|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Complication-of-the-week feature
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Complication-of-the-week feature
|
|
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 2:08 am |
| With all of the stink and abuse being heaped upon a poor professional
tennis player who admitted to the press that she had trouble seeing in
night matches following LASIK, I am beginning to think that some of the
regulars here are so naive as to think that LASIK complications do not
exist. Perhaps this would be a good forum to discuss real cases and get
some real expert advice. I'm sure Glenn could contribute a few from
complicated eyes.
Take a vote?
DrG
| |
|
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> night matches following LASIK, I am beginning to think that some of the
> regulars here are so naive as to think that LASIK complications do not
How is that? The postings within this board are already
totally weighted towards complications. Based on population
statistics, if we had a "patient of the week" feature, then
only one week of the year would involve a patient with
complications. And in all likelihood that one complication
would be dry eye. Big deal.
Actually, this illustrates just how paranoid the anti-lasik
crowd is when their protestations are so contrary to the
reality on the ground. First it is lasik causing suicides,
and then it is lasik causing washed up tennis players to
stay washed up. Get real.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 7:07 am |
| r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in news:r5ahhj-
0F5C82.03302505102004@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> How is that? The postings within this board are already
> totally weighted towards complications. Based on population
> statistics, if we had a "patient of the week" feature, then
> only one week of the year would involve a patient with
> complications. And in all likelihood that one complication
> would be dry eye. Big deal.
>
> Actually, this illustrates just how paranoid the anti-lasik
> crowd is when their protestations are so contrary to the
> reality on the ground. First it is lasik causing suicides,
> and then it is lasik causing washed up tennis players to
> stay washed up. Get real.
>
Actually, Mary Pierce is not washed up. She had a pretty good year this
year. As long as she steers clear of night matches, she can still compete.
I think you are acting a little paranoid. Are all of you really just the
same person?
Somebody asks a question about athletes and LASIK and you all get bent out
of shape when confronted with the reality that there are a few who didn't
turn out so well? Sounds like a bad case of "reality avoidance" to me.
DrG
| |
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9578EBB159239drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...
> With all of the stink and abuse being heaped upon a poor professional
> tennis player who admitted to the press that she had trouble seeing in
> night matches following LASIK, I am beginning to think that some of the
> regulars here are so naive as to think that LASIK complications do not
> exist. Perhaps this would be a good forum to discuss real cases and get
> some real expert advice. I'm sure Glenn could contribute a few from
> complicated eyes.
>
> Take a vote?
>
> DrG
It's not naivety. It's denial. It's also a "I got mine, too bad you
didn't get yours, and tough $hit" attitude.
I think the difference is whose ox is being gored. If you had a good
result, you are an RS proponent; if you had a poor result, you are a
LASIK opponent. If you are an industry shill, you are a proponent. If
you are a medical professional that treats post-RS complications, you
are an opponent. The polarization IS pretty much that simple.
I had a great outcome per the industry in that I can read the 20/20
line, and have monovision to boot and can read close without glasses.
I had a poor outcome in my opinion terms of quality, with ghosting,
multiple images, GASH and the usual nighttime treats.
The first ox is the industry's. The second ox is mine. The proponents
take their ox and breed it so it will multiply, while mine gets
slaughtered and eaten. I may visit the industry's ox again, if it
proves it is calving well, but at this time no.
Any proponents want to ride my ox for a while? No takers? Hmmm...
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
| Another fact is that people who are happy with their results don't
necessarily have great results. Some people are happy even with
compromises, as was once again demonstrated to me yesterday. That patient
will, however, be even more happy with her new RGP lenses.
It wasn't my intent to make people uneasy with their results, but I didn't
expect to have my credibility questioned by linking to information that is
readily obtainable with a Google search. Wasn't trying to gore an ox, but
wound up being attacked anyway.
I think Glenn's fan club misses him.
DrG
the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in
news:d6260d64.0410050731.1bb01ed2@posting.google.com:
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9578EBB159239drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...
>
> It's not naivety. It's denial. It's also a "I got mine, too bad you
> didn't get yours, and tough $hit" attitude.
>
> I think the difference is whose ox is being gored. If you had a good
> result, you are an RS proponent; if you had a poor result, you are a
> LASIK opponent. If you are an industry shill, you are a proponent. If
> you are a medical professional that treats post-RS complications, you
> are an opponent. The polarization IS pretty much that simple.
