Lasik Eyes Surgery - Eye Surgery Education Council says lack of informed consent = non candidate for LASIK

Author

Eye Surgery Education Council says lack of informed consent = non candidate for LASIK

Eye

2005-12-18, 6:06 pm

http://www.lasikinstitute.org/LASIK...Guidelines.html

According to the guidelines set forth by the Eye Surgery Education
Council, we were all non-candidates for refractive surgery! None of us
received the full explanation of how our flaps would never heal, that
we'd have an interface for life, microfolds, junk under the flap, a
weakened and structurally compromised cornea, corneal nerve damage and
induced corneal aberrations that can't be fixed by glasses! We didn't
know what the surgery really does to eyes, were NOT informed of known
long term consequences (drier eyes with aging, bulging thinning
corneas, difficulty finding the proper IOL prescription when we need
cataract surgery later..... indeed we were ALL non candidates!

Were your complications hidden from you by your doctor? Did your doctor
abandon your case? Read below - here are some excerpts from American
Jurisprudence:

Medical Negligence & Standard of Care
Excerpts from American Jurisprudence, 2d, Vol.61

=A7229 Duty to Inform Patient Fully of His Condition
As a result of the fiducial nature of the relationship between a
physician and patient, a physician has the duty to reveal to the
patient that which in his best interest it is important that he should
know regarding the true condition of his state of health. The duty of a
physician to fully inform his patient of his condition makes it his
obligation to make known to his patient or someone properly acting for
him what are the known risks or dangers inherent in the disease that is
present or in the treatment that has been proposed, so that the patient
will then be in a position to make an intelligent decision as to
whether he will submit to the course the physician proposes to take.

=A7 236 Duty Not to Abandon Case
A physician cannot discharge himself from a case and relieve himself
of responsibility for it by simply abandoning it or staying away
without notice to the patient. Thus, a surgeon who abandons his patient
in a critical stage of disease to a relatively inexperienced substitute
surgeon, without reasonable notice to enable the patient to secure
another medical attendant, when the giving of such notice is reasonably
possible, is guilty of negligence and is liable to the patient for any
damages proximately caused thereby.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-18, 6:06 pm

Of course informed consent is necessary for an elective procedure, but
I don't believe there are many who would agree with "Eye" that no one
is appropriately informed. For that matter, several court decisions
have affirmed that patients are appropriately informed before LASIK or
similar refractive surgery.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Eye

2005-12-18, 6:06 pm

OK, Glenn,

For once in your life support something you say with facts you provide
that are searchable. Which court decisions have decided that patients
are adequately informed for LASIK?

How can a patient be considered to be adequately informed if they have
no idea that the LASIK procedure increases the distortions in the
cornea in virgin eyes? Can you find me an informed consent document
that explains loss of contrast sensitivity, increased higher order
aberrations and corneal nerve damage? If you can't then patients are
not receiving adequate informed consent. What stats do you think
patients are handed so that they can review LASIK outcomes? If they
have surgery with a VISX laser they are given stats with 70% of the
clinical outcomes MISSING and you know this to be the case.

So unless someone is given access to ALL of the PMA data (we're still
waiting, it may take the freedom of information act... lawsuits etc...)
patients have know idea what the real outcomes were in clinical trials
and therefore are not able to provide informed consent for their
procedure.

This alone is a gross affront to medical ethics and informed consent
and is a good reason to stop LASIK right now.

I repeat, there is no informed consent for LASIK! Even you don't know
the clinical trials outcomes!

I'm still looking for a LASIK patient that fully understood that their
flap would never heal, their cornea would bulge, that they'd end up
with nerve damage, that their odds of hitting plano at 6 months were
(what, around 50% you said???) that they'd have junk under their flap
and microstriae, that they'd lose contrast sensitivity... and still
signed a consent form that clearly explained all of these outcomes. Of
course they still would be unable to provide informed consent because
the bulk of the clinical trials outcome data was witheld from them.

Help us find such a patient, Glenn. There's a reason YOU didn't have
LASIK after all. You know it's a bad procedure.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-19, 1:04 am

I have no intention of running around in make believe circles to
satisfy your mania. You seem to be doing a fine job of it yourself.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.