Lasik Eyes Surgery - My LASIK Journey #1

Author

My LASIK Journey #1

heat451

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

I’ve been reading through this forum in one of my many searches for more
information about LASIK before I get the surgery. To be honest, this forum
doesn’t really have that much credibility because of how many posts seem to
just be mud slinging. I’ve researched the complications due to LASIK, and I
have to admit in my research shows that it doesn’t seem as dangerous as
most of you portray it. When I first came to this forum, I was terrified
by some of the stories posted. I then looked around a little bit more and
talked to some doctors (who I do tend to trust more than an internet forum
because of the large amount of schooling they’ve gone through) and have
found that as long as your doctor measures correctly and takes good care
that you can avoid most complications. I’ve decided to go to a reputable
local LASIK surgeon tomorrow and get the measurements taken to see if I’m
a good LASIK candidate. I will post what happens and how it goes.

Bryce Carlson

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

You are correct that this forum has limited credibility because it tends to
be dominated by the rants of emotionally overwrought anti-LASIK zealots,
rather than by a calm, rational, objective discussion of the issues. And
you are also right that LASIK is a sound surgical procedure that produces
good to excellent results in the overwhelming majority of cases. For most
patients, it is a true miracle of modern medical technology. But having
said that, it is also important to realize that there are small but
potentially serious risks associated with LASIK, and you definitely need to
do your due diligence and be very informed before even considering
undergoing any form of refractive surgery. The nexus of medicine and
marketing is a dangerous place, and LASIK is no exception. All cosmetic
surgical procedures are as driven by slick marketing, as they are by good
medicine and good results, and it is naively dangerous to trust refractive
surgeons (or anyone else) just "because of the large amount of schooling
they've gone through." Some of the biggest scoundrels are also the most
educated and most intelligent. Integrity and education are two different
things, and they are not necessarily correlated. Most refractive surgeons
are skilled people of high integrity, but a small minority are not. And all
LASIK surgeons are under tremendous financial pressure to keep feeding
eyeballs to their lasers. So, it is very important for you as a potential
patient to really do your homework, and be intelligently involved throughout
the screening process. And, after all that, if it turns out that you are
not truly an excellent candidate, then have the character to put aside the
wishful thinking and just walk away.

Bryce Carlson

"heat451" <cshwim@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c22eca193d96061586ad033f70e5a6a2@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
> I've been reading through this forum in one of my many searches for more
> information about LASIK before I get the surgery. To be honest, this forum
> doesn't really have that much credibility because of how many posts seem
> to
> just be mud slinging. I've researched the complications due to LASIK, and
> I
> have to admit in my research shows that it doesn't seem as dangerous as
> most of you portray it. When I first came to this forum, I was terrified
> by some of the stories posted. I then looked around a little bit more and
> talked to some doctors (who I do tend to trust more than an internet forum
> because of the large amount of schooling they've gone through) and have
> found that as long as your doctor measures correctly and takes good care
> that you can avoid most complications. I've decided to go to a reputable
> local LASIK surgeon tomorrow and get the measurements taken to see if I'm
> a good LASIK candidate. I will post what happens and how it goes.
>

heat451

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Bryce,

Thank you for a good response. I agree with you in the fact that private
pay doctors are motivated by money. I also agree that I, and all other
people wanting LASIK, need to take precautions about the risks of LASIK. I
have a list of questions to ask my Dr when I go to see him tomorrow, some
of which come from this forum. To be honest, it might be good to hear of
some good questions you (you being the forum users here) think I should
ask my doctor.

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

heat451 wrote:
> Bryce,
>
> Thank you for a good response. I agree with you in the fact that
private
> pay doctors are motivated by money. I also agree that I, and all
other
> people wanting LASIK, need to take precautions about the risks of
LASIK. I
> have a list of questions to ask my Dr when I go to see him tomorrow,
some
> of which come from this forum. To be honest, it might be good to hear
of
> some good questions you (you being the forum users here) think I
should
> ask my doctor.

Heat451,

If you are doing your homework you probably already know that the two
most common problems patients experience are persistent night vision
disturbances and dry eye. I think that these are important areas to
focus on in your pre-operative workup and discussions with doctors you
visit. Most of the people I know who have one or both of these problems
(though not all) had risk factors that could have been identified
beforehand.

