|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > What's the deal with Dr. Leukoma attacks?
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 |
What's the deal with Dr. Leukoma attacks?
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-06, 10:06 pm |
| Okay, I've followed the threads - as best as they can be followed -
and I've seen to sniping, but what on earth is the deal with all the
DrG attacks?
It seems that he made some rather innocuous observations and everyone
has gone ballistic. DrG is quite possibly the most sane and
reasonable person who frequents this newsgroup and that has not
changed in the last few days, but the tone and demeanor of the
postings have.
Why all the rancor?
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.
| |
| serebel 2004-10-07, 10:08 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<54c9m09es2s23rnmi0d9jo5h282juhka3b@4ax.com>...
> Okay, I've followed the threads - as best as they can be followed -
> and I've seen to sniping, but what on earth is the deal with all the
> DrG attacks?
>
> It seems that he made some rather innocuous observations and everyone
> has gone ballistic. DrG is quite possibly the most sane and
> reasonable person who frequents this newsgroup and that has not
> changed in the last few days, but the tone and demeanor of the
> postings have.
>
> Why all the rancor?
>
> 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.
Full moon?
SErebel
| |
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<54c9m09es2s23rnmi0d9jo5h282juhka3b@4ax.com>...
> Okay, I've followed the threads - as best as they can be followed -
> and I've seen to sniping, but what on earth is the deal with all the
> DrG attacks?
I have also followed most threads recently. I cannot for the life of
me imagine why people would be so hostile to one of the few people who
post here that actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> It seems that he made some rather innocuous observations and everyone
> has gone ballistic. DrG is quite possibly the most sane and
> reasonable person who frequents this newsgroup and that has not
> changed in the last few days, but the tone and demeanor of the
> postings have.
Sometimes I think the attacks are made to dissuade people from posting
here. Fortunately Dr G seems to be the type of person to rise above
it.
Linda
>
> Why all the rancor?
>
> 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 2004-10-08, 11:08 am |
| djken@optusnet.com.au (Linda) wrote in
news:60a75051.0410072019.6900578e@posting.google.com:
>
> Sometimes I think the attacks are made to dissuade people from posting
> here. Fortunately Dr G seems to be the type of person to rise above
> it.
The attacks are done for the purpose of intimidation. They started right
after a young man took his own life after a tragic LASIK outcome. I had
occasion to refit him with contact lenses in December. Because depression
runs so prevalent in patients who have had a traumatic surgical outcome, I
thought it was important to acknowledge the importance of seeking support
and treatment, which I did stress in the appropriate venue, LaserMyEye.
Unfortunately, one of the optometrists who frequents this NG cross-posted
on this NG counter to my wishes, with predictable results.
As a doctor, there is no more tragic event then having one of your patients
take their own life, especially without any warning. It served to remind
me just how at risk some of these patients are, and that I need to be more
vigilant. We all need to be more vigilant and more sensitive.
This kind of thing isn't new, and I distinctly remember that someone
threatened suicide on another LASIK discussion board a few years ago (was
it Dr. Horns?). I'm not sure what became of that, but I am confident that
Glenn would remember it.
DrG
| |
|
| Here I am being mean again. Sorry RT.
Why you would post anything on Minarik's website is strange to begin
with. Then when he used your post against you, I tried defending you
and scolded him. But then for some reason you took the story much
further and started taking some swipes at lasik, threatening to spam
the group, etc.
Now your opening up the wound again. I'm sure everyone realizes that
the man's suicide had very little to do with his frustration with his
eyes. To imply that connection is absurd. BUT, let's just assume
that the guy did commit suicide because of his eye problems. He went
for LASIK and wasn't happy, then he went to you, got his head filled
with your ideas about how contacts were his only option to repair his
vision, the contacts were prescribed to him, they weren't effective,
so he killed himself. Maybe a surgeon could have provided a solution.
Certainly the surgeon should have been asked. Why didn't the
contacts correct the problem? Are we selling solutions or "snake
oil"?
