Why Eye Doctors Dismiss the Bates Method by David Kiesling

Note: This is meant not to be a criticism of all eye doctors (optometrists and ophthalmologists), but of the prevailing attitudes of the professions in general. The number of eye doctors who display a more open-minded, holistic, or investigative attitude are increasing and are excepted from this criticism.

It's natural to ask, "If it's so good, why isn't it being commonly used? Why isn't it in medical and optometry texts and taught by eye doctors?" With this article I attempt to explain the reasons for the ignorance and consequenting condemnation of the Bates Method by eye doctors.

Ideally, if something is of enormous practical use for aiding in relieving the suffering of humankind, it would quickly be adopted by the medical establishment and implemented to its fullest extent. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work.

If a theory or method contradicts any part of the accepted theories about the eye, it's rejected as quackery, without investigation. Theories about the eye, which have been passed down through the generations of eye doctors, and which the practice of prescribing glasses and performing surgeries has relied upon, are nothing more than unproven theories. Theories have developed to explain away the occasional cases of vision recovery from nearly every condition or disease causing imperfect sight that people suffer from. Because they have a theory to explain the improvement away in conventional terms, supporting the belief that the Bates method has nothing to do with it, eye doctors feel that this is sufficient justification to dismiss the Bates method out-of-hand. The Bates method doesn't make sense in the context of the conventional paradigm of vision care, but a paradigm is not much more than a world-view upon which theories rest. Understanding the Bates method requires a person to look at things in a different way to see how it would make sense in the context of holistically-oriented health and stress-related disorders.

To get a better idea of how eye doctors see things, note that traditional eyecare is concerned almost exclusively with the physiological aspects of seeing. The training and literature that the practice of eye doctors is based on doesn't consider that there might be unnatural and abnormal ways of using the eyes and mind, as well as relaxed and healthy ways. Lisette Scholl suggests a reason why this is so:

It is easy to understand why the optometric profession is still caught up in this antiquated version of how the eyes work. Optometrics evolved out of a purely mechanical science, optics. Optics does not deal with the human body at all; its concern is with the refraction of light. As such, optics as a science is not adequate for dealing with the health of the visual sense organs. [1]

The physical way that eye doctors approach vision is illustrated in how the great portion of the arguments against the Bates Method center on Dr. Bates's theory of accommodation and hardly touch any of the aspects of the Method itself. Dr. Bates was clear enough in his warning that his theory of accommodation was just that, a theory, that theories are often disproved later, but that he could find no other explanation to account for what he observed. The accepted model was (and still is), at least, in need of serious modification. Nevertheless, he and his methods are attacked and disregarded because they did not agree with the physical propositions, the only part the eye authorities tend to pay any attention to. Dr. Bates's other points, dealing with the mental side of seeing, tend to be cast off almost as an afterthought; it is automatically assumed that this mind-oriented work can only improve "blur interpretation" (simple reasoning of what a blurred image might be) and can have no effect on the focusing of the eyes nor the image formed in the mind.

People tend to invest their views in what they've been surrounded by, and it takes a great deal of dedication to become an optometrist or ophthalmologist. An ophthalmologist has spent 4 years in college (including pre-med courses), 4 years in medical school, 2-6 years in ophthalmology training, and 3-8 years in an internship/residency program. 12 years of intensive study, and the financial investment in it, ia a long time to ever consider having been wasted. After 12 years, plus the time spend in your career afterwards,

An optometrist has a shorter and narrower training, but that education tends to instill a view of the eye as nothing more than a machine to be adjusted. Some ophthalmologists criticize optometrists because they require so little training in comparison, so optometrists defensively believe in the validity of their profession and what they were taught even more strongly.

After a while, at his office, whichever type of eye doctor a person becomes, he's got his routine down very well, measuring eyes, prescribing glasses, and making a living. Were you him, what do you suppose your reaction would be if you came across a method that basically implies that most of what you've learned regarding the eyes is wrong or useless, that the approach your treatments are founded upon is basically wrong, that you've been treating a functional disorder like a fixed condition, that the glasses you're prescribing only make the problem worse, that you are not at all equipped with the tools or knowledge to set things right, and that the right way is much simpler and could be taught by any layperson with a little training? Would you believe it, or even take it seriously?

Even if he's aware that there are flaws in the old theories of vision that his practice is based on, an eye doctor makes a fairly steady income and may not find it desirable to risk it and venture into something new like teaching people how to see without glasses and avoid the need for surgeries. He has his routine down pretty well and sees no good reason to throw it away.

Money issues aside, eye doctors feel like they have an obligation to their patients to avoid unproven methods. It's very hard to prove something to a degree where there can be no room for doubt or alternative explanations, but a theory dismissing it is easier and more convincing. Eye doctors promoting something like the Bates method lose face, especially if they're not very good at teaching it.

Patients come in to an eye doctor's office expecting glasses and the instant improvement in vision they afford. They expect instant gratification when they go to see an eye doctor, instead of taking personal responsibility for their health. We have also been conditioned to accept glasses as a normal part of life, and eye doctors share that view. It's assumed that everyone will need glasses eventually, and that they're actually good for the eyes. Some people think that they actually look more appealing with a set of frames and lenses covering their faces. Some people consider glasses a sign of intelligence, a notion that is supported by studies relating myopia to studiousness and intellectual-type jobs. In short, eye doctors consider glasses to be a good thing, not something to be avoided.

It's worth noting that the majority of eye doctors wear glasses. It's an insult to the glasses expert to suggest that he himself needs glasses because he's suffering from mental strain and chronic tension and that he worsens it in his patients by prescribing glasses.

Even if an eye doctors thinks there might be something to the Bates method, he can't safely discuss the issue with most of his peers. He is ridiculed and laughed at. He can lose a great deal of credibility. Is it worth it, just because of an anomaly (or a few of them) that seem to blatantly contradict the accepted theories? Don't rock the boat. Just keep quiet and everything will continue to go smoothly. After all, there must be a plausible explanation that can be come up with to discount the improvement, and so it doesn't need to be investigated. It just isn't possible that so many people could be wrong, right?

And there we have another problem - seeing is very much a subjective process, but subjectivity isn't considered to be important. For example, a patient, complaining about how uncomfortable it feels to look through the new glasses (which is extremely common) will be told firmly, "Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Give it a couple weeks." The eyes were accurately measured, the lenses accurately fitted, so nothing could be wrong. The complaints can't be measured by an objective device, so they aren't taken seriously.

The Bates method is all about subjectivity. It approaches vision in a very different way than most eye doctors do, and arguments fall on deaf ears. But to end this on a positive note, there is no need to convince eye doctors of the validity of the Bates method. It will continue to rise in popularity through the success of people who practice it. It requires a lot of energy for a person to learn to make the changes in the way he uses his eyes, and to keep the ball rolling, the best thing for you to do is to practice the Bates method more than you talk about it.

CITATIONS. 1. Scholl, Lisette. Visionetics: The Holistic Way to Better Eyesight. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1978.

Click here to return to Bates Method Main Page

PLEASE NOTE: Natural-Earth.com does not necessarily endorse any of the treatments and therapies in the natural health, natural medicine and lifestyles directory. The material on this web site has been provided for your information and we urge you to be discriminating in making your choice of complementary or alternative therapy. We wish you Good Luck... and Good Health.