With respect to night vision disturbances, I think that the single
greatest risk there is inaccurate measurement of the dark-adapted pupil
diameter. Ask your doctor about his dark-adaptation protocols. Please
be aware that for people aged 20-40 the average dark-adapted pupil
diameter is in the neighbourhood of 7mm, so if you are in that age
range and you are given a noticeably smaller number, you need to be
particularly scrupulous to look into this issue.

With respect to dry eye, please be very careful if any of the following
apply to you:
- Contact lens intolerance
- Tired or sore eyes at the end of the day
- History of dry eye
- Rosacea
- Blepharitis
- Female, esp. approaching menopause or experiencing any other hormonal
events incl. oral contraceptives
- Regularly taking any medications which may have dry eye as a side
effect (such as allergy meds)

That is not a complete list, but you get the idea. Any mild
pre-existing risk factors for dry eye may be pushed over the edge into
a fullblown more serious case by undergoing LASIK, which severs nerves
in the cornea. If you have any risk factors but still feel strongly
about getting laser eye surgery and your doctor concurs, give serious
thought to surface ablation (such as epi LASIK) as an alternative,
because fewer nerves will be cut or ablated.

Sincerely

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Hey, Bryce, you're joking aren't you???

Dominated by anti-Lasik zealots??????

Dominated by raving pro-Lasik zealots screaming down the anti-Lasik
zealots is more like it if you ask me. Take Cliffy for example, he
always has to have the last word. Or Glenn, who keeps posting and
referring to CRSquat as a patient advocacy organization, when it is a
Lasik sponsored, Lasik driven organization with the purpose of drumming
up Lasik candidates with pro-Lasik bias in its articles. (Before you
start posting Glenn, I am not criticizing your site per se, but at
least admit it for what it is, not what it isn't).

THis site has poor credibility due to input from both extremes of the
discussion, not just the nays.

p.s. How's things Bryce? Haven't heard from you for a while.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

I'm glad to "admit" that CRSQA is a patient advocacy organization, and
those who actually venture to our website and read what we have to say
can see this for themselves.

The originator of this thread has it right. If you look at the
quantity of the posts here, or the quality of the posts here, you will
see that the majority of the traffic in this newsgroup is anti-LASIK
and from a small number of the same people. A few use multiple names -
apparently to make it appear that there are more who share their
viewpoint - but who they are becomes quite clear very quickly. About
the only regular participant who is unabashedly pro-LASIK is Ragnar.
SErebel seems to be more against Ron Link and SurgicalEyes than for
LASIK. Bryce and I acknowledge that LASIK has its advantages, but that
it has limitations too. Except for patients who state they have had
good outcomes, just about all of the regulars have a clear anti-LASIK
agenda.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

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

I am not a doctor.

Bryce Carlson

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

You're welcome. Glad I could help. As for good questions to ask your
doctor, a good place to start is CRSQA's "50 Tough Questions For Your LASIK
doctor" (http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/tough_questions.htm). CRSQA is a
non-profit organization that evaluates and certifies refractive surgeons,
and also provides patient advocacy information and services free of charge.

Bryce Carlson

"heat451" <cshwim@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:496fcd5970441537f04a5051f138f2ca@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
> Bryce,
>
> Thank you for a good response. I agree with you in the fact that private
> pay doctors are motivated by money. I also agree that I, and all other
> people wanting LASIK, need to take precautions about the risks of LASIK. I
> have a list of questions to ask my Dr when I go to see him tomorrow, some
> of which come from this forum. To be honest, it might be good to hear of
> some good questions you (you being the forum users here) think I should
> ask my doctor.
>

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

heat451 wrote:
> I've been reading through this forum in one of my many searches for
more
> information about LASIK before I get the surgery. To be honest, this
forum
> doesn't really have that much credibility because of how many posts
seem to
> just be mud slinging. I've researched the complications due to
LASIK, and I
> have to admit in my research shows that it doesn't seem as
dangerous as
> most of you portray it. When I first came to this forum, I was
terrified
> by some of the stories posted. I then looked around a little bit more
and
> talked to some doctors (who I do tend to trust more than an internet
forum
> because of the large amount of schooling they've gone through) and
have
> found that as long as your doctor measures correctly and takes good
care
> that you can avoid most complications. I've decided to go to a
reputable
> local LASIK surgeon tomorrow and get the measurements taken to see if
I'm
> a good LASIK candidate. I will post what happens and how it goes.