Once again, I must emphasize that I don't believe that the guy
committed suicide because of his eyes, so the paragraph above is not
meant to place blame on anybody. It's intended to show where NOT to
place the blame. RT, who is the mean one? The person who is placing
the blame on lasik, or the person who is saying that the blame should
not be placed on lasik nor the contacts? As Glenn noted, placing
the blame for suicide is a contemptible thing to do.
Here's just one more point. Let's say a patient has LASIK. LASIK
does not result in perfect vision. Normal eyes are not perfect
either. The general goal of LASIK is to provide 20/20 vision and it
does a fantastic job of doing that. Anyway, as many people have
noted, 20/20 vision still can have problems. A patient might then go
to another doctor asking about those problems. If a patient has their
best possible vision and are still not happy, should the patient be
referred to a psychiatrist or sold a 4 year course of experimental
expensive drops and lenses? My advice would be to do both. The
other optometrist who posts here on occasion says he's been in
practice for 25 years and has never referred a patient to a
pyschiatrist, yet he is in the business of rehabilitation. Go figure
that one out.
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:51:49 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>djken@optusnet.com.au (Linda) wrote in
>news:60a75051.0410072019.6900578e@posting.google.com:
>
>
>The attacks are done for the purpose of intimidation. They started right
>after a young man took his own life after a tragic LASIK outcome. I had
>occasion to refit him with contact lenses in December. Because depression
>runs so prevalent in patients who have had a traumatic surgical outcome, I
>thought it was important to acknowledge the importance of seeking support
>and treatment, which I did stress in the appropriate venue, LaserMyEye.
>Unfortunately, one of the optometrists who frequents this NG cross-posted
>on this NG counter to my wishes, with predictable results.
>
>As a doctor, there is no more tragic event then having one of your patients
>take their own life, especially without any warning. It served to remind
>me just how at risk some of these patients are, and that I need to be more
>vigilant. We all need to be more vigilant and more sensitive.
>
>This kind of thing isn't new, and I distinctly remember that someone
>threatened suicide on another LASIK discussion board a few years ago (was
>it Dr. Horns?). I'm not sure what became of that, but I am confident that
>Glenn would remember it.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-08, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:m14dm0dbu8150b02li1vp4dflti73jp4fr@4ax.com:
> Here I am being mean again. Sorry RT.
> Why you would post anything on Minarik's website is strange to begin
> with. Then when he used your post against you, I tried defending you
> and scolded him. But then for some reason you took the story much
> further and started taking some swipes at lasik, threatening to spam
> the group, etc.
I have never posted anything on Ken Minarik's website. Again, why do you
insist on telling lies. I post on LaserMyEye, which is Rebecca's website.
Several people there were acquainted with the young man.
>
> Now your opening up the wound again. I'm sure everyone realizes that
> the man's suicide had very little to do with his frustration with his
> eyes. To imply that connection is absurd. BUT, let's just assume
> that the guy did commit suicide because of his eye problems. He went
> for LASIK and wasn't happy, then he went to you, got his head filled
> with your ideas about how contacts were his only option to repair his
> vision, the contacts were prescribed to him, they weren't effective,
> so he killed himself. Maybe a surgeon could have provided a solution.
> Certainly the surgeon should have been asked. Why didn't the
> contacts correct the problem? Are we selling solutions or "snake
> oil"?
The young man was a physician. He had ready access to surgical fixes,
believe me. He had already been fitted with contact lenses, but came to me
as a last resort. His problems may have treatable with additional
wavefront surgery, but I don't think so. The contacts were effective,
except that he couldn't tolerate them for very long.
>
> Once again, I must emphasize that I don't believe that the guy
> committed suicide because of his eyes, so the paragraph above is not
> meant to place blame on anybody. It's intended to show where NOT to
> place the blame. RT, who is the mean one? The person who is placing
> the blame on lasik, or the person who is saying that the blame should
> not be placed on lasik nor the contacts? As Glenn noted, placing
> the blame for suicide is a contemptible thing to do.
