|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2004 > More on the doc who says: "I really didn't like sick people"
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 |
More on the doc who says: "I really didn't like sick people"
|
|
|
| Public comments on JewelEye
http://bestweekever.vh1.com/2004/04...of_the_wee.html
Editor opinion:
"Los Angeles ophthalmologist-to-the-stars - and I'm talkin' Cindy
Crawford, former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Drew Carey,
and suchlike - Dr. Robert K. Maloney, quoted in Tuesday's Wall Street
Journal front-page story by Rhonda K. Rundle.
Maloney abandoned therapeutic surgery for exclusively cosmetic work.
He still commands $2,800 for a 20-minute Lasik procedure, even after
his competition has dwindled as a result of a price war that took the
procedure down under $500 at many centers.
His secret: stuff like implanting heart or star-shaped platinum
jewelry (above) into the whites of his rock-star patients' eyes to
garner publicity for himself and his practice, and boost patient
volume.
It's working: Fox News recently filmed the jewel implant procedure -
called JewelEye - into the left eye of rock musician Christopher
Robin.
Eye doctors are making out like bandits what with all their new,
quickie, ultra-lucrative cosmetic procedures.
Last year the median income of ophthalmologists jumped nearly 18% to
$302,000, the largest year-over increase for any medical specialty.
3,900 ophthalmologists - about 25% of all the eye doctors in the U.S.
- specialize in Lasik surgery.
Oh, don't bother bringing your insurance information - you won't need
it, 'cause they don't take it.
Cash only, please.
Ka-ching. But I digress.
Wrote Rundle in her story, "When Dr. Maloney was training as a
surgeon, many eye doctors considered it barbaric to operate on a
healthy eye merely to free someone from glasses or contact lenses."
Guess what?
I still do."
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-07, 7:11 pm |
| And he is a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon who allows our
independent nonprofit consumer/patient organization review his
outcomes.
He also is the doctor that after her poor outcome Sandy Keller (who
operates the website LasikDisaster.com) selected to perform additional
surgeries and provide additional care.
Why should anyone begrudge a successful doctor his or her success?
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 <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<ssqso0h8mhegb6h8de573i5i0l4eg13bbu@4ax.com>...
> And he is a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon who allows our
> independent nonprofit consumer/patient organization review his
> outcomes.
>
> He also is the doctor that after her poor outcome Sandy Keller (who
> operates the website LasikDisaster.com) selected to perform additional
> surgeries and provide additional care.
>
> Why should anyone begrudge a successful doctor his or her success?
>
> 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.
All of the fame, fortune and glory in the world would be meaningless
to me if I knew that I had brought harm to one person while pursuing
it.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| >All of the fame, fortune and glory in the world would be meaningless
>to me if I knew that I had brought harm to one person while pursuing
>it.
ROFL I've got to give you credit, Keller. Your duplicitous nature
can produce some statements that even when pathetic and obvious,
cannot help but be really funny.
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 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| On 8 Nov 2004 11:24:22 -0800, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<ssqso0h8mhegb6h8de573i5i0l4eg13bbu@4ax.com>...
>
>All of the fame, fortune and glory in the world would be meaningless
>to me if I knew that I had brought harm to one person while pursuing
>it.
I think you are overlooking one critical aspect of LASIK. The
benefits of LASIK far outweigh it's risks.
Let us consider other procedures. Liposuction and gastric bypass.
These operations certainly have very significant dangers, but the
benefits acheived for the vast majority of the people who have it done
make it worth the risk for the appropriate patients.
LASIK is not a life threatening procedure. In fact, people have two
eyes. If a patient is worried about the results they would get from
LASIK, I would suggest they have the worse eye done first. Then in
even the absolute worst case scenario, they still have the dominant
eye untouched.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| >I think you are overlooking one critical aspect of LASIK. The
>benefits of LASIK far outweigh it's risks.
There are two distinctly different issue here that this common
statement seems to combine. One is the possibility. The other is the
probability.
On the possibility side; the benefit of LASIK (or any refractive
surgery technique) is the convenience of a reduced need for corrective
lenses. What one is risking to achieve that convenience is a loss of
visual function. That pretty much sums up what can happen: reduced
need for glasses or loss of vision function.
What IS clearly outweighed is the probability of a good outcome over a
poor one. About 97% of patients have no complications at six months
postop, and of the remaining 3% who do have a problem, about 0.5% have
a significantly serious problem.
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 2004-11-08, 10:08 pm |
| sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in message news:<>
>
> All of the fame, fortune and glory in the world would be meaningless
> to me if I knew that I had brought harm to one person while pursuing
> it.
He operated on you in persuit of fame and fortune, yeah, that must be it.
SErebel
| |
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<8skvo0tki3c2ma7m8vc2qta9qqu1ddqdpv@4ax.com>...
>
> ROFL I've got to give you credit, Keller. Your duplicitous nature
> can produce some statements that even when pathetic and obvious,
> cannot help but be really funny.
>
> 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.
Ha ha. Many of us LASIK patients get JewelEye for free when we have
lasik---chunks of metal from the microkeratome are left under our
flaps. I wonder if that was the inspiration....
Glenn, perhaps you can ask Dr. Maloney why he removed all of the
JewelEye information from his website. It was featured very
prominently on the front page until very recently, and now I cannot
find mention of it anywhere on the site at all. That seems strange,
don't you think?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-09, 4:07 am |
| Just on occasion, Keller, you should stop while you are behind.
| |
|
| In article <1f704412.0411082225.358fcf9d@posting.google.com>,
sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
> Ha ha. Many of us LASIK patients get JewelEye for free when we have
> lasik---chunks of metal from the microkeratome are left under our
> flaps. I wonder if that was the inspiration....
chunks?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-09, 11:09 am |
| This is Keller you're dealing with RT. Don't expect anything that
resembles reality.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-11-09, 10:08 pm |
| See? Quit complaining.. you got some free eye jewelry.
On 8 Nov 2004 22:25:20 -0800, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<8skvo0tki3c2ma7m8vc2qta9qqu1ddqdpv@4ax.com>...
>
>Ha ha. Many of us LASIK patients get JewelEye for free when we have
>lasik---chunks of metal from the microkeratome are left under our
>flaps. I wonder if that was the inspiration....
>
>Glenn, perhaps you can ask Dr. Maloney why he removed all of the
>JewelEye information from his website. It was featured very
>prominently on the front page until very recently, and now I cannot
>find mention of it anywhere on the site at all. That seems strange,
>don't you think?
| |
| Sandy 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2rs2p0tldgbgb3p6h852ntuggdhsrfu304@4ax.com>...
> See? Quit complaining.. you got some free eye jewelry.
>
Alas, I got mine as a free gift from Bausch and Lomb, and of course,
it isn't visible except under magnification. From the pictures I've
seen, they didn't even give me any hearts--just irregular junk
jewelry.
| |
|
| In article <1f704412.0411100740.18763ee2@posting.google.com>,
sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
> Alas, I got mine as a free gift from Bausch and Lomb, and of course,
> it isn't visible except under magnification. From the pictures I've
> seen, they didn't even give me any hearts--just irregular junk
> jewelry.
These are the "chunks" you mentioned?
Sounds more like "glitter" 
| |
| Sandy 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<RTMD24-A16041.13231910112004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
> In article <1f704412.0411100740.18763ee2@posting.google.com>,
> sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>
>
> These are the "chunks" you mentioned?
>
> Sounds more like "glitter"
No, actually I was not originally referring to the metal in MY eyes.
I know at least one person with a chunk of metal so large that it is
visible to the naked eye. 
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| It is most certainly possible for debris to get into the treatment
area and remain under the flap. Fortunately, it is rare when debris
causes either vision difficulty or physiological disorder. If debris
is not causing problems, then it is usually left alone.
If the debris is of concern or is causing problems, the flap can be
lifted, the area flushed with a balanced salt solution, and the flap
repositioned. Of course, relift and flush is best as early as
possible, as debris can become more permanently embedded as the cornea
heals.
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 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| On 10 Nov 2004 07:40:26 -0800, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2rs2p0tldgbgb3p6h852ntuggdhsrfu304@4ax.com>...
>
>Alas, I got mine as a free gift from Bausch and Lomb, and of course,
>it isn't visible except under magnification. From the pictures I've
>seen, they didn't even give me any hearts--just irregular junk
>jewelry.
I didn't think of this until now. How close would someone have to be
to even SEE this eye jewelry? People don't tend to look directly into
other people's eyes anyway. Seems like a silly procedure all-around.
| |
| wavefront information 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| oh. Nice of your surgeons to tell us this way. Of course most people
never know and I'm only finding out 3 XXXXing years post-op.