>
> I had a great outcome per the industry in that I can read the 20/20
> line, and have monovision to boot and can read close without glasses.
> I had a poor outcome in my opinion terms of quality, with ghosting,
> multiple images, GASH and the usual nighttime treats.
>
> The first ox is the industry's. The second ox is mine. The proponents
> take their ox and breed it so it will multiply, while mine gets
> slaughtered and eaten. I may visit the industry's ox again, if it
> proves it is calving well, but at this time no.
>
> Any proponents want to ride my ox for a while? No takers? Hmmm...
>
| |
|
| In article <Xns957976936C60BDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
> It wasn't my intent to make people uneasy with their results, but I didn't
> expect to have my credibility questioned by linking to information that is
> readily obtainable with a Google search. Wasn't trying to gore an ox, but
> wound up being attacked anyway.
(Safely) speaking for myself, I want to make clear that I wasn't
questioning anyone's credibility.
This is a exerpt from an email I just wrote to someone else who thought
I was taking "digs" at them:
I am not vested one way or another in the issue of LASIK. I read the
google NG for info and for entertainment. I am an academic. I
sometimes choose to respond to postings because they are of academic
interest to me. Like this recent topic of how the journalist was able
to link Pierce's problems with LASIK without actually ever saying that.
Sometimes I choose to input my own experiences. My posts are not
directed at anyone's person, but only at what they write publicly on the
NG.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
| RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:xBA8d.5318$JG2.1242@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <Xns957976936C60BDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> (Safely) speaking for myself, I want to make clear that I wasn't
> questioning anyone's credibility.
>
> This is a exerpt from an email I just wrote to someone else who
> thought I was taking "digs" at them:
>
> I am not vested one way or another in the issue of LASIK. I read the
> google NG for info and for entertainment. I am an academic. I
> sometimes choose to respond to postings because they are of academic
> interest to me. Like this recent topic of how the journalist was able
> to link Pierce's problems with LASIK without actually ever saying
> that. Sometimes I choose to input my own experiences. My posts are
> not directed at anyone's person, but only at what they write publicly
> on the NG.
>
Also, please note the link I posted where Mary Pierce did say so in her own
words that her results weren't 100%.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/0..._fccnotes.shtml
LASIK may be a "miracle" surgery, but it results in anything but "miracle"
optics. It's all about tradeoffs.
I figured you had too much "class" to stoop to such tactics.
DrG
| |
|
| In article <Xns95798188F48DBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
> RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:xBA8d.5318$JG2.1242@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
> Also, please note the link I posted where Mary Pierce did say so in her own
> words that her results weren't 100%.
>
> http://www.charleston.net/stories/0..._fccnotes.shtml
that link doesn't work for me. Anyway, my previous posts were not about
Pierce and her LASIK results per say, but how the other article was
written to influence the reader to draw a certain conclusion. My point
was only that hearsay and innuendo doesn't have much weight no matter
what side of the fence you are sitting on.
For example, I personally don't believe for a second that Tiger Wood's
results were as great as the advertising says. He's a PAID endorser.
Pierce may very well and probably does have glare resulting from LASIK.
She may also be having other problems with her game that prevent her
from winning but she can blame on LASIK. Again MONEY is involved. They
have a VESTED INTEREST in what they respond.
I'll repeat again, I don't have a vested interest. I only have my
personal experience. I think everyone should go into any elective
procedure with their eyes wide open (pun intended).
>
> LASIK may be a "miracle" surgery, but it results in anything but "miracle"
> optics. It's all about tradeoffs.
Yes, for some the trade off was not worth it. For some the "tradeoff"
is so great that the only way to describe it is as a miracle. For
others (and the majority probably), so far so good: the trade-offs have
been worth it overall. Hopefully it lasts.
>
> I figured you had too much "class" to stoop to such tactics.
Huh?
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
|
>I think the difference is whose ox is being gored. If you had a good
>result, you are an RS proponent; if you had a poor result, you are a
>LASIK opponent. If you are an industry shill, you are a proponent. If
>you are a medical professional that treats post-RS complications, you
>are an opponent. The polarization IS pretty much that simple.
