|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2006 > MD says: if there is a Hell, there is a special place in it for refractive surgeons
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 |
MD says: if there is a Hell, there is a special place in it for refractive surgeons
|
|
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2006-07-26, 9:28 pm |
| http://www.lasikdisaster.com/patientletter5.htm
Musings of LASIK-damaged physician on how LASIK is perpetuated
I'm not religious by any means, but if there is a Hell, there is a
special place in it for refractive surgeons.
I've been trying to understand the phenomenon of LASIK surgery's
tenacity despite all the clear indications that it should be abolished.
I believe that there are several key elements that refractive surgeons
consciously or inadvertently exploit. First, we all hated our glasses
and contact lenses. The promise of "perfect", unaided vision is so very
seductive. The lure took away much of my objectiveness so I was hearing
and reading only the propaganda and little of the real science. The
dense marketing overwhelms the objective information on RS. Next,
vision is poorly quantitated. Visual acuity is a subjective report by
the patient..."yeah, one looks clearer than two...wait, let me see two
again". No one really assesses how light is refracted by the anterior
eye then interpreted by the retina and brain. The optics of the human
eye are not static either. So the patient, ecstatic to be free of
lenses, believes he or she is now seeing great just because the 20/20
line can be resolved without glasses. Never mind the loss of contrast
sensitivity, loss of night acuity, loss of accommodation, corneal
derangement, dry eye..etc. Now you have a population of LASIK patients
who WANT to believe their vision has been improved. They go on to be
poster children for LASIK and tell their friends and the vicious cycle
perpetuates. Those of us that get the worst complications are written
off as unlucky bastards.
Getting physicians to organize a campaign might be a start. Let's get
the PhD's involved too.
We'll see the day that this tragic surgery is banned. You said you
enjoyed Shiraz. Well, I have a bottle of 1998 Penfold's Grange
Hermitage in my cellar that I hope to share with you when the plug is
pulled on LASIK.
| |
| serebel 2006-07-27, 2:26 am |
|
>
This was another dreamed up SE hymn. This has been tossed around here
since no one stops by flappie.
| |
|
|
Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.lasikdisaster.com/patientletter5.htm
>
> Musings of LASIK-damaged physician on how LASIK is perpetuated
>
> I'm not religious by any means, but if there is a Hell, there is a
> special place in it for refractive surgeons.
>
> I've been trying to understand the phenomenon of LASIK surgery's
> tenacity despite all the clear indications that it should be abolished.
> I believe that there are several key elements that refractive surgeons
> consciously or inadvertently exploit. First, we all hated our glasses
> and contact lenses. The promise of "perfect", unaided vision is so very
> seductive. The lure took away much of my objectiveness so I was hearing
> and reading only the propaganda and little of the real science. The
> dense marketing overwhelms the objective information on RS. Next,
> vision is poorly quantitated. Visual acuity is a subjective report by
> the patient..."yeah, one looks clearer than two...wait, let me see two
> again". No one really assesses how light is refracted by the anterior
> eye then interpreted by the retina and brain. The optics of the human
> eye are not static either. So the patient, ecstatic to be free of
> lenses, believes he or she is now seeing great just because the 20/20
> line can be resolved without glasses. Never mind the loss of contrast
> sensitivity, loss of night acuity, loss of accommodation, corneal
> derangement, dry eye..etc. Now you have a population of LASIK patients
> who WANT to believe their vision has been improved. They go on to be
> poster children for LASIK and tell their friends and the vicious cycle
> perpetuates. Those of us that get the worst complications are written
> off as unlucky bastards.
>
> Getting physicians to organize a campaign might be a start. Let's get
> the PhD's involved too.
>
> We'll see the day that this tragic surgery is banned. You said you
> enjoyed Shiraz. Well, I have a bottle of 1998 Penfold's Grange
> Hermitage in my cellar that I hope to share with you when the plug is
> pulled on LASIK.
Some surgeons are indeed irresponsable. Any surgeon that does lasik on
someone with cateracts can go to hell and get sued the hell for
malpractice. Any surgeon giving someone lasik when their prescription
is so low they dont need glasses is likewise doing malpractice.
Surgeons doing lasik on poor candidates without explictly warning the
patients of the high risks are doing a grave miservice. Not to say
there are a small number of conscious surgeons, you wont see those type
of surgeons in a lasik mill, they only do a few lasik surguries a week.
They do other things most of the time like give refractions, treat eye
diseases, cateracts, fix retina detachments. Lasik is what they do on
the side. Those kind of surgeons are strict and picky who they decide
is suitable for lasik. They also provide extensive follow up care and
wont abandon you if a problem occurs.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-27, 9:26 pm |
| more lasikdisaster garbage.
On 26 Jul 2006 18:53:50 -0700, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>http://www.lasikdisaster.com/patientletter5.htm
>
>Musings of LASIK-damaged physician on how LASIK is perpetuated
>
>I'm not religious by any means, but if there is a Hell, there is a
>special place in it for refractive surgeons.
>
>I've been trying to understand the phenomenon of LASIK surgery's
>tenacity despite all the clear indications that it should be abolished.
>I believe that there are several key elements that refractive surgeons
>consciously or inadvertently exploit. First, we all hated our glasses
>and contact lenses. The promise of "perfect", unaided vision is so very
>seductive. The lure took away much of my objectiveness so I was hearing
>and reading only the propaganda and little of the real science. The
>dense marketing overwhelms the objective information on RS. Next,
>vision is poorly quantitated. Visual acuity is a subjective report by
>the patient..."yeah, one looks clearer than two...wait, let me see two
>again". No one really assesses how light is refracted by the anterior
>eye then interpreted by the retina and brain. The optics of the human
>eye are not static either. So the patient, ecstatic to be free of
>lenses, believes he or she is now seeing great just because the 20/20
>line can be resolved without glasses. Never mind the loss of contrast
>sensitivity, loss of night acuity, loss of accommodation, corneal
>derangement, dry eye..etc. Now you have a population of LASIK patients
>who WANT to believe their vision has been improved. They go on to be
>poster children for LASIK and tell their friends and the vicious cycle
>perpetuates. Those of us that get the worst complications are written
>off as unlucky bastards.
>
>Getting physicians to organize a campaign might be a start. Let's get
>the PhD's involved too.
>
>We'll see the day that this tragic surgery is banned. You said you
>enjoyed Shiraz. Well, I have a bottle of 1998 Penfold's Grange
>Hermitage in my cellar that I hope to share with you when the plug is
>pulled on LASIK.
| |
| serebel 2006-07-27, 9:26 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> Some surgeons are indeed irresponsable. Any surgeon that does lasik on
> someone with cateracts can go to hell and get sued the hell for
> malpractice. Any surgeon giving someone lasik when their prescription
> is so low they dont need glasses is likewise doing malpractice.
> Surgeons doing lasik on poor candidates without explictly warning the
> patients of the high risks are doing a grave miservice. Not to say
> there are a small number of conscious surgeons, you wont see those type
> of surgeons in a lasik mill, they only do a few lasik surguries a week.
> They do other things most of the time like give refractions, treat eye
> diseases, cateracts, fix retina detachments. Lasik is what they do on
> the side. Those kind of surgeons are strict and picky who they decide
> is suitable for lasik. They also provide extensive follow up care and
> wont abandon you if a problem occurs.
Medmal law as practiced by a retard.
|
| |
|
|