Lasik Eyes Surgery - Perfectionists

Author

Perfectionists

crvc@wyoming.com

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

That should have been included in the questionnaire before I had LASIK.
Perfectionism is a contraindication for laser surgery. The surgeon
thinks I'm a success because I'm now 20:20 but also thinks I'm a
chronic whiner because I can no longer drive after sunset. Now I don't
need glasses during the day as long as I'm out in the sun. Indoors or
after sunset I need RGP lenses. But the lenses make me farsighted so I
also need reading glasses. I was always a perfectionist and these
inconveniences are pure hell for people like me. Be glad you weren't
talked into laser surgery.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Absolutely! One of the advantages of correction with contacts and
spectacles is that it is relatively simple to "tweak" the correction.
With a good fitting and some trial and error, the absolute best
correction can be accomplished. Surgery, on the other had, is dealing
with a biological situation that is not always going to respond
exactly the same way.

Whenever someone who is in an industry, has a hobby, or simply appears
to be one of the more obsessive types, I recommend they reconsider
refractive surgery.

Remember, the most LASIK can do is provide the convenience of a
reduced need for corrective lenses. You will notice that the word
"perfection" is nowhere in that sentence.

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.

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-23, 5:43 pm

crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> That should have been included in the questionnaire before I had
LASIK.
> Perfectionism is a contraindication for laser surgery. The surgeon
> thinks I'm a success because I'm now 20:20 but also thinks I'm a
> chronic whiner because I can no longer drive after sunset. Now I
don't
> need glasses during the day as long as I'm out in the sun. Indoors
or
> after sunset I need RGP lenses. But the lenses make me farsighted so
I
> also need reading glasses. I was always a perfectionist and these
> inconveniences are pure hell for people like me. Be glad you weren't
> talked into laser surgery.

I agree about perfectionism being a contraindication, but I don't
actually see its application in what you describe. Not all people who
expect to be able to drive at night after surgery are perfectionists,
nor are those would object to wearing RGP lenses after a surgery to
correct their vision. Tolerance of vision quality defects certainly
does vary greatly from individual to individual, but at a certain level
of inconvenience or impairment, attitude's got little to do with the
degree of life impact.

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org

Ragnar

2005-03-23, 5:43 pm

You know... if you are going to give recommendations in addition to
just the facts,about LASIK, you really ought to have it done yourself.
It's a bit like Howard Cosell in his book "I Never Played The Game".
Howard probably knew as much about football as anyone... but I
seriously doubt he would be a good coach and certainly couldn't play
worth a damn.

One thing you consistenly overlook is that glasses do nothing for
astigmatism, everyone has some degree of astigmatism, soft contacts do
almost nothing for astigmatism, and while rigid lenses do a nice job
handling astigmatism... most people had difficulty tolerating rigid
lenses and even those that do generally lose their tolerance of them
over time.
How's that for a run on sentence. I just gave some english teacher a
headache.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:25:02 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>Absolutely! One of the advantages of correction with contacts and
>spectacles is that it is relatively simple to "tweak" the correction.
>With a good fitting and some trial and error, the absolute best
>correction can be accomplished. Surgery, on the other had, is dealing
>with a biological situation that is not always going to respond
>exactly the same way.
>
>Whenever someone who is in an industry, has a hobby, or simply appears
>to be one of the more obsessive types, I recommend they reconsider
>refractive surgery.
>
>Remember, the most LASIK can do is provide the convenience of a
>reduced need for corrective lenses. You will notice that the word
>"perfection" is nowhere in that sentence.
>
>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.

drtjwright@gmail.com

2005-04-05, 6:28 pm

>One thing you consistenly overlook is that glasses do nothing for
>astigmatism, everyone has some degree of astigmatism, soft contacts do
>almost nothing for astigmatism, and while rigid lenses do a nice job
>handling astigmatism... most people had difficulty tolerating rigid
>lenses and even those that do generally lose their tolerance of them
>over time.

Well, glasses certainly don't help to reduce the actual amount of
astigmatism you have, but it's usually much easier for them to correct
for it so that you see clearly. That's because 1) glasses don't
usually rotate on your eyes and 2) You aren't restricted to certain cyl
powers to correct your astigmatism, so you can go as low or high as you
want (within reason for the high part, of course).

Hard contacts do tend to smooth out the cornea a bit, which is one of
the reasons ortho-K got started, but I don't really think they're
nessecary to give someone good vision. Basically, there are lots of
different lenses which can allow someone with astigmatism to see
clearly, they just won't make you less astigmatic any more than I would
get less nearsighted by wearing my glasses.

Richard

2005-04-05, 6:28 pm

drtjwright@gmail.com wrote in news:1112296911.334783.267310
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>
> Well, glasses certainly don't help to reduce the actual amount of
> astigmatism you have, but it's usually much easier for them to correct
> for it so that you see clearly. That's because 1) glasses don't
> usually rotate on your eyes and 2) You aren't restricted to certain cyl
> powers to correct your astigmatism, so you can go as low or high as you
> want (within reason for the high part, of course).
>
> Hard contacts do tend to smooth out the cornea a bit, which is one of
> the reasons ortho-K got started, but I don't really think they're
> nessecary to give someone good vision. Basically, there are lots of
> different lenses which can allow someone with astigmatism to see
> clearly, they just won't make you less astigmatic any more than I would
> get less nearsighted by wearing my glasses.
>

Being one of those people with astigmatism, I can say definitely that
both my glasses, and my soft toric disposable contact lenses do correct
my vision quite nicely. It is true that they do not actually do anything
to the shape of my eyes, but rather, merely correct my vision, and quite
nicely.

--
Richard

Ragnar

2005-04-05, 6:28 pm

Please learn what astigmatism is before you go back to your office
doctor.
As for glasses, they constantly shift, slip, fog up, etc. Let's not
start pushing glasses on people.

On 31 Mar 2005 11:21:51 -0800, drtjwright@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Well, glasses certainly don't help to reduce the actual amount of
>astigmatism you have, but it's usually much easier for them to correct
>for it so that you see clearly. That's because 1) glasses don't
>usually rotate on your eyes and 2) You aren't restricted to certain cyl
>powers to correct your astigmatism, so you can go as low or high as you
>want (within reason for the high part, of course).
>
>Hard contacts do tend to smooth out the cornea a bit, which is one of
>the reasons ortho-K got started, but I don't really think they're
>nessecary to give someone good vision. Basically, there are lots of
>different lenses which can allow someone with astigmatism to see
>clearly, they just won't make you less astigmatic any more than I would
>get less nearsighted by wearing my glasses.

DrWright

2005-04-05, 6:29 pm

>As for glasses, they constantly shift, slip, fog up, etc. Let's not
>start pushing glasses on people.

Yes, Ragnar, let's push contact lenses on people. Contacts which can
fall out of your eyes, rotate on your eyes, become bacterially
contaminated, tear, etc. Much better solution! In any case, no one
was "pushing glasses".

Let's be realistic, I'm not sure exactly what Ragnar's objectives are
(apparently anti-glasses and anti-ortho-K) but different solutions work
for different people. There are lots of people out there who wouldn't
wear contacts if you paid them, and the same for glasses. If you find
something you like that gives you good vision and is safe, do it!

Ragnar

2005-04-05, 6:29 pm

You must live in Bizzaro world like in the comic books. You like
glasses and ortho-k, yet don't like contacts nor lasik?
I don't think you have patients, you have victims. Victims of your
warped ideology.

On 4 Apr 2005 06:54:36 -0700, "DrWright" <drtjwright@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Yes, Ragnar, let's push contact lenses on people. Contacts which can
>fall out of your eyes, rotate on your eyes, become bacterially
>contaminated, tear, etc. Much better solution! In any case, no one
>was "pushing glasses".
>
>Let's be realistic, I'm not sure exactly what Ragnar's objectives are
>(apparently anti-glasses and anti-ortho-K) but different solutions work
>for different people. There are lots of people out there who wouldn't
>wear contacts if you paid them, and the same for glasses. If you find
>something you like that gives you good vision and is safe, do it!

DrWright

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> You must live in Bizzaro world like in the comic books. You like
> glasses and ortho-k, yet don't like contacts nor lasik?
> I don't think you have patients, you have victims. Victims of your
> warped ideology.

You might want to actually read posts before flaming them. I was
merely stating that different things work for different people. Some
like glasses, some like contacts, some like ortho-K, some like LASIK.
I'm not sure why you threw a tantrum about glasses earlier, I was just
pointing out that different treatment modalities have different
disadvantages, and that contacts are certainly no exception.
-Dr. W

CatmanX

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

Ragnar has an inferiority complex. Anyone who knows anything will get a
load of vitriol thrown at them to stop them posting here, e.g. Greg
Gemoules. Ragnar, or in one of his many guises, aims to promote
propaganda for whatever reason he believes, and no-one is allowed to
have a different opinion. Ragnar does not understand how to debate,
only to make attacks at the person, such as, "you are an idiot for
pushing glasses". It is one of the reasons so few people post here.

gospa68@aol.com

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

Why would anyone want to respond to him? Ignore him....I suspect that
many do in his real life. WK

Linda

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote in message news:<1113084454.145725.317110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> Ragnar has an inferiority complex. Anyone who knows anything will get a
> load of vitriol thrown at them to stop them posting here, e.g. Greg
> Gemoules. Ragnar, or in one of his many guises, aims to promote
> propaganda for whatever reason he believes, and no-one is allowed to
> have a different opinion. Ragnar does not understand how to debate,
> only to make attacks at the person, such as, "you are an idiot for
> pushing glasses". It is one of the reasons so few people post here.

Some of us persist here. The aliases do become annoying though. Whilst
you don't expect full disclosure of people's identities on an Internet
NG, it can be funny when people post under numerous names and the
posting style is identical. No one is fooled. Dr G surprised me. I
didn't think that he could be chased away. I wish he still posted here
as he had a great deal of knowledge and it was backed up by the fact
that he actually knew what he was talking about. He does still post on
sci.med.vision if anyone needs his advise.
Regards,
Linda.

CatmanX

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

It was a pity, he had a lot to offer. His experience with difficult CL
fitting is rare.

Ragnar

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

I wouldn't lump yourself in with anybody else. You are an idiot for
lots of reasons which are unique to you.

On 9 Apr 2005 15:07:34 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Ragnar has an inferiority complex. Anyone who knows anything will get a
>load of vitriol thrown at them to stop them posting here, e.g. Greg
>Gemoules. Ragnar, or in one of his many guises, aims to promote
>propaganda for whatever reason he believes, and no-one is allowed to
>have a different opinion. Ragnar does not understand how to debate,
>only to make attacks at the person, such as, "you are an idiot for
>pushing glasses". It is one of the reasons so few people post here.

Ragnar

2005-04-11, 6:14 pm

He will be back... in fact.. he is already back incognito.
He can go spew his garbage night and day on sci.med.

On 9 Apr 2005 19:34:28 -0700, lindakendall3155@gmail.com (Linda)
wrote:

>"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote in message news:<1113084454.145725.317110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
>Some of us persist here. The aliases do become annoying though. Whilst
>you don't expect full disclosure of people's identities on an Internet
>NG, it can be funny when people post under numerous names and the
>posting style is identical. No one is fooled. Dr G surprised me. I
>didn't think that he could be chased away. I wish he still posted here
>as he had a great deal of knowledge and it was backed up by the fact
>that he actually knew what he was talking about. He does still post on
>sci.med.vision if anyone needs his advise.
>Regards,
>Linda.

DrWright

2005-04-13, 4:44 pm

While we're on the distasteful subject of Ragnar:
The American Academy of Ophthalmology appears to have a different
definition of "dry eye" than Ragnar does. Although noone appears to be
quite sure exactly what Ragnar blathers on about, if you're an AAO
member you can see a more professional definition here, among other
places.

http://www.aao.org/education/courses/ocular/dry.cfm

Note that as I stated above it only works for AAO members. I await the
flaming of the AAO and myself for this link.

-Dr. W

2005-04-13, 4:44 pm

In article <1113417457.424652.151440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"DrWright" <drtjwright@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note that as I stated above it only works for AAO members. I await the
> flaming of the AAO and myself for this link.

OK, here's your first "flame." Why post a link most of us can't access?
What have we learned here? Have you read it? Why don't you summarize
it for the rest of us or why don't you quote from it and provide a
citation? How can we even have a discussion about this? What was your
point in posting this link?

--
~RT

Ragnar

2005-04-19, 10:50 am

DrWrong, if you don't think dry eye is a catastrophic problem, then
you need to stop practicing.
Dry eye is a chronic, very serious problem which is unrelated to LASIK
and is sometimes successfully treated with medications such as
Restasis.
Dry eyeS or dryness is a temporary condition often experienced by post
LASIK patients. It is a mild temporary condition which is easily
treated with such things as OTC Systane, various other eyedrops, or
plugs.

On 13 Apr 2005 11:37:37 -0700, "DrWright" <drtjwright@gmail.com>
wrote:

>While we're on the distasteful subject of Ragnar:
>The American Academy of Ophthalmology appears to have a different
>definition of "dry eye" than Ragnar does. Although noone appears to be
>quite sure exactly what Ragnar blathers on about, if you're an AAO
>member you can see a more professional definition here, among other
>places.
>
>http://www.aao.org/education/courses/ocular/dry.cfm
>
>Note that as I stated above it only works for AAO members. I await the
>flaming of the AAO and myself for this link.
>
>-Dr. W