Stupid Question

[Louise Pembroke]

Does anyone know what numbers are classified as 'partial sight'? I'm just curious

[Andrew MacLean]

I don't think that 'partial sight' actually has a legal definition. The RNIB offer as a rule of thumb 'being unable to recognse a close friend across the street'.

To be registered either as blind or partially sighted you need to a certificate signed by your consultant ophthalmologist.

Andrew

[Louise Pembroke]

That's interesting, well I can't see a friend across the street without my lens in, so is there a 'part-time' certificate?!

[John Smith]

It depends on who you ask - I know that having vision insufficient to pass the DVLA test can confer free/discounted travel, which is regardless of being registered partially sighted.

Not sure what the completecriteria for being registered as partially sighted though. Any ideas, anyone? However, I've got this criteria from the RNIB:

• Visual acuity of 3 / 60 to 6 / 60 with a full field of vision.
• Visual acuity of up to 6 / 24 with a moderate reduction of field of vision or with a central part of vision that is cloudy or blurry.
• Visual acuity of up to 6 / 18 if a large part of your field of vision, for example a whole half of your vision, is missing, or a lot of your peripheral vision is missing.

I assume that this means both eyes, with best correction, but I'm really unsure.

[Louise Pembroke]

If one fitted that criteria only without lenses, would it still count I wonder?

[Andrew MacLean]

Louise

It is usually based on 'best corrected vision' ie with lenses. I don't know how others have fared.

Andrew

[rosemary johnson]

I've been down to the stage of not seeing hands waving - during first and second hydrops. Well, I could just see a bit of motion when the hand got over to the extreme edges. Not fun.

As regards partial-sight:

This seems to be yet another postcode lottery!!!
There are criteria relating to acuity (how many letters, etc), and other criteria relating to loss of field of vision. Some consultants will factor in the sortness of time you can get the level of acuity for - for example, waving hands without lenses, max use of one lens at a time for max six hours a day, giving maybe 6/24 - with some consultants this may be registerable whereas 12 hours a day wouldn't.
Or so I sort-of gather.

We once had a speaker at a MC group meeting (at Moorfields) from the partially-sighted society, who said that "the rules" stated the P/S registration criteria were for vision "corrected with spectacles if possible".
She claimed this meant you could be waving-hands only with naked eye and registered because glasses do not help, and Ok to drive with contacts!
Since then, I have not been able to find anyone who knows anything about this!!!! - though when I was finally registered, I saw that the actual *form* (it's called a BD8, IIRR) asks for vision with spectacles, but it seems in practice most consultants would interpret that as meaning "as best corrected with spactacles, lenses or whatever, as appropriate".

I got registered by a combination of declining acuity, poor wearing times (and that only 1 lens at a time), and the problem that I couldn't work without special adapted equipment, I couldn't use the special adapted equipment without special trianing to use it, and the training was only available to people with a registration number (a complete farce of a situation at the time!)

What it seems it *not* recognised in the criteria for P/S is light sensitivity - yet my greatest problem in life is hypersensitivity, not being able to go anywhere people may take photos, having problems with computer screens because of the emitted light, etc etc.
And there are people how have far more problems with this than most KC'ers, too.
Rosemary

[Louise Pembroke]

It's a complex issue then. I can think of other spanners in the works regarding this, like lens wear for me can be affected by my mental health, as in there being some days when I just can't face putting the lens in. The criteria wouldn't accommodate that, just as it seems it doesn't neccessarily accommodate light sensitivity.

[Rob Armstrong]

If one fitted that criteria only without lenses, would it still count I wonder?

This is the battle I had when appealing my DLA decision. I was on the waiting list for a graft on my right eye, and still had a lens for my left eye but my lens tolerence had plummeted and I was only able to wear it for short periods, and somedays not at all.

I won on the grounds that there is an obscure clause somewhere that states if a person's disability affects them to a certain level for the majority of the time (specific percentage - can't remember the figure sorry) then that level of ability can be treated as the overall ability for the purpose of the assessment. It didn't specify eyes or lens wear, but it was argued on my behalf that it applied in my case.

I had evidence from the hospital to backup my lens woes, and the fact that I was awaiting corrective surgery implied the extent of my Keratoconus - although the hospital never mentioned anything about being registered partially sighted, presumably because they intended to rectify that with the graft.

Rob.

[Andrew MacLean]

I don't think that 'partial sight' actually has a legal definition. The RNIB offer as a rule of thumb 'being unable to recognse a close friend across the street'.

To be registered either as blind or partially sighted you need to have a certificate signed by your consultant ophthalmologist.

Andrew