This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Pediatric Ophthalmology  • Strabismus  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

George R. Beauchamp, MD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We should continue to explore together the notions of disability and disutility—and please note, these are very different concepts—while being aware of the many barriers to our understanding. We may parse evidence in a concatenation of reductionist steps that seem logical, even statistically significant. Further, we may debate about methods of all sorts: diagnostic, therapeutic, social, medical system, and so on. Still, amblyopia is a real disease with neuroanatomic and neurophysiologic decrements. We humans know a bad thing when we encounter it and we have a sense of how bad things are in a relative sense; these are statements of utility. And, we know the elimination of preventable vision loss in children is a fundamental good.

Lempert seems to posit the following: (1) treatment yields no decrease in disability and therefore seemingly does not matter; (2) treatment is fundamentally bad because it is associated . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED LETTER

Band-Aids and Amblyopia
Philip Lempert
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(1):145.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT