Glenn can spend the rest of his life justfying the gazillion eye surgery complications
Sandy Keller
that "a gazillion things can go wrong during lasik, just like a gazillion
things can kill you, but the risk is tiny and of course, it would never be
you who is hurt."
My unpaid job is to post all gazillion complications here, one by one, and
inform you that yes, it might be you who is harmed. If so, how will that
affect your life? Is it worth it? Is it worth the possibility that you
might end up undergoing multiple cornea transplants in your quest to see
again post-lasik?
Glenn: "At six-months postop, 3% of patients report an unresolved
complication
induced by refractive surgery."
Sandy: "This is 30,000 people per year, given about a million surgeries
performed yearly in the U.S."
Glenn: "Only 0.5% report a complication that was catastrophic."
Sandy: "This is 5,000 people with a catastrophic result from laser eye
surgery each year. Catastrophic doesn't include night vision problems,
double vision, dry eyes, regression, fluctuating vision, etc, etc. etc.
Only 5,000 lives are shattered each year........."
Schnide
Sandy - accept one fact: everyone who goes for surgery knows that
there is possible risk. They accept the odds when they go for surgery
and believe that risk to be an acceptable one.
You are not telling anyone anything they don't already know, you are
simply trying to use such facts negatively against an individual.
Lee
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
I am paid by our nonprofit organization that is involved in the
refractive surgery industry only to the extent that we evaluate and
certify refractive surgeons based upon actual patient outcomes, and we
provide factual and objective information about refractive surgery
issues.
Our funding is derived from the certification fees we charge the
surgeons we evaluate, but receiving funding from doctors should not be
an issue for you, Sandy. Your intrepid leader Ron Link has accepted
donations from doctors in the past and I know is seeking donations
from doctors now. Link was not the least bit troubled by asking the
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) for
$380,000 to fund SurgicalEyes. At least CRSQA provides a
certification service for the doctors who provide our funding.
>is to point out here
What I do is provide substantiated information and a bit of
objectivity to the hyperbole you and other zealots post.
>that "a gazillion things can go wrong during lasik, just like a gazillion
>things can kill you, but the risk is tiny and of course, it would never be
>you who is hurt."
You are using quotes, but that is absolutely not what I have said. I
have never said the risk is tiny, nor have I said it would never be
you who is hurt. That is an outright lie.
The risk in refractive surgery is relatively small, but relatively
small is...well...relative. Three percent to one person may be small,
but to another may be way too high. That is why everyone must make
his or her own decision about refractive surgery.
There ARE a gazillion things that can go wrong with refractive
surgery, just like there ARE a gazillion things that can kill you.
The relevant question is: "What is the probability that something will
affect me?"
>My unpaid job is to post all gazillion complications here, one by one, and
>inform you that yes, it might be you who is harmed. If so, how will that
>affect your life? Is it worth it? Is it worth the possibility that you
>might end up undergoing multiple cornea transplants in your quest to see
>again post-lasik?
You are affirming my position. One must not only ask if the
possibility of problems is worth the risk, but one must also ask what
is the probability of the problem affecting me.
>Glenn: "At six-months postop, 3% of patients report an unresolved
>complication
>induced by refractive surgery."
>
>Sandy: "This is 30,000 people per year, given about a million surgeries
>performed yearly in the U.S."
Yes, we agree on this point.
>Glenn: "Only 0.5% report a complication that was catastrophic."
>
>Sandy: "This is 5,000 people with a catastrophic result from laser eye
>surgery each year. Catastrophic doesn't include night vision problems,
>double vision, dry eyes, regression, fluctuating vision, etc, etc. etc.
We agree on the number, and agree that "catastrophic" does not include
the potentially disruptive, but relatively minor, problems you list.
All those problems you list would be within the 3% category.
>Only 5,000 lives are shattered each year........."
That's enough Sandy. I am fed up with your whimpering and whining.
I have volunteered for years, since long before excimer laser ever
came about and long before you decided to have LASIK, for the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB). I have been a member of the
President's Club since the mid 1980s. I can tell you that these fine
people, who are functionally or totally blind and don't have options
for vision restoration, would take you to task for even suggesting
that they or someone who has functional but disrupted vision have
"shattered" lives.
Your suggestion that someone who needs a corneal transplant to restore
vision has a "shattered" life is offensive, rude, abusive, and mean
spirited. Who the hell are you to tell these people their lives are
shattered?
Look at yourself. You had a catastrophic LASIK outcome. By your
description, you have gone through hell. You have decided not to have
a corneal transplant that several doctors have suggest may be
beneficial, but even without a transplant and by your own admission,
your vision now is 20/20 corrected, functional, but not perfect.
You operate your own business, you have a family life, you have
friends, you travel, you are able to communicate here and on your own
website. There is no doubt that all of the things you do are limited
or done with limited vision, but where do you get off calling your
life "shattered". I don't know what you consider a "shattered" life,
and everyone has his or her own opinion about what that would mean,
but people with real problems would not consider your life
"shattered". Not one bit.
