A risk factor is only a risk factor, not a disease. Ask your doctor how high the risk is - not very high from what the poster above suggests. Be aware of the symptoms in case something does develop - who wants to lose their eyesight - but don't become obsessed. If it is nothing to do with the reason you presented to the doctor in the first place then there is no need to be overly concerned. Being alive is a risk factor for dying - apparently in 100% of cases. Your risk of glaucoma would be lower than your risk of dying :-)

This! 

I know I have this variant only because when I was an inquisitive teenager, I told the eye doctor on a routine checkup that I noticed my left and right eyes reacted ever so slightly differently in the dark. He sent me to a specialist who diagnosed it and said not to worry about it. In the many years since, no other eye doctor has ever mentioned it. 

Are you kidding me? Medicine for the common cold??? That does not need medicine! We are a soft, over-medicalised society that has lost sight of what is the purpose of our existence.

Common cold was just an example of a very common disease that expert doctors refuse to treat because it is not their area of expertise.

"Common cold" is a waste basket non-diagnosis that covers a wide spectrum of mild-to-potentially-deadly disease.  Certainly a viral rhinitis does not need prescriptive antibiotics. On the other hand, acute bacterial sinusitis or otitis, often called "common cold," can lead to more serious problems, such as bacterial meningitis.

An anecdote—In my first month working the Emergency Room I saw a 26-year-old man with exactly such an acute bacterial sinusitis/otitis. It was so severe that I called the Otorhinolaryngologist ("Ear-Nose-Throat") specialist on call asking that he see the patient immediately. The specialist was abusive: "What medical school did you go to? Didn't you learn how to treat a common cold?" He raged on viciously, but I persisted. The specialist relented and saw the patient at midnight in his office. After he evaluated the patient he called me back and apologized for being abusive, agreeing that this was an unusually severe case.

Three nights later the 26-year-old returned to our E.R. by ambulance—DEAD! I wasn't on duty that night, but my best friend from internship was on that night. He saw my medical notes from the earlier visit and discovered that the 26-year-old never filled the prescription to continue the antibiotic that the specialist had given him at the initial care. The young man died because his "common cold" progressed to a fatal meningitis.

So, you can pontificate all you want about over-medicalization (it is true), but it may shock you to learn that there actually are cases where we doctors really do save lives. It's unclear to me if over-the-top skeptics dispensing vague snarky platitudes ever save anyone's life.

And the last time I checked my catechism, we are tenants in our Temples of the Holy Ghost and we have a duty to be diligent in self-care. That is indeed an essential part of our "purpose of our existence."  It is a chosen "purpose of my existence" to help people as best I can. On my way to work I pray a Rosary with the special intention of doing good and begging the Holy Ghost to guide my mind and my hands.

Ha ha! Nice try. That presentation was not the common cold, regardless of what your haughty specialist said. Exceptions only prove the rule. No treatment is without its risks either. There is a long standing debate in the fraternity, as you would know, whether or not to even treat otitis media with antibiotics, in spite of the rare but serious complications, for this very reason. Another snarky platitude from an over the top skeptic??? Who is being snarky?

Some of us studied hard in all our classes and clinical rotations, keep up to date, weigh "research" skeptically in light of what we see in practice, don't fall for fads, and there are many specialties that expose us to a wide spectrum and considerable depth of problems in many areas. It is possible that I am one of those doctors. Maybe not. I have given you good advice.

You want your doctor to be honest. You should reciprocate that expectation by being honest yourself.  You are now seeing a doctor for the third time because you are worried. As best I can tell from your postings, your worry (not an active medical problem) is your concern, so put it up front. Being coy serves no purpose. Being abrasive serves no purpose. Re-read the Golden Rule.

If I wasn't clear, do know that I really appreciate and respect your posts for various reasons.   Thank you. 

You are wrong about a "third" doctor, however.  This would be a visit to a second doctor.  My original doctor retired over a year and a half ago (which is why I went to the first doctor).  I mentioned him only because he never brought up the acute angle issue.  So, there is the first doctor I saw in August, and I will be seeing the second one next week (the second visit was set up before the August visit as a back-up plan in case the first doctor office cancelled me a second time. They had cancelled my original appointment in June.  I thought I mentioned those details in the OP but maybe not).  Although your impression of the number of doctors I have seen was wrong, you are correct about the worry. I'm not a crazy worry wart, but I do worry.

I'm still stuck on whether to tell the doctor first or wait until the end of the visit.  I don't see the latter as being dishonest. 

Perhaps you'd be surprised at the thousands of times my polite and detailed explanations that antibiotics are not needed for a "self-limited viral U.R.I." have fallen on deaf ears.

No, I wouldn't, that is why I am trying to help you get the message across :-)

It will work out either way. Your life, your call. I hope my advice helped. If you have any questions after your repeat visit, I'll keep my eye out for this thread next week. I'll help if I can.

In these days where the medical profession has been rapidly swirling down the toilet, a healthy (pun intended) dose of skepticism is warranted, even life-saving. That said, too often here on CI unhealthy, life-threatening cases of excessive skepticism erupt, arguably life-threatening because they descend into antagonistic throw-the-baby-out-with-the bathwater quackery.

I try to keep my balance by reminding myself of the analogy that practicing Catholics ("trads") are hated because of the misdeeds of nominal Catholics. Analogously, good doctors are hated because of the misdeeds of bad doctors. Neither good Catholics nor good doctors deserve the opprobrium; but we deal with it. It's just a part of life.

Be well and be good. In this morning's on-the-way-to work Rosary, I will ask the patron saints of physicians to guide your doctor at your appointment next week, so that he gives you what you need.

Thank you. Yes, it has, and I will.  I agree with you regarding the excessive skepticism when it comes to the medical profession.     

I wanted to post an update. Thank you.
 
 I had my appointment yesterday, and it went very well.  My original intention was to wait until the end of the appointment to tell her about the other doctor's findings.  Before going in the office, it did occur to me that I may not have a choice (but I can’t remember why that thought came to me).  It's good that I had that thought because it prepared me.

The doctor started by asking me when my last exam was AND who the doctor was. So, since I had to give her that information, I felt that I needed to tell her the whole thing. She was great about it all.... very professional. I made it very clear that I really liked the other doctor, but that I thought it odd that my retired doctor never said anything in 15 years about acute angles.  She responded that they could change over time, but that it is less common for someone with such near-sightedness.  She was actually quite interested to have a look-see.
 
 Long story short, she did confirm that I do have acute angles; however, she did say that if it were her, she probably wouldn't have mentioned it to me.  Apparently, I'm not at a point where this is an immediate concern.  To be fair, the other doctor also said he didn't foresee me having an issue soon, but, outside of that, he seemed to make such a big deal of it, including providing me with a printed card with possible symptoms of Acute Angle Closure Glaucoma.
 
 Anyway, I really liked her, so I am considering switching to her.  But the other doctor is only 5 minutes away and she is about 30.  And to be fair, he was not wrong.  Of course, the local hospital is only 5 minutes away as well, so if I were to have symptoms in the future, the hospital ER is always right around the corner.
 
 Some other differences I noticed between the doctors was that she seemed to do what is needed rather than doing anything "extra".  The other doctor had me in the office for about an hour and a half.  I honestly have never had an eye examination take that long.  I think because of the acute angle finding, he also billed for a "special eye evaluation". Is he just very thorough?  Conservative?  Or is there more to it? Unfortunately, my suspicious nature has me wondering.
 
 Knowing all of this, if you or anyone else has any advice on which doctor I should go with, that would be great.

Good to hear! I would stick with the second doctor.