For the most part this is very true. I've never seen a bunch of
anti-LASIK posts from someone who had a good result, however I know a
lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for patients
with complications, and yet they continue to provide refractive
surgery.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
| Ah...we created an entire website just to accommodate the unique needs
of patients with refractive surgery related complications. It may be
a small percentage of the whole, but complications are real and are
not nearly rare enough.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
| RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ZsB8d.5356$JG2.574@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <Xns95798188F48DBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> that link doesn't work for me. Anyway, my previous posts were not
> about Pierce and her LASIK results per say, but how the other article
> was written to influence the reader to draw a certain conclusion. My
> point was only that hearsay and innuendo doesn't have much weight no
> matter what side of the fence you are sitting on.
>
> For example, I personally don't believe for a second that Tiger Wood's
> results were as great as the advertising says. He's a PAID endorser.
> Pierce may very well and probably does have glare resulting from
> LASIK. She may also be having other problems with her game that
> prevent her from winning but she can blame on LASIK. Again MONEY is
> involved. They have a VESTED INTEREST in what they respond.
>
> I'll repeat again, I don't have a vested interest. I only have my
> personal experience. I think everyone should go into any elective
> procedure with their eyes wide open (pun intended).
>
> Yes, for some the trade off was not worth it. For some the "tradeoff"
> is so great that the only way to describe it is as a miracle. For
> others (and the majority probably), so far so good: the trade-offs
> have been worth it overall. Hopefully it lasts.
>
> Huh?
>
Here's an snip:
==========================================================================
The 2000 Family Circle champ is dealing with a new problem now as she seeks
a return to the top of women's tennis. Pierce had laser eye surgery
recently, but the results have not been 2-0/20.
She played last week in Sarasota for the first time since February, and
struggled with her vision while losing her second match.
"It didn't correct my vision 100 percent, only 50 percent," Pierce said
after a 6-3, 6-3 win over No. 48 Nicole Pratt on Tuesday. "So to play
tennis, I'm better off with my contacts, because it's preferable to see 2-
0/20 when you are playing a professional sport, especially when balls are
coming fast at you."
Against Pratt, Pierce played without her contacts. At Sarasota, she tried
it both ways.
"It's not the best right now," said Pierce, currently ranked No. 43. "Today
I didn't play with them in, so I'm just trying to figure that out."
==========================================================================
I hope that this puts the topic to rest. If a person has had a great
result from LASIK, I am happy for them. They don't need an attaboy from
me. If they had a bad result, I am sorry for them and try to help them
because I can.
DrG
| |
|
| Dr. G
I have a funny feeling that you didn't read anything I wrote.
Oh well.
Hope you have a restful evening.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 10:08 pm |
| RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:%kF8d.5443$JG2.1523@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> Dr. G
>
> I have a funny feeling that you didn't read anything I wrote.
> Oh well.
>
> Hope you have a restful evening.
>
Of course I read everything you wrote. I got the same feeling about you.
Anyway, it is much ado about very little, as night glare is not a rare
post-LASIK side-effect. I suspect that Mary Pierce is not unlike some of
the patients I have treated.
DrG
| |
|
| On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:35:39 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dr. G
>
>I have a funny feeling that you didn't read anything I wrote.
>Oh well.
>
>Hope you have a restful evening.
A very common affliction of doctors is that they think they know
everything and close their minds to reality. They get an idea in
their heads and there is no changing it.
| |
|
| On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:59:22 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:%kF8d.5443$JG2.1523@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>Of course I read everything you wrote. I got the same feeling about you.
>Anyway, it is much ado about very little, as night glare is not a rare
>post-LASIK side-effect. I suspect that Mary Pierce is not unlike some of
>the patients I have treated.
>
>DrG
And your Phyllis Knapp is still complaining after your treatments. So
much for your treatments.
I would also suggest that the next time you have a suicidal person who
comes to you, take off your blinders and see the real problems and
refer the guy to a qualified psychiatrist. It's obvious that his
eyes were only a minor part of his depression.
Either that or make a deal with a florist to provide flowers for more
funerals.
| |
|
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> turn out so well? Sounds like a bad case of "reality avoidance" to me.
This from someone who posts anecdotes instead of scientific data?
I think we all know where the reality avoidance blame lies.
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-06, 7:09 am |
| > For the most part this is very true. I've never seen a bunch of
> anti-LASIK posts from someone who had a good result, however I know a
> lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for patients
> with complications, and yet they continue to provide refractive
> surgery.
Glenn, I was just sitting here absorbing the import of your statement.
"...a lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for
patients with complications..." This comes as a surprise to me, as I
have gotten the impression that refractive surgery is relatively safe.