Heat451,

Sounds like you are doing what all should do as far as research before
surgery. I do have another suggestion, try to talk with your
prospective doc's patients and see how it went for them. You'll get
great insight this way. Best of luck.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

I'm going to disagree with SErebel on the issue of talking with a
doctor's previous patients. At least, disagree to a degree.

Previous patients are a lousy way to determine the quality of a
surgeon. Even the worst surgeon gets it right sometimes and no doctor
is going to give you a list of his or her failures. What talking to a
previous patient WILL do is give you great insight about the process of
refractive surgery. Someone who has gone through the process can tell
you what it felt like and their personal experience. That can be of
great value, but asking to talk to previous patients is not a very
valid way to select a surgeon.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Glenn,

now I have to disagree with your disagreement. I think checking with
previous patients is very much a part of ones overall research
process. This would apply to any non emergency surgery. For example,
would you hire contractor without checking to see his or her work
beforehand?

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Sure, but I would not consider the opinion of one or two hand picked
individuals to be indicative of the work I would receive. What I need
and or want may be very different.

If I am a 4.50 diopter hyperope and am talking to a 3.00 diopter myope
who had a great result, what value is that? If I am 45 and the patient
is 22, do we really have much in common? If I am going to be the
doctor's tenth patient with his new Intralase and I'm talking to
someone who had LASIK with a mechanical microkeratome, are we really
able to compare apples to apples?

What patients can tell you is what can happen, but not necessarily what
will happen for you or even if that is what you need.

xeno

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Glenn Hagele wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the
face. He is nothing more than a glorified refractive surgery salesman
who owns and operates a 501(c)(6) TRADE ORGANIZATION/BUSINESS LEAGUE,
as determined by the IRS, established for the purpose of promoting
refractive surgery and surgeons.

For years, he fraudulently claimed on his web site to be a "501(c)(3)
pending," even after having been twice denied that status by the IRS,
and KNOWING THAT HE WOULD NEVER QUALIFY. He deliberately attempts to
mislead the public, people just like the originator of this thread, by
claiming to be something he is NOT, and choosing NOT to mention,
anywhere on his web site, his true purpose and tax status. Pretending
to be a "public benefit" corporation when his job is to sell
refractive surgery is deceptive, dishonest and lacking any shred of
integrity.

The specific statute, IRC 501(c)(6), provides for exemption of business
leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and
professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension
fund for football players), which are not organized for profit and no
part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual.

OK, so, geniuses, if he's neither a chamber of commerce, nor a real
estate board, nor a board of trade, nor a pro football league, what
does that leave? He's a ***business league,*** also referred to by the
IRS as a ***trade organization.*** Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-l defines a
business league as AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS HAVING A COMMON BUSINESS
INTEREST, WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE THE COMMON BUSINESS INTEREST and
not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for
profit. Its activities are directed to the improvement of business
conditions of one or more lines of business rather than the performance
of particular services for individual persons.

There is no provision under his 501(c)(6) status for what he
deliberately misrepresents as "patient advocacy." To meet the
requirements of IRC 501(c)(6) and Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-1, an
organization must possess the following characteristics:

1. It must be an association of persons having some common business
interest and its purpose must be to promote this common business
interest;
2. It must be a membership organization and have a meaningful extent of
membership support;
3. It must not be organized for profit;
4. No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual;
5. Its activities must be directed to the improvement of business
conditions of one or more lines of business (discussed under "The
'Line of Business' Requirement," page 21) as distinguished from
the performance of particular services for individual persons;
6. Its primary activity does not consist of performing particular
services for individual persons; and
7. Its purpose must not be to engage in a regular business of a kind
ordinarily carried on for profit, even if the business is operated on a
cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be
self-sustaining.

Furthermore, Glenn Hagele refuses to answer direct questions from our
"50 Tough Questions That Glenn Hagele Will Never Answer Truthfully,"
put to him about his little trade organization, such as:

1) WHY, IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, DOES HE FAIL TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE
TAX STATUS AND PURPOSE on his own web site, a business league
established to further the business interests of refractive
surgeons/surgery? Or
2) How many individual CRSQA surgeons are there? Or
3) Why does he count one surgeon with four offices as four separate
surgeons? Or
4) Why does he feel it necessary to buy up domain names of other
legitimate entities and have them point to his own CRSQA site? And
finally,
5) If CRSQA is legit, why does Glenn Hagele continue to hide behind his
lies?