Why don't you visit the NFB's convention this July and tell them how
your life is so terribly shattered because your 20/20 vision is
distorted and you won't have a transplant. How dare you insult these
fine people by characterizing your wimpy-ass problems as "shattering"
your life.
You just don't get it Sandy. You never have and you never will. The
world doesn't give a damn about Sandy Keller and her little problems,
because the world knows what real problems are. You are a mosquito in
the Taj Mahal. You go on and on about how you had to do this and have
to do that while there are people out the functioning perfectly well
without a complaint who don't have any vision at all. Then you have
the audacity to characterize them as having "shattered" lives. You
are the worst kind of zealot. You are so full of yourself and your
"problems" that you don't see or give a damn about people who really
do have difficulties and challenges.
The fact that you received over $250,000 dollars in a malpractice
settlement indicates the severity of your difficulties, but
"shattered" is not an adjective that anyone who has encountered real
vision difficulties would use to describe you, the great
anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry zealot whiner.
Not everyone who has a bad refractive surgery outcome - even
catastrophic - considers the event "life shattering". Not everyone
who experiences a corneal transplant (for whatever reason) will spend
hours a day on the Internet trying to scare anyone foolish enough to
listen. Just how "shattered" a life may be by a bad refractive
surgery outcome is going to depend an awful lot on the personality and
mental stability of the person involved. You obviously do not have
the personality or mental stability to deal with your own problems
without inflicting your misery on the rest of the world.
There are tens of thousands of corneal transplants performed every
year due to natural causes and eye trauma that have nothing to do with
refractive surgery. These people's lives are not "shattered". Their
lives are challenged or disrupted, but not "shattered". Their vision
is restored (probably not perfectly, but certainly functionally) with
a surgical procedure. That is not exactly a "shattered" life, and at
least they have the option of having some vision restoration with a
transplant. Not everyone gets this opportunity.
I have said time and again that refractive surgery is not just about
the physiology of the eye. It is about what the individual patient
expects from refractive surgery. If someone is unable to accept the 3
in 100 possibility of any kind of unresolved problem and the 1 in
2,000 possibility of a catastrophic outcome that might even result in
a transplant, then that person SHOULD NOT have refractive surgery. If
someone is unable to emotionally handle the consequence of the
potential adversity, then that person SHOULD NOT have refractive
surgery - or any other elective surgery, for that matter.
Next time you are going to spread your bovine fertilizer here or
anywhere, think about the white cane that YOU DO NOT USE and think
about the people who you insult by claiming some sort of righteous
indignation because you made a bad decision in your life.
Not only have you demonstrated time and again that you don't have the
emotional ability to handle your own problems without vomiting your
neurosis on the rest of the world, you have the unmitigated gall to
tell people who have real problems that you have a "shattered" life.
I, for one, have had enough of you. Take your sniveling whining to
SurgicalEyes where it is appreciated and leave the rest of the sane
world out of your self-perpetuated gloom.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Sandy Keller
I have accepted my share of responsibility in posts to this group and on my
website. I have no problem stating that I NEVER should have trusted my OD
of 14 years to tell me that lasik was safe; I was an excellent candidate;
that my surgeon was getting better results than the docs at UCLA, and every
other lie he told me.
What I have learned through this nightmare is this:
"Be careful what you agree to do when the risk is all yours."
Hopefully, he has learned to stop lying to patients; to reveal his financial
interest in the laser center and the surgeon he refers to; that pupil size
does have something to do with refractive surgery and how to differential
between DLK and SPK. Hopefully his staff never turns away another patient
complaining of decreasing vision after surgery.
I don't need you to judge me. I won my lawsuit.
"Steve " <stop...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3eb7c080...@news.mindspring.com...
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> sch...@btinternet.com (Schnide) wrote:
>
> >Sandy - accept one fact: everyone who goes for surgery knows that
> >there is possible risk. They accept the odds when they go for surgery
> >and believe that risk to be an acceptable one.
>
> I'm afraid Sandy will never accept that fact. In her mind, she
> considers herself a victim--and she will never admit that she has some
> responsibility (albeit small) for deciding to undergo surgery in the
> first place. I'm not saying that what happened to her is
> acceptable--from what I know of her situation, she was not a good
> candidate for the surgery in the first place. However, as others have
> pointed out, no one should have any elective surgery unless they're
> willing to accept the risks involved and the potential consequences.
> Even though Sandy's "slice" of the overall "pie" of responsibility for
> what happened to her is small, she indeed has a slice of that pie--and
> until she is willing to accept that fact, she will never be able to
> deal with her situation in a reasonable manner.
>
> [remainder snipped]
Scooby
news:nKNta.591$jy1.32...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "Sandy Keller" <sandyk...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:14a55c79955c78981c504aaef92d8049@TeraNews...
> >
>
> 5,000 person group. However, for the rest of us, that is a small number
of
> people. How many people die in car accidents? Are killed by drunk
drivers?
> Die from the flu each year? (36,000) How many kids have life altering
> injuries from high school football?