It begs the following question:
Is there another field of elective surgery (meaning, a surgery that
can be postponed indefinitely without having a negative effect on
physical health) in which there exists "a lot" of surgeons who spend
"a lot" of time caring for patients with complications of that
surgery?
(Believe me, this is an honest question -- maybe this type of thing is
more widespread in the surgical universe than I would have guessed!
I've been accused of being terminally naive more than once.)
Thanks for your patience with what are probably silly questions!
| |
|
| On 6 Oct 2004 02:27:44 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>
>Glenn, I was just sitting here absorbing the import of your statement.
> "...a lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for
>patients with complications..." This comes as a surprise to me, as I
>have gotten the impression that refractive surgery is relatively safe.
> It begs the following question:
>
>Is there another field of elective surgery (meaning, a surgery that
>can be postponed indefinitely without having a negative effect on
>physical health) in which there exists "a lot" of surgeons who spend
>"a lot" of time caring for patients with complications of that
>surgery?
>
>(Believe me, this is an honest question -- maybe this type of thing is
>more widespread in the surgical universe than I would have guessed!
>I've been accused of being terminally naive more than once.)
>
>Thanks for your patience with what are probably silly questions!
Other than emergency heart surgery or things such as bullet wounds and
broken bones, there really isn't any surgery that couldn't be
considered "elective" . For all other things, time and/or medications
and/or therapies can be used instead of surgery.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 7:09 am |
| r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in news:r5ahhj-
23F41D.04171206102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> This from someone who posts anecdotes instead of scientific data?
> I think we all know where the reality avoidance blame lies.
Sorry. Posting anecdotes is pretty much the norm for this NG. The
question was, is LASIK good for athletes. The answer is: good for some,
not everybody. In order to prove that statement, all I needed was one
example for each category.
Duh.
Anyway, I save the scientific data for other venues.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 7:09 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p4u6m0lbfm4dpooig6tp3a47n57qgb17m4@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:59:22 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> And your Phyllis Knapp is still complaining after your treatments. So
> much for your treatments.
>
> I would also suggest that the next time you have a suicidal person who
> comes to you, take off your blinders and see the real problems and
> refer the guy to a qualified psychiatrist. It's obvious that his
> eyes were only a minor part of his depression.
>
> Either that or make a deal with a florist to provide flowers for more
> funerals.
>
I didn't treat Phyllis Knapp. I provided a consultation and third opinion.
Tell me, Ragnar, do you get paid for the number of posts or the number of
words?
DrG
| |
|
| In article <Xns9579E1727755Edrgleukomacom@204.127.199.17>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> Of course I read everything you wrote. I got the same feeling about you.
> Anyway, it is much ado about very little, as night glare is not a rare
> post-LASIK side-effect. I suspect that Mary Pierce is not unlike some of
> the patients I have treated.
>
> DrG
If you had read everything I wrote, you would have understood that 1. it
was not about "me"; 2. it was not about "you" and 3. it was not about
Mary Pierce.
I realize now I should have changed the subject line to "How to Read
Newspaper Articles."
Yes, it has been much ado. But I don't agree that it was about very
little. This NG promotes strongly that people should "research" the
procedure before proceeding. How to read and process this research is
step 1.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:6jR8d.7367$nj.6269@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
> I realize now I should have changed the subject line to "How to Read
> Newspaper Articles."
>
> Yes, it has been much ado. But I don't agree that it was about very
> little. This NG promotes strongly that people should "research" the
> procedure before proceeding. How to read and process this research is
> step 1.
>
Now I understand that you were making a valid, but rather "technical" point
in a forum where such reasoning seems the exception rather than the rule.
Do you really think that this NG promotes strongly that people should
"research" the procedure, or just the opposite? I get the impression that
the "guardians" of this NG want to enforce some kind of political
correctness - either pro- or anti-.
However, as proof that I read your post, I posted another link which does
have Mary in quotes talking about her LASIK problems. After that, the
point was moot.
DrG
| |
|
| Aren't you the slick one?
You didn't provide a single positive outcome for athletes, only
negative ones which were not really negative at all. Tiger Woods and
Mary Pierce were both thrilled with their results. Some other people
might want to turn their words around to make them sound negative, but
that is a stretch.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in news:r5ahhj-
>23F41D.04171206102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>Sorry. Posting anecdotes is pretty much the norm for this NG. The
>question was, is LASIK good for athletes. The answer is: good for some,
>not everybody. In order to prove that statement, all I needed was one
>example for each category.