>Of course, relift and flush is best as early as
> possible, as debris can become more permanently embedded as the cornea
> heals.
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<9ok5p0l3rbomuqc9vm5p21h3e7saite1na@4ax.com>...
> It is most certainly possible for debris to get into the treatment
> area and remain under the flap. Fortunately, it is rare when debris
> causes either vision difficulty or physiological disorder. If debris
> is not causing problems, then it is usually left alone.
>
> If the debris is of concern or is causing problems, the flap can be
> lifted, the area flushed with a balanced salt solution, and the flap
> repositioned. Of course, relift and flush is best as early as
> possible, as debris can become more permanently embedded as the cornea
> heals.
>
> 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.
| |
| wavefront information 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| Not true. For me, LASIK was a life threatening procedure.
What would it take to prove it?
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<i9nvo012i6g56f4n5pec1cti0e5l25m2rg@4ax.com>...
> On 8 Nov 2004 11:24:22 -0800, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you are overlooking one critical aspect of LASIK. The
> benefits of LASIK far outweigh it's risks.
>
> Let us consider other procedures. Liposuction and gastric bypass.
> These operations certainly have very significant dangers, but the
> benefits acheived for the vast majority of the people who have it done
> make it worth the risk for the appropriate patients.
>
> LASIK is not a life threatening procedure. In fact, people have two
> eyes. If a patient is worried about the results they would get from
> LASIK, I would suggest they have the worse eye done first. Then in
> even the absolute worst case scenario, they still have the dominant
> eye untouched.
| |
| wavefront information 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| I'm not going too far out on a limb by saying that I have doubts that
my doctor at the time he performed lasik on me had a 97% success rate
in the sense that both eyes would not need corrective aids to achieve
better than 20/40 uncorrected vision after LASIK.
You agree of course. You know who my original Dr. is? You know why
he's referred as Dr. [x] with a capital T?
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<rouvo0dkkcjdp9ni7iv9m7jhpuegeh41j0@4ax.com>...
>
> There are two distinctly different issue here that this common
> statement seems to combine. One is the possibility. The other is the
> probability.
>
> On the possibility side; the benefit of LASIK (or any refractive
> surgery technique) is the convenience of a reduced need for corrective
> lenses. What one is risking to achieve that convenience is a loss of
> visual function. That pretty much sums up what can happen: reduced
> need for glasses or loss of vision function.
>
> What IS clearly outweighed is the probability of a good outcome over a
> poor one. About 97% of patients have no complications at six months
> postop, and of the remaining 3% who do have a problem, about 0.5% have
> a significantly serious problem.
>
> 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.
| |
| Wizkid 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| Glenn said,"And he is a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon who allows
our
independent nonprofit consumer/patient organization review his
outcomes."
Glenn, Since you cannot tell us more about your board, finances, and
IRS status, can you tell us what other audits you performed at Dr.
Maloney's practice? Do you look at the informed consent? Inclusion
criteria? Off label procedures that he may be performing and how he
presents them to patients? Complaint files? Marketing strategy?
Advertising and collateral patient materials? Practice pre-operative,
intra-operative, and post-operative training and care? In-practice
marketing (phone answering, initial visits)?
Or do you only look at outcomes? WK
| |
| VCopelan 2004-11-14, 11:09 am |
| >gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) Writes:
>Glenn, Since you cannot tell us more about your board, finances, and
>IRS status, can you tell us what other audits you performed at Dr.
>Maloney's practice? Do you look at the informed consent? Inclusion
>criteria? Off label procedures that he may be performing and how he
>presents them to patients? Complaint files? Marketing strategy?
>Advertising and collateral patient materials? Practice pre-operative,
>intra-operative, and post-operative training and care? In-practice
>marketing (phone answering, initial visits)?
>
>Or do you only look at outcomes? WK
Just an aside concerning Dr. Maloney... I had a friend who was one of Dr.
Maloney's patients. When he first visited the doctor, PRK had not yet been FDA
approved. At the time, FDA approval of PRK was expected in a few weeks. Dr.
Maloney performed RK on one eye and PRK on the other eye a few weeks later.
After my friend's experience, I really began to question the judgement and
perhaps ethics of any surgeon who would advise a patient to have RK on one eye
and soon after recommend PRK for the other. Dr. Maloney is reportedly an
excellent surgeon but I'll always wonder about the quality of his judgement.
| |
|
| |
|
|