Correcting eyesight defects
Yap Yok Foo
surgery using modern techniques like laser surgery.
Since I have already benefitted from radial keratectomy which
corrected my short-sightedness in 1988 when I had surgery done to my
eyes in Moscow, I thought it might be a good idea to inform more
people here who may benefit from this.
So those of you who are tired of wearing glasses and contact lenses,
do go and find out more
Venue : Ruka Hall (2nd floor)
University of Malaya Medical Centre
Time and date : 2pm Saturday 13th January 2001
Enquiry hotline : 79502060, 79502396, 012-6508677
**************From Uncle Yap**************
The Malaysian News & Discussion Group
=====================================
Read or subscribe to this group at http://www.eGroups.com/list/beritamalaysia/
To subscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalays...@egroups.com
To unsubscribe by e-mail, send e-mail to
beritamalaysi...@egroups.com
Just The Malaysian News
=======================
To subscribe:just send blank e-mail to bmalaysia...@onelist.com
To unsubscribe: bmalaysia-...@onelist.com
Once registered and subscribed, you will get the daily articles about Malaysia delivered to your e-mail box
Jason Chong
>
>
> So those of you who are tired of wearing glasses and contact lenses,
> do go and find out more
>
Hell no! I'll rather wear glasses all my life than to risk a
one time surgery failure causing me to be blind for life.
If the success rate of the surgery is not 100 percent, then everyone
should forget about it. I can lose my hands, legs, hearing or even
speech, I will never want to risk losing my eyesight!
cv
A failure on means less than 20/20 vision.
"Jason Chong" <c...@pc.jaring.my> wrote in message
news:3A5DD6...@pc.jaring.my...
fairplay.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/498_eye.html
ck_i...@my-deja.com
No surgery or medical intervention has a 100% success rate. By your
rationale, you should never take any form of medical advice or devise;
afterall you might likely not recover.
Better yet, why drive or even cross the street? Your chances of dying
are pretty good at that.
perhaps better death than blindness?\
CK
In article <3A5DD6...@pc.jaring.my>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
TimeOut
The choices are:
1. Wear glasses with little risk, if any.
2. Surgery with the risk of irreversible damage.
If you're a risk taker, go with #2. If not, there's nothing wrong with #1.
You analogy would suggest either #2 or none at all. Why cross the street
and dodge cars when there's a overhead pedestrian bridge?
<ck_i...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93kpvn$cp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
ck_i...@my-deja.com
"TimeOut" <freeh...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Your analogy is flawed, showing that you're missing the point.
>
> The choices are:
> 1. Wear glasses with little risk, if any.
> 2. Surgery with the risk of irreversible damage.
>
> If you're a risk taker, go with #2. If not, there's nothing wrong
with #1.
>
> You analogy would suggest either #2 or none at all. Why cross the
street
> and dodge cars when there's a overhead pedestrian bridge?
Indeed. Why at all? Why bother crossing the street then if one can
simply have things delivered?
If this is the extraenous logic is used in your analogies, why then
bother living? Afterall we all die?
No, you mistakenly read the reasoning.
Once again, the premise is; no medical procedure is 100% risk free.
Second premise, risk taking is a must.
The question therefore is, how much risk does a reasonable person take
given all the facts of the case?
The risk of blindness in a laser based myopia surgery is less than 0.01%
(that means less than 1 out of 10,000 cases). And even then, such
events occured at the early developmental days of the surgery technique
(some 8 years ago in the US, and 12 years in the current EU).
If the former poster would like to wear glasses/contact lenses, so be
it. If the rationale for missing out on a laser surgery is simply
blindness caused by the procedure, s/he is wrong in that assessment. A
better argument would be simply, one favors wearing glasses. Nothing
more nothing less.
CK
Jason Chong
>
> blindness caused by the procedure, s/he is wrong in that assessment. A
> better argument would be simply, one favors wearing glasses. Nothing
> more nothing less.
Hey don't forget budget issues!! Those surgeries ain't cheap you know!
TimeOut
> Indeed. Why at all? Why bother crossing the street then if one can
Because the goal is not to get things, but to get to the other side.
> If this is the extraenous logic is used in your analogies, why then
> bother living? Afterall we all die?
Because it is stupid to kill yourself when you're alive for no reason.
> Once again, the premise is; no medical procedure is 100% risk free.
Granted.
> Second premise, risk taking is a must.
Only if one considers taking the procedure.
> The risk of blindness in a laser based myopia surgery is less than 0.01%
> (that means less than 1 out of 10,000 cases). And even then, such
> events occured at the early developmental days of the surgery technique
> (some 8 years ago in the US, and 12 years in the current EU).
That may be true, but why are you rambling about blindless with my post?
> If the former poster would like to wear glasses/contact lenses, so be
> it. If the rationale for missing out on a laser surgery is simply
> blindness caused by the procedure, s/he is wrong in that assessment.
Granted.
> A better argument would be simply, one favors wearing glasses. Nothing
> more nothing less.
Which is what I wrote : 2 choices to correct vision. Wear glass with low
risk or surgery with higher risk.
James Teo
wrote:
Cost-benefit analysis:
In Singapore it is S$2,000, I believe. Assuming in Malaysia, it is
roughly about RM6,000; that would be about 8-10 pairs of glasses.
Assuming each pair of glasses last about 3 years, this surgery saves
you money if you have about 20 years of myopic life-expectancy left,
thus cost-effective for myopic individuals of about 40 years and
younger. This is assuming of course that you never ever need
replacement glasses after breaking them or losing them, etc.
Reasonable?
Other unmeasurable benefits:
- Reduced inconvenience of having glasses (especially with physical
activities)
- A more 'attractive' visage
James Teo
<freeh...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Your analogy is flawed, showing that you're missing the point.