>
>Duh.
>
>Anyway, I save the scientific data for other venues.
>
>
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1097071746.1cR4wecY6uLb1IYbraQQiA@teranews:
> Aren't you the slick one?
> You didn't provide a single positive outcome for athletes, only
> negative ones which were not really negative at all. Tiger Woods and
> Mary Pierce were both thrilled with their results. Some other people
> might want to turn their words around to make them sound negative, but
> that is a stretch.
>
What are you smoking, man? I distinctly said that Tiger Woods and Tom Kite
have had good outcomes. I then linked to articles in which two
professional athletes were quoted as saying that night tennis matches are
difficult or impossible to play since LASIK.
Show us, with quotes, where I said or did otherwise.
DrG
>
>
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| In article <Xns957A4D32F705Ddrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> Do you really think that this NG promotes strongly that people should
> "research" the procedure, or just the opposite? I get the impression that
> the "guardians" of this NG want to enforce some kind of political
> correctness - either pro- or anti-.
Yes I do think many posters and post on this NG promote research. Doing
research doesn't equal neutrality or objectivity however. It is
important to take into account how a provided link--as well as the
nature of the post--is designed to fall into a certain agenda.
Both he pro and con LASIK websites are up there precisely for the people
doing "research." It is the job of the researcher to realize that even
the most simply written articles may have an implied bias or agenda.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:XFT8d.24755$QJ3.1580@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <Xns957A4D32F705Ddrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes I do think many posters and post on this NG promote research.
> Doing research doesn't equal neutrality or objectivity however. It is
> important to take into account how a provided link--as well as the
> nature of the post--is designed to fall into a certain agenda.
>
> Both he pro and con LASIK websites are up there precisely for the
> people doing "research." It is the job of the researcher to realize
> that even the most simply written articles may have an implied bias or
> agenda.
>
You are absolutely correct. It IS up to the researcher to "realize
that even the most simply written articles may have an implied bias or
agenda."
Obviously, then, the journalists who quoted Capriati and Pierce may have
had an implied agenda, namely to be objective and informative. If someone
asks me what I think, and I tell them, and then they say that I said
something else, I would wonder about their agenda.
Fortunately, the worse think that could happen if somebody reads one of
those articles is that they actually do more research before having an
elective procedure. Right?
DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:14:06 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:ZsB8d.5356$JG2.574@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>Here's an snip:
>
>==========================================================================
>The 2000 Family Circle champ is dealing with a new problem now as she seeks
>a return to the top of women's tennis. Pierce had laser eye surgery
>recently, but the results have not been 2-0/20.
>
>She played last week in Sarasota for the first time since February, and
>struggled with her vision while losing her second match.
>
>"It didn't correct my vision 100 percent, only 50 percent," Pierce said
>after a 6-3, 6-3 win over No. 48 Nicole Pratt on Tuesday. "So to play
>tennis, I'm better off with my contacts, because it's preferable to see 2-
>0/20 when you are playing a professional sport, especially when balls are
>coming fast at you."
>
>Against Pratt, Pierce played without her contacts. At Sarasota, she tried
>it both ways.
>
>"It's not the best right now," said Pierce, currently ranked No. 43. "Today
>I didn't play with them in, so I'm just trying to figure that out."
>
>==========================================================================
>
>I hope that this puts the topic to rest. If a person has had a great
>result from LASIK, I am happy for them. They don't need an attaboy from
>me. If they had a bad result, I am sorry for them and try to help them
>because I can.
>
>DrG
Once again, yous snipped away all but the most negative portion of the
ariticle. You don't understand how that shows a bias?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| "A lot" is relative.
Our organization created the sister website ComplicatedEyes.org last
year specifically to address the concerns and needs of patients who
have refractive surgery related problems. One of the services we
provide is referral to a physician (OD or MD) who has demonstrated an
expertise in the problem at hand.
Because of ComplicatedEyes.org, I work with not only those surgeons
who have been certified by our organization, but many others
throughout the world who are well respected by the ophthalmic
community. Of all these doctors, the one who I know who does the most
care for patients with problems is in the Los Angeles area and he
devotes one afternoon every other week to patients with difficulties.
