|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > FDA admits that some patients lose vision and may experience blindness with LASIK
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 |
FDA admits that some patients lose vision and may experience blindness with LASIK
|
|
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| Does anyone not know that microsurgery on the eyes may cause undesired
outcomes?
All surgery has risk and LASIK is surgery, but what is undoubtedly
more important than the possibility of an outcome is the probability
of an outcome. There are a gazillion things that can kill you every
day, and yet we live for decades.
The probability of becoming blind due to LASIK is astronomically low.
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| the number of undesired outcomes is so low it's not a reason to not
have LASIK.. it's quite the opposite.. it's a reason TO have LASIK
done. Anything with results like that is something to take advantage
of.
I'm sure there are quite a few people who are disappointed with their
results not being as good as they had hoped though. There was once a
website that was up for a few months suggesting that people with
normal vision have LASIK done to get BETTER than normal vision. That
is crazy. Anyone who expects more than normal vision out of lasik may
very well be disappointed with the results.
I am quite pleased that I can now focus on objects that are further
away than the end of my nose.
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:04:40 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Does anyone not know that microsurgery on the eyes may cause undesired
>outcomes?
>
>All surgery has risk and LASIK is surgery, but what is undoubtedly
>more important than the possibility of an outcome is the probability
>of an outcome. There are a gazillion things that can kill you every
>day, and yet we live for decades.
>
>The probability of becoming blind due to LASIK is astronomically low.
>
>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.
| |
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| You can also risk blindness by sticking a dirty contact lens in your
eye. There are a whole lot of ways to risk blindness.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| Excellent point.
Anybody who would say that LASIK has resulted in more problems than
wearing contact lenses is either a liar or a fool.
It doesn't even have to be a dirty lens. It can be a clean lens that
folds, or gets stuck to the macula, or just plain irritates the eye.
Over time, people LOSE their tolerance of contact lenses, they don't
gain more tolerance of them after the first few months of wear.
On 5 Sep 2005 18:45:52 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>You can also risk blindness by sticking a dirty contact lens in your
>eye. There are a whole lot of ways to risk blindness.
>
>SErebel
| |
| journal article 2005-09-24, 2:40 pm |
| OK, back up your claims Christopher. Here is a peer-reviewed article stating
EVERY patient
who has had LASIK has damaged corneas. Find me some stats on patients with
permanent damage
from contact lenses for comparison.
Furthermore, Christopher, it would be impossible for a contact lens to get
stuck on the macula, since
the macula is a part of the retina. Last time I checked, people wore contact
lenses on the outside of their
eyes.
Here's a link with a picture of the macula and a definition so that you can
learn some basics of eye
anatomy. Note cornea, front of eye. Macula, BACK of eye.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main...articlekey=4241
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7qjvh1hlo1jnfqm2cc0s0dnu4cs0ru5jdk@4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Excellent point.
> Anybody who would say that LASIK has resulted in more problems than
> wearing contact lenses is either a liar or a fool.
>
> It doesn't even have to be a dirty lens. It can be a clean lens that
> folds, or gets stuck to the macula, or just plain irritates the eye.
> Over time, people LOSE their tolerance of contact lenses, they don't
> gain more tolerance of them after the first few months of wear.
>
>
>
> On 5 Sep 2005 18:45:52 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:40 pm |
| It looks like Hanson and his alias de jour is at it again. This post
qualifies for NetLoon item
10) They create their own custom definitions for extant words or
concepts. (+ 40 points).
The purpose of LASIK, PRK, LASEK, IntraLASIK, and Epi-LASIK is to
change the cornea to reduce the need for corrective lenses. Planned
surgical manipulation of the cornea is not "damage" in the literal
sense.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:40 pm |
| By Hanson's logic, surgery to repair a leaky heart valve damages the
heart.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|