| Re: LASIK?
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole_no_spam_at_all@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Cp9Qc.87803$eM2.31850@attbi_s51...
>
> "GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message
> news:10h23o98k25kj9c@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Peter Cole" <peter_cole_no_spam_at_all@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:FD7Qc.203800$a24.18359@attbi_s03...
> > > "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:ceqsr0$cdv$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > > "Peter Cole" <peter_cole_no_spam_at_all@comcast.net> wrote in
message
> > > > news:Ui4Qc.208483$IQ4.32045@attbi_s02
> > > > > "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:411e3336.32088390@news.individual.net...
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > >> A friend of mine had it done following the good advice you
posted.
> > > > >> She can't drive at night now because lights cause her to see
halos
> > > > >> around everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > A good friend of mine has had a similar experience and has a large
> > > > > lawsuit pending.
> > > >
> > > > On what grounds? This is a known side effect (although it usually
eases
> > or
> > > > even disappears after some time). It's not like any of this is new
or
> > > > anything.
> > >
> > > The "halo-ing" problem. It was not so well known a few years ago that
> > people
> > > with larger-than-normal pupils, or otherwise different eyeball
geometries
> > > wouldn't fare so well given the maximum size of the area that was
(could
> > be)
> > > reshaped. My friend's visual artifacts are quite severe and apparently
> > further
> > > corrections are not possible. He has to use drops to drive at night to
> > > constrict his pupils, which is like wearing sunglasses. The suit is
based
> > on
> > > the claim that the doc should have known better, even at that time.
> > >
> >
> > The halo-ing effect has been known for a long time, and was probably
> > mentioned to your friend prior to the surgery. I have it myself, but
not
> > enough to require any special treatment. There are several treatments
to
> > reduce it, and several new surgical options that are being explored.
>
> My friend has quite severe artifacts, much more than nuisance level. He
has
> explored options for correction, both in the US and abroad. He has
consulted
> experts on both coasts (with exams). So far, he's screwed.
>
> > FWIW, it sounds like your friend is just trying to gouge the doctor to
make
> > some money (Lawyer Lotto, American Style). That's one reason the
surgery is
> > expensive as it is...the doc's yearly liability insurance is probably in
6
> > figures thanks to sue-happy patients and their lawyers.
>
> Thanks for the random slam, I'm sure your friends are money-grubbing,
> scum-suckers, too. FWIW, the guy is independently wealthy (founded & sold
a
> major computer supply company). His goal is to keep this bad doc from
blinding
> any other people.
>
Unless the doc was negligent (e.g., ignored a thin cornea and operated
anyway, or mis-programmed the machine), I don't see what value can come from
the suit (besides the $$ to your friend and his lawyer).
If the doc followed standard protocol and exercised due diligence in the
procedure, how is he a "bad doc"? The protocols for this and other
procedures change all the time - if your friend had it done several years
ago, he might simply be unlucky...it's only recently that they have been
able to predict the severity of the halo effect prior to the surgery.
GG
|