This time is for any of his patients who had a less than optimal
outcome, plus patients from the entire southern California area who
have found their way to his door.
This is "a lot" because few surgeons spend anywhere near this amount
of time caring for patients with problems. Similarly, surgeons
affiliated with teaching hospitals see "a lot" of complications
because facilities such as UCLA and Johns Hopkins have a well deserved
reputation for providing good care in these circumstances.
Our organization has determined that about 3% of refractive surgery
patients have some sort of unresolved refractive surgery complication
at six months postop. For some 3% is "a lot". For others it is a
reasonable expectation.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:he48m0hdu3mkp6k0vtrq3brp26hfahep1b@4ax.com:
>
>
> Once again, yous snipped away all but the most negative portion of the
> ariticle. You don't understand how that shows a bias?
>
Looky here, I made another big snip.
The obvious answer is that I snipped away everything in the newspaper
article (for which I provided a link in case anybody wanted to r-e-a-d-
t-h-e-w-h-o-l-e t-h-i-n-g) in order to save bandwidth and get to the point
of the argument, which is what Mary Pierce said and not what inferences a
biased journalist might wanted to have drawn. If I had posted the entire
article, you would have whined about "spam."
By the way, according to CRSQA, a long term complication is anything which
persists beyond six months and which the patient says is a complication.
Right or wrong, Glenn?
Now, I am off to go biking. Have a wonderful afternoon.
DrG
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-07, 7:08 am |
| Thanks for your thoughtful response. Very good information.
I've been putting some thought into a bottom-line question regarding
laser eye surgery -- a question that anyone considering the procedure
can ask themselves, regardless of their health, lifestyle, career,
age, etc.
"Given that six months or more of poor vision quality can have
collateral effects that last much longer than the vision problem
itself (such as a lost job, or depression, or deteriorated
relationships), is a 3% risk worth the benefit of reducing or
eliminating my need for corrective lenses?"
As you have mentioned many times, Glenn, this kind of question doesn't
have an obvious answer for any given individual. For some, the risk
would be worth it. For others, not. Like most elective surgery, a
person generally has much more to lose by laser eye surgery than to
gain, so I would think it appropriate to emphasize the potential loss
more than the potential gain.
What do you think?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
|
>As you have mentioned many times, Glenn, this kind of question doesn't
>have an obvious answer for any given individual. For some, the risk
>would be worth it. For others, not. Like most elective surgery, a
>person generally has much more to lose by laser eye surgery than to
>gain, so I would think it appropriate to emphasize the potential loss
>more than the potential gain.
I do not agree that negatives or positives should be emphasized more.
I prefer to remain objective and present both as they exist without
embellishment.
The determination of how much would potentially be lost and how much
would potentially be gained is exactly what every patient must
evaluate with his or her own values and objectives. It is impossible
for me to say what is right for another person. This is why I have
never privately or publicly told anyone that they should have
refractive surgery.
Usually, I simply relay the facts and let the individual decide, but I
have made it clear to some that their circumstances indicate if they
do have surgery they are very probably going to have a bad outcome and
should not proceed. I have no problem telling someone to NOT have
surgery if their risk seems unusually high. That doesn't mean that
the patient will heed my advice.
DrG and I recently worked with a patient who decided to have a surgery
that both of us recommend against with righteous fervor. The
patient's short-term result is good, but we are both concerned about
the long-term. You can lead a horse to water...
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-08, 2:08 am |
| You should not have LASIK surgery. You are obviously convinced that
it's not going to work for you, so you shouldn't have it done. There
is nobody pushing you to have it done.. You will change your mind in
the future though.
On 7 Oct 2004 03:48:31 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>Thanks for your thoughtful response. Very good information.
>
>I've been putting some thought into a bottom-line question regarding
>laser eye surgery -- a question that anyone considering the procedure
>can ask themselves, regardless of their health, lifestyle, career,
>age, etc.
>
>"Given that six months or more of poor vision quality can have
>collateral effects that last much longer than the vision problem
>itself (such as a lost job, or depression, or deteriorated
>relationships), is a 3% risk worth the benefit of reducing or
>eliminating my need for corrective lenses?"
>
>As you have mentioned many times, Glenn, this kind of question doesn't
>have an obvious answer for any given individual. For some, the risk
>would be worth it. For others, not. Like most elective surgery, a
>person generally has much more to lose by laser eye surgery than to
>gain, so I would think it appropriate to emphasize the potential loss
>more than the potential gain.