Anyone who would consider information from the web site of a dishonest
refractive surgery salesman to be objective can count on being just
about as well-informed as the man in the moon.
..................................................................................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
..................................................................................................

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> I'm glad to "admit" that CRSQA is a patient advocacy organization,
and
> those who actually venture to our website and read what we have to
say
> can see this for themselves.
>
> The originator of this thread has it right. If you look at the
> quantity of the posts here, or the quality of the posts here, you
will
> see that the majority of the traffic in this newsgroup is anti-LASIK
> and from a small number of the same people. A few use multiple names
-
> apparently to make it appear that there are more who share their
> viewpoint - bu who they are becomes quite clear very quickly. About
> the only regular participant who is unabashedly pro-LASIK is Ragnar.
> SErebel seems to be more against Ron Link and SurgicalEyes than for
> LASIK. Bryce and I acknowledge that LASIK has its advantages, but
that
> it has limitations too. Except for patients who state they have had
> good outcomes, just about all of the regulars have a clear anti-LASIK
> agenda.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.

crvc@wyoming.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:

> Heat451,
>
> If you are doing your homework you probably already know that the two
> most common problems patients experience are persistent night vision
> disturbances and dry eye. I think that these are important areas to
> focus on in your pre-operative workup and discussions with doctors
you
> visit. Most of the people I know who have one or both of these
problems
> (though not all) had risk factors that could have been identified
> beforehand.
>
> With respect to night vision disturbances, I think that the single
> greatest risk there is inaccurate measurement of the dark-adapted
pupil
> diameter. Ask your doctor about his dark-adaptation protocols. Please
> be aware that for people aged 20-40 the average dark-adapted pupil
> diameter is in the neighbourhood of 7mm, so if you are in that age
> range and you are given a noticeably smaller number, you need to be
> particularly scrupulous to look into this issue.
>
> With respect to dry eye, please be very careful if any of the
following
> apply to you:
> - Contact lens intolerance
> - Tired or sore eyes at the end of the day
> - History of dry eye
> - Rosacea
> - Blepharitis
> - Female, esp. approaching menopause or experiencing any other
hormonal
> events incl. oral contraceptives
> - Regularly taking any medications which may have dry eye as a side
> effect (such as allergy meds)
>
> That is not a complete list, but you get the idea. Any mild
> pre-existing risk factors for dry eye may be pushed over the edge
into
> a fullblown more serious case by undergoing LASIK, which severs
nerves
> in the cornea. If you have any risk factors but still feel strongly
> about getting laser eye surgery and your doctor concurs, give serious
> thought to surface ablation (such as epi LASIK) as an alternative,
> because fewer nerves will be cut or ablated.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Rebecca Petris
> www.lasermyeye.org

My surgeon was director of refractive surgery at the largest teaching
hospital in Utah. He had published articles on LASIK, including a
study of LASIK outcomes over a two year period, finding no incidence of
severe complications. This two year period was while I was his
patient, dealing with severe night vision problems caused by his
surgery.

If the surgeon doesn't think night vision problems is a complication,
he won't have a problem burning your eyes. In his office I register
20:20 but I can't see well enough to drive safely after sunset.

Pre-op I was warned that I "might" have haloes after LASIK. What the
hell is a halo if you've never seen one? How does it affect night
vision if you can't experience it first? For me, the haloes are a
minor problem but the starbursts are vicious. Every light radiates
large, ugly rays of light in every direction, obscuring the
surroundings. Every oncoming headlight is as if the driver has his
highbeams on. If the road is wet the water gleams its own starbursts
up into the street ahead. If it is snowing the falling snow-starbursts
block out everything else.

It's not a trivial problem if YOU have it. In many cases the dry eye
is temporary and stops when the corneal nerves regenerate. But the
starbursts will be forever if it happens to you.

