That brings me to one of my personal pet peeves which is selling pensioners that qualify for cataract surgery on an expensive, but in fact identical but privately paid for IOL.
Same with selling some Myopic+Presbyopic person on laser eye surgery of any kind. At best you get a few short years out of the expense before it catches up with you or you tolerate mono, at worst you spend thousands to suddenly need reading glasses you didn't require before.
Course, if you are financially solid and Presbyopia is starting, getting a high quality lens exchange can be a very neat luxury, with the added benefit of not needing Cataract surgery later in life. Do note though that artificial lenses, while incredibly advanced, still cannot accommodate as well as the real deal as of now.
When I heard that LASIK is not a solution to farsightedness, I specifically asked my eye doctor if there are other solutions for this. The only one mentioned was monovision (getting two different prescriptions for different eyes).
> Do note though that artificial lenses, while incredibly advanced, still cannot accommodate as well as the real deal as of now.
Cannot accommodate what as well?
I had a conversation with my ophthalmologist about this. She said the same thing. Then I said, I don't understand, right now I have to wear glasses for far vision and glasses for near and mid vision. If I got the surgery, I would still be presbyopic, but I wouldn't need glasses for far vision, only for near vision? and she said yes. So I said, that sounds like in improvement. What's the catch? She said it's mostly a matter of expectation. People think that LASIK means they don't have to wear glasses again, period.
But I keep hearing this, so I'm wondering if there's something more to it that she didn't explain? Is there some other disadvantage?