Maybe not, but headlines saying "Clinic forces receptionist to have eyes lasered" would be even worse PR.





Glasses. I can't put my finger in my eye, so no contacts.



I don't really need to most of the time (see next answer), but I usually wear them simply because it's the easiest way to carry them around. The only time they're necessary is for reading small fiddly writing from a long way off. So powerpoints from the back of lecture theatres, train station departure boards, tennis scores on the TV...

I technically need to wear them while driving, and there's a code on my licence saying so. But that's only because when I took the eyesight test without them, there was an illegal black bolt in the numberplate they asked me to read, making an O look like a B (or similar: can't remember exactly which letters). So I had to take it with them on.



L: -0.75
R: exactly on the border between -0.25 and -0.5.

0.25 is the smallest increment they can measure.



If they were a lot worse, or if I could get it for free, I certainly would. But there's really no need to spend thousands of pounds when your prescription is as weak as mine.

The other thing is that I'm only in my 20s, so my eyesight is likely to change as I get older anyway. So laser surgery would be pretty pointless: it might be perfect for a few years and then go wrong again.



No, n/a.



Yes, as long as I didn't get pulled over by a really observant traffic police(wo)man.



Projected cost saving: surgery vs. new glasses whenever they break or get lost. Plus a bit for convenience of not having to carry them around.