>
>What do you think?
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-08, 7:11 pm |
| "...remain objective..."
Objectivity is a myth. Neither you nor I can separate ourselves from
our preconceptions. The very best we can do is be aware of them and
try to compensate. In this, we will never be 100% successful. Would
you agree? If so, would you then agree that the term "objective"
should never be used in this context without a qualifier?
There is great peril in allowing our opinions and decisions to be
affected by those who do not recognize and acknowledge the subjective
element of their positions.
"...relay the facts..."
I would submit that this is a misleading phrase. Which subset of
facts? From which subset of sources? Framed how?
I can report the "fact" that in October, 2002, Russian troops killed
more than a hundred innocent civilians in the Dubrovka theater in
Moscow. Without reporting a few more facts, one could easily reach
very unfortunate conclusions. And I imagine that in this case, the
underground Chechen press reported somewhat different "facts" than the
Moscow Times, as did the New York Times and the Japan Times.
I don't mean to pick on you, Glenn. It isn't as if you are the only
one using such words. I most certainly appreciate the time and
thought you put into your very numerous posts. I simply point out
that you do your credibility no favors in the eyes of discerning
readers to portray yourself as "objective".
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-10, 12:06 am |
| I believe a review of my many and varied post over the last five
years, plus a review of our websites, would support my statement that
I prefer to remain objective and would maintain my credibility. If I
have a bias, it is to be objective.
I don't relay a "subset" of facts, I relay the facts that appear to be
relevant based upon the information at hand. Telling someone that
time zones were created because of the advent of the railroad's
increased speed of travel is not relevant when a person simply wants
to know what time their plane leaves for Chicago.
One of the chief complaints often heard here is that some
anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry zealots post about
complications that are so very rare (even only one reported case) as
to be almost irrelevant. Yes they are facts, but the relevance and
applicability is often questionable.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-10, 11:10 am |
| I appreciate your candor. I imagine many (if not most) people will
swallow that hook, line and sinker.
I am not one of them.
For those interested (?), here's an exercise in analyzing a pair of
Glenn's statements above -- variations of which are frequently used by
journalists.
"I don't relay a 'subset' of facts".
"I relay the facts that appear to be relevant based on the information
at hand."
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that these statements,
used in the same sentence, cannot be reconciled. "Appear to be
relevant" to whom? To Glenn. Would those same facts "appear to be
relevant" to DrG? To DrX or DrY? Maybe, maybe not. And which
"information at hand"? The information Glenn happens to have at hand.
Is that information the same that DrX has? In which sources of
information does Glenn put more trust than others, and why? If you
asked one hundred doctors which sources of information were the most
reliable, how long would the brawl last?
Not a subset, indeed.
I have three equally repugnant choices, Glenn. Either I believe you
are as ignorant as to believe what you wrote, or I believe you are
being unconscionably disingenuous. To maintain a degree of civility,
I won't mention the third.
"If I have a bias, it is to be objective." My goodness. A
semanticist would have a field day with that one.
You may congratulate yourself that I won't be bothering you with any
further queries.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| >It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that these statements,
>used in the same sentence, cannot be reconciled. "Appear to be
>relevant" to whom? To Glenn.
Of course they would be relevant to me, as I am the one who is
relaying them. I do not know everything about everything and the
information I provided is limited to my own knowledge or the
information I am able to research. Another person may know more, know
less, or have a different consideration of what is relevant.
Since the individual receiving the information knows its source (me),
then that person is able to evaluate the relative value of that
information by researching me. That is rather easy these days because
of the Internet. A person can quickly review my posts in this forum,
Google me to find many other posts in other forums and my
participation in other events, or follow the link to our website where
a bio on me is publicly available. Knowing who I am and am not is one
of the reasons why I state "I am not a doctor" in virtually every
post.
>You may congratulate yourself that I won't be bothering you with any
>further queries.
You were not bothering me because I don't mind answering these types
of questions, but to be quite honest I don't believe you were seeking
any information you did not already know.
The nature of your posts directed to me seem to be more designed to
expose some area of disagreement than to expand your own knowledge.
Now that an area of disagreement has been manufactured and you have
taken your opportunity to call me names while feigning some sort of
justification, the real purpose of your inquiry has been satisfied and
it appears to me that you really don't have a reason to bother me with
further queries. The "congratulations" are all yours.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|