>
>The choices are:
>1. Wear glasses with little risk, if any.
>2. Surgery with the risk of irreversible damage.
>
>If you're a risk taker, go with #2. If not, there's nothing wrong with #1.
>
>You analogy would suggest either #2 or none at all. Why cross the street
>and dodge cars when there's a overhead pedestrian bridge?
Your analogy is flawed since you fail to consider the severit of
'irreverisible damage'. The risk of complications in surgery is very
miniscule (about 0.5%), and that most common complication is not
irreversible blindness. Also, the surgery is done one eye at a time,
so whatever complication you have, the functional effect will be
halved.
Also, you don't clarify clearly the disadvantages of option (1). There
is risk of our glasses breaking and injuring your eyes (or face)
during any physical activity. How about the risk of having glasses in
dangerous situations (being chased by a rabid dog, etc) then dropping
them or whatever, which may endanger your health, etc. Now you may
think all of this is unlikely, but consider how many potentially
dangerous situations could arise whenever you walk down the stairs and
trip.
I agree that surgery is slightly more risky than just keeping to
glasses, but the difference IMHO is probably miniscule and unworthy of
debate.
ck_i...@my-deja.com
"TimeOut" <freeh...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> > Once again, the premise is; no medical procedure is 100% risk free.
>
> Granted.
>
> > Second premise, risk taking is a must.
>
> Only if one considers taking the procedure.
It was considered. Read the post to which I was responding to.
> > The risk of blindness in a laser based myopia surgery is less than
0.01%
> > (that means less than 1 out of 10,000 cases). And even then, such
> > events occured at the early developmental days of the surgery
technique
> > (some 8 years ago in the US, and 12 years in the current EU).
>
> That may be true, but why are you rambling about blindless with my
post?
Because that was the cause-effect rationale of the previous poster.
CK
ck_i...@my-deja.com
How much do they cost in Malaysia?
Its USD 799 per eye here ... and some HMOs do cover it.
CK
ck_i...@my-deja.com
On the average, one should have one's eyes tested every year, and
replacement glasses made (if needed) when needed.
Your cost analysis benefit makes sense to the former poster if s/he
considers the procedure to be worth more than simply RM6000.
CK
In article <3a5e2cdd...@news.freeserve.net>,
Observer
<ck_i...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93lgkf$37q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> On the average, one should have one's eyes tested every year, and
> replacement glasses made (if needed) when needed.
>
> Your cost analysis benefit makes sense to the former poster if s/he
> considers the procedure to be worth more than simply RM6000.
Is all this worth the risk of losing your
eyesight.
If someone tells you taking so and so poison
has "minimal" risk,I'd advise to ask that person
to prove it by taking it first.
If the risk is minimal,then ALL doctors would not
need glasses.Does your opthamalgist wears one?
Yap Yok Foo
wrote:
>Other unmeasurable benefits:
>- Reduced inconvenience of having glasses (especially with physical
>activities)
>- A more 'attractive' visage
Ha Ha James, I used to have a list of ten good reasons why I wanted to
get rid of glasses. Let's see whether I can recall
1. Going out from a cold place will mist up the glasses
2. You get pimples at the ears
3. You get a bridge line on the top of your nose
4. However well prescribed, there is a parallex error in sight
correction and every other year, you need to replace and get
new glasses
5. The lenses tend to get scratched if you're not careful
6. Cannot wear sunglasses; the clip-on's are ugly
7. Cannot do cooking over the kwali due to misting up
8. You can't see the clock in bed
9. You cannot partake of sports safely
10. If you are out with a girl and want to kiss her, taking off the
glasses in preparation takes away the spontaneity and appears
so deliberate and calculated :-)
Yap Yok Foo
Yes, like most things in life, it was a value judgement in my case
when I decided to go for RK in Moscow.
I had been wearing glasses since Form III and then later at university
switched to contact lenses. These are so cumbersome and could be
removed by a surgical procedure which boasted an astonishing high
level of success. I decided to go for it and since 1988, I do not need
glasses or lenses for my shortsightedness. I have absolutely no
regrets even though I paid quite a lot for the surgery. In 1988, the
package for return airfare to Moscow, tour, operation and one-week
recuperation was RM10K.
But old age catches up and now I do need reading glasses when I read
but I buy these half frames which are light and not so bothersome.
j...@lake.com
wrote:
>5. The lenses tend to get scratched if you're not careful
>6. Cannot wear sunglasses; the clip-on's are ugly
uncle, do i sense a tinge of vanity here? gotta look cool.
that's cool be me. :)
>10. If you are out with a girl and want to kiss her, taking off the
>glasses in preparation takes away the spontaneity and appears
>so deliberate and calculated :-)
its a double whammy when she is empat mata herself. :)
>
ck_i...@my-deja.com
"Observer" <obser...@yahoo1.com> wrote:
>
> <ck_i...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93lgkf$37q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > On the average, one should have one's eyes tested every year, and
> > replacement glasses made (if needed) when needed.
> >
> > Your cost analysis benefit makes sense to the former poster if s/he
> > considers the procedure to be worth more than simply RM6000.
>
> Is all this worth the risk of losing your
> eyesight.
And what is the risk?
> If someone tells you taking so and so poison
> has "minimal" risk,I'd advise to ask that person
> to prove it by taking it first.
two different things here. First a poison is a poison.
second, what is minimal risk? You have to define the minimal risk.
In this instance the risk of going blind from a lasik surgery is less
than 0.01%, and even then, those rare cases are from the early
developmental days of the surgery.
>
> If the risk is minimal,then ALL doctors would not
> need glasses.Does your opthamalgist wears one?
And NOT all doctors require lasik surgery nor should an opthamologist
wear glasses to disprove your analogy.
CK