>
> Here's just one more point. Let's say a patient has LASIK. LASIK
> does not result in perfect vision. Normal eyes are not perfect
> either. The general goal of LASIK is to provide 20/20 vision and it
> does a fantastic job of doing that. Anyway, as many people have
> noted, 20/20 vision still can have problems. A patient might then go
> to another doctor asking about those problems. If a patient has their
> best possible vision and are still not happy, should the patient be
> referred to a psychiatrist or sold a 4 year course of experimental
> expensive drops and lenses? My advice would be to do both. The
> other optometrist who posts here on occasion says he's been in
> practice for 25 years and has never referred a patient to a
> pyschiatrist, yet he is in the business of rehabilitation. Go figure
> that one out.
>
The young man who took his own life was correctable to 20/20 vision with a
set of eyeglasses and a minor prescription. You are correct in stating
that a patient with a 20/20 outcome can have problems. He also had access
to counseling where he worked.
I think that we should refrain from discussing this case any further here.
It is not an appropriate venue, and there are too many details of which
both of us, but especially you, are unaware.
If you had any decency, you would simply drop it. You may inadvertently
wind up giving the industry you so love a black eye.
DrG
>
>
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:51:49 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| In article <m14dm0dbu8150b02li1vp4dflti73jp4fr@4ax.com>,
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here I am being mean again. Sorry RT.
<snip>
> It's intended to show where NOT to
> place the blame. RT, who is the mean one?
If you go back over your old posts you will see that you blamed Dr. G
which is vile, uncalled for, and just plain mean. So you change your
tune here with this new posting. Whatever. Your postings have become
decidedly troll-like. No need to apologize to me for your insulting
ways. I won't be engaged as your judge and jury. I have better things
to do. You're the one on a crusade, not me. However, if it helps you to
play nice, then by all means pretend I'm looking over your shoulder as
you write.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-08, 11:08 am |
|
>This kind of thing isn't new, and I distinctly remember that someone
>threatened suicide on another LASIK discussion board a few years ago (was
>it Dr. Horns?). I'm not sure what became of that, but I am confident that
>Glenn would remember it.
I recall two incidence where anti-LASIK regulars said they knew
somebody who... Considering the sources, it was difficult to evaluate
the real danger. I do not recall an identifiable person who seriously
discussed suicide. It all seemed to be second-hand.
Even without specifics, I know directly that poor outcomes cause
difficulties in more than just visual quality. The hopelessness that
some patients with complications feel can be overwhelming for even the
strongest of personalities. If that is coupled with a predisposition
toward self destruction and/or other problems, then a very real danger
exists.
There is not much that DrG and I can do that is more than offering our
moral support and attempting to fix the visual problem. I attempt to
fix by informing the patient of the facts of the matter and referring
him or her to a qualified doctor. DrG can actually do something that
matters, but that does not mean it is always enough to help someone.
Even the most valiant efforts sometimes fall short.
One should not place blame at the feet of a person who was not
initially involved and only tried to help.
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 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| Whoops! I made another mistake. Apparently you posted the message on
LaserMyEye (which is now another SE clone) and not on Minarik's site.
He took the liberty of using your message here. Well, in this case,
I think Dr. Minarik isn't entirely at fault. If you post a message
publically, in this case at LME, you shouldn't be upset that it gets
posted elsewhere like here. When you posted your message there, did
you do it as Dr. Leukoma or Dr. Gemoules?
I can see why Dr. Minarik would be frustrated when you don't want to
be associated with hiim even when you agree with him.
This debacle has gone on long enough though. Hopefully all parties
involved have learned a lesson One problem of doctors is that once
they get their diploma, they turn their brain off to accepting new
input. Let's hope we can all still learn to watch what we say and
how we represent ourselves publically.
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:54:14 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:m14dm0dbu8150b02li1vp4dflti73jp4fr@4ax.com:
>
>
>I have never posted anything on Ken Minarik's website. Again, why do you
>insist on telling lies. I post on LaserMyEye, which is Rebecca's website.
>Several people there were acquainted with the young man.
|
| |
|
|