Pete J

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

"xeno" <xenoparadox@peacemail.com> wrote in message
news:1107839999.399527.103310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glenn Hagele wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the
> face. He is nothing more than a glorified refractive surgery salesman
> who owns and operates a 501(c)(6) TRADE ORGANIZATION/BUSINESS LEAGUE,
> as determined by the IRS, established for the purpose of promoting
> refractive surgery and surgeons.
>
> For years, he fraudulently claimed on his web site to be a "501(c)(3)
> pending," even after having been twice denied that status by the IRS,
> and KNOWING THAT HE WOULD NEVER QUALIFY. He deliberately attempts to
> mislead the public, people just like the originator of this thread, by
> claiming to be something he is NOT, and choosing NOT to mention,
> anywhere on his web site, his true purpose and tax status. Pretending
> to be a "public benefit" corporation when his job is to sell
> refractive surgery is deceptive, dishonest and lacking any shred of
> integrity.
>
> The specific statute, IRC 501(c)(6), provides for exemption of business
> leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and
> professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension
> fund for football players), which are not organized for profit and no
> part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private
> shareholder or individual.
>
> OK, so, geniuses, if he's neither a chamber of commerce, nor a real
> estate board, nor a board of trade, nor a pro football league, what
> does that leave? He's a ***business league,*** also referred to by the
> IRS as a ***trade organization.*** Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-l defines a
> business league as AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS HAVING A COMMON BUSINESS
> INTEREST, WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE THE COMMON BUSINESS INTEREST and
> not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for
> profit. Its activities are directed to the improvement of business
> conditions of one or more lines of business rather than the performance
> of particular services for individual persons.
>
> There is no provision under his 501(c)(6) status for what he
> deliberately misrepresents as "patient advocacy." To meet the
> requirements of IRC 501(c)(6) and Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-1, an
> organization must possess the following characteristics:
>
> 1. It must be an association of persons having some common business
> interest and its purpose must be to promote this common business
> interest;
> 2. It must be a membership organization and have a meaningful extent of
> membership support;
> 3. It must not be organized for profit;
> 4. No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private
> shareholder or individual;
> 5. Its activities must be directed to the improvement of business
> conditions of one or more lines of business (discussed under "The
> 'Line of Business' Requirement," page 21) as distinguished from
> the performance of particular services for individual persons;
> 6. Its primary activity does not consist of performing particular
> services for individual persons; and
> 7. Its purpose must not be to engage in a regular business of a kind
> ordinarily carried on for profit, even if the business is operated on a
> cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be
> self-sustaining.
>
> Furthermore, Glenn Hagele refuses to answer direct questions from our
> "50 Tough Questions That Glenn Hagele Will Never Answer Truthfully,"
> put to him about his little trade organization, such as:
>
> 1) WHY, IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, DOES HE FAIL TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE
> TAX STATUS AND PURPOSE on his own web site, a business league
> established to further the business interests of refractive
> surgeons/surgery? Or
> 2) How many individual CRSQA surgeons are there? Or
> 3) Why does he count one surgeon with four offices as four separate
> surgeons? Or
> 4) Why does he feel it necessary to buy up domain names of other
> legitimate entities and have them point to his own CRSQA site? And
> finally,
> 5) If CRSQA is legit, why does Glenn Hagele continue to hide behind his
> lies?
>
> Anyone who would consider information from the web site of a dishonest
> refractive surgery salesman to be objective can count on being just
> about as well-informed as the man in the moon.
> .................................................................................................
> CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
> .................................................................................................

Oh please stop harping on about it... it's tiresome. This group is becoming
is becoming SO predictable it's untrue.

Why not just place a message asking people to search the google archives for
the RIDICULOUS amount of times this has been discussed...

Pete.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

One of those rather ackward moments that I often create was when I was
discussing preoperative pupil size measurement with a small group of
refractive surgeons while we were all attending a medical conference.
While the debate was lively about whether or not pupil size is
important (IMO it is), all doctors acknowledged that if a patient has
large pupils they will tell the patient that there is a higher than
normal risk of halos in low light environments. They all seemed to
believe that this was an appropriate part of the informed consent
process and they were being up-front and honest to their patients.
They all fell silent, however, when I asked if any of them told their
patients that halos at night might mean they cannot drive, enjoy
theater, or see a menu in a restaurant.

Too often physicians cannot see the forest for all the trees in the
way. They see "night vision problems" as an undesired clinical
outcome. They don't see "night vision problems" as sitting out the
theater or having your spouse drive you around at night. Even
empathetic doctors sometimes do not see the consequences of that
undesired outcome from the same perspective as the patient. It is not
that they are uncaring or that they don't want to do what is best for
their patient, it is more a matter of perspective.

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.

