she will be just like everyone else her age.") You don't say where you are, but note that if you are near Philadelphia, PA, consider consulting someone on the staff of http://www.willseye.org/patients/services/pediatric/, as that is a top place for eye care in the US. http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/ophthalmology. Look for one in your area that has a pediatric staff and then try to get an appointment with someone on that staff. Also, as jaynewould points out, your daughter seems to be farsighted, so that usually (in simplistic terms) does involve problems with close work, and a two year old probably does not do a lot of that yet, but she will be needing to fairly soon, so you want her to be able to; i.e. she will be needing the glasses as she starts reading and such. http://www.nyee.edu/faqlist.html?tablename=faq&key=74 On a personal note, I am nearsighted (i.e. I have problems with distance vision) and I needed glasses at a young age, but my parents were in denial about it and it took a teacher in school saying that I could not read the blackboard for my parents to get my eyes tested. Once I got glasses we all realized that I had not been able to see at a distance for a very long time, but had compensated for it and my parents had not seen the signs (they still feel guilty about that, 40 plus years later). I coped fine as a youngster with glasses. So did my husband, who needed to get them at the age of three for distance.