Richard

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

"heat451" <cshwim@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c22eca193d96061586ad033f70e5a6a2@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com:

> I’ve been reading through this forum in one of my many searches for
> more information about LASIK before I get the surgery. To be honest,
> this forum doesn’t really have that much credibility because of how
> many posts seem to just be mud slinging. I’ve researched the
> complications due to LASIK, and I have to admit in my research shows
> that it doesn’t seem as dangerous as most of you portray it. When I
> first came to this forum, I was terrified by some of the stories
> posted. I then looked around a little bit more and talked to some
> doctors (who I do tend to trust more than an internet forum because of
> the large amount of schooling they’ve gone through) and have found
> that as long as your doctor measures correctly and takes good care
> that you can avoid most complications. I’ve decided to go to a
> reputable local LASIK surgeon tomorrow and get the measurements taken
> to see if I’m a good LASIK candidate. I will post what happens and
> how it goes.
>

Regardless of how good the surgeon is, there is still always a small chance
of a horrible outcome. Doing everything right does reduce this chance,
but, the chance is never completely eliminated.

--
Richard

Richard

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote in news:1107809883.185300.147920
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Hey, Bryce, you're joking aren't you???
>
> Dominated by anti-Lasik zealots??????
>
> Dominated by raving pro-Lasik zealots screaming down the anti-Lasik
> zealots is more like it if you ask me. Take Cliffy for example, he
> always has to have the last word. Or Glenn, who keeps posting and
> referring to CRSquat as a patient advocacy organization, when it is a
> Lasik sponsored, Lasik driven organization with the purpose of drumming
> up Lasik candidates with pro-Lasik bias in its articles. (Before you
> start posting Glenn, I am not criticizing your site per se, but at
> least admit it for what it is, not what it isn't).
>
> THis site has poor credibility due to input from both extremes of the
> discussion, not just the nays.
>

I'd have to go with dominated by zealots of both persuasions...

--
Richard

Linda

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org> wrote in message news:<1107830855.797989.60320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> I'm going to disagree with SErebel on the issue of talking with a
> doctor's previous patients. At least, disagree to a degree.
>
> Previous patients are a lousy way to determine the quality of a
> surgeon. Even the worst surgeon gets it right sometimes and no doctor
> is going to give you a list of his or her failures. What talking to a
> previous patient WILL do is give you great insight about the process of
> refractive surgery. Someone who has gone through the process can tell
> you what it felt like and their personal experience. That can be of
> great value, but asking to talk to previous patients is not a very
> valid way to select a surgeon.

I disagree Glenn. I talked to several people who had used the clinic
and surgeon I eventually chose. I think it is the ULTIMATE way to
choose your clinic/surgeon. You stated that no doctor will give a list
of his/her failures. That is why I researched through the personal
experience of patients. Patients tell the truth (usually) and it can
be difficult to ask the surgeon or his staff the multitude of
questions that should be asked prior to the surgery. I chose my
endocronologist (I have a pituitary tumour)on the same basis. The
first endocronologist I dealt with was very clinical and was only
interested in prescribing my medication. His attitude seemed to be
that I had a lifelong condition and I should take my medicine and get
on with it. This was O.K to an extent, except that the medication made
me nauseous every time I took it which was twice a day. The 2nd doctor
was interested in improving things and trying better and more up to
date medications. My quality of life improved immensely under the 2nd
doctor. I found her via word-of-mouth. I now have a completely normal
life in every way.

Do not disregard the importance of patient testimonials. I truly
believe that, despite what some would have you believe, people are
usually very honest about their experiences.

Regards,
Linda.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Sure, but I would not consider the opinion of one or two hand picked
> individuals to be indicative of the work I would receive. What I
need
> and or want may be very different.
>
> If I am a 4.50 diopter hyperope and am talking to a 3.00 diopter
myope
> who had a great result, what value is that? If I am 45 and the
patient
> is 22, do we really have much in common? If I am going to be the
> doctor's tenth patient with his new Intralase and I'm talking to
> someone who had LASIK with a mechanical microkeratome, are we really
> able to compare apples to apples?
>
> What patients can tell you is what can happen, but not necessarily
what
> will happen for you or even if that is what you need.

Glenn,

I see what you mean. I should've been more clear about talking to
previous patients in similar circumstances.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Oh, I don't disregard patient testimonials. In fact, we include this
in our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor. I just recognize that they
are limited in what relevant information they can provide.