>
> All deaths and injuries are tragic. However, short of locking yourself in
> your house, there is little you can do to protect yourself from all the
> things in this world that can kill or maim you. All surgeries have
> complication rates. If you someone cannot accept that, then they should
not
> have elective surgery. Possibly, they shouldn't have non-elective
surgery,
> such as cardiac bypass, and simply let nature take its course. If you
don't
> consider a.5% serious complication rate to be low enough for a surgical
> procedure, then you should not be having any surgery. Plain and simple,
all
> surgeries have complications.
> --
> Billy
> www.alt-lasik-eyes.com
> (Home of the unofficial Alt.Lasik-Eyes FAQ)
>
>
These points have been made to Sandy all to many times, but she refuses to
get the point. She had bad results, so she has taken a personal vendetta
against the industry. I've challenged her to provide what she thinks are
acceptable complication rates, but she does not respond. I've also
challenged her to go after all the other things in life that are higher in
risk, again no response.
Look at auto racing as an example. Another NASCAR driver was just about
killed this weekend. The death/injury rate is actually pretty high in that
sport, relatively speaking. But, the drivers are continuously quoted saying
that they are aware of the risks and accept them. Would I be a professional
racer? Hell, no. But, that is their choice. Same as eye surgery - give
people the choice. It seems that the 5000 is the important number, not the
millions of satisfied and happy customers with a new quality of life.
For some reason, Sandy thinks fear mongering is a good thing. I'll bet that
Sandy does things in her life that have risks involved. But, I doubt anyone
is trying to take away her right to do them. She reminds me of those
bleeding heart liberals that think since they have a cause, the whole world
should be behind them.
Jim
Billy
>
> What I have learned through this nightmare is this:
>
> "Be careful what you agree to do when the risk is all yours."
I think you have learned more than that, albeit too late. Based on all of
these messages you post here, you obviously research Lasik very thoroughly
now. I would hope you now take that same thorough research approach to all
of your medical decisions. I believe that is the most important message
that people that come to this group should hear. They need to be more
involved in all of their medical decisions, and not assume because the
person talking to them has a white lab coat or has some letters after their
name, that the doctor always knows best and all of his or her statements
should be accepted without the patient not only asking questions, but
independently verifying what the doctor recommends.
Billy
news:ldRta.17685$Dd4.5...@news.alltel.net...
>
> Look at auto racing as an example. Another NASCAR driver was just about
> killed this weekend. The death/injury rate is actually pretty high in
that
> sport, relatively speaking. But, the drivers are continuously quoted
saying
> that they are aware of the risks and accept them. Would I be a
professional
> racer? Hell, no. But, that is their choice. Same as eye surgery - give
> people the choice. It seems that the 5000 is the important number, not
the
> millions of satisfied and happy customers with a new quality of life.
The space shuttle is another example. While everything should be done, as
it was following the Challenger disaster, to find out what went wrong and
try and prevent the same failure in the future, there are no guarantees.
So, now we have a catastrophic failure every 70 or so shuttle launches.
Will that mean that the astronauts will refuse to fly? I don't think so.
They know that space travel has risks. They know that they volunteer, or
elect (as in elective), to fly in space, and are willing to accept the
risks.
There are many of us that are willing to accept risks, since we do it every
time we step out of our door. I have a private pilots license. I know that
when I fly, there is a risk that I will crash, and possibly die. I know
that the risk of dieing in my plane is higher than driving in my car. Until
recently, I have accepted those risks and chosen to fly. However, I have
not flown in over a year, because while the risk factor has not changed, my
life has. My wife has cancer and I am not willing to let her go through
that alone. Therefore, for the time being, the risk of flying (my own
single engine plane) is too high for me. In the future, I may reevaluate
the risk factors and choose to fly again, I hope this is the case.
Each of us makes risk assessments every day. Sometimes we do it
consciously, some times, such as when we cross a street, we do it without
thinking about the risks, yet the risks are still there. Lasik is just
another risk that has to be evaluated by each of us, to see if the potential
rewards outweigh the potential risks.
Ragnar Suomi
anything, but even you claim it was a settlement. A settlement is not
a win.. it's paying you off to drop the lawsuit. You had a
mysterious settlement. You settled, and yet you continue to
publically flame the people you sued for years after, and as I recall
you are still trying to sue them some more.
>X-No-Archive:yes
Ragnar Suomi
20/20 vision now. Now can't you understand her suffering? Imagine
the daily hell she goes through with just 20/20 vision.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Sandy Keller's acceptance of responsibility: I never should have
allowed someone else to do this to me.
The doctor's acceptance of responsibility: Over $250,000 (yes folks,
more than a quarter of a million) in a malpractice settlement.
YNFernandez
MR. HAGELE:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT PERSONAL ATTACK. IT WAS
COMPLETELY UNCALLED, TOTALLY OUT OF LINE, DISGUSTING, CRASS, IN VERY
POOR TASTE, AND OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE WITH A SHRED OF HUMANITY.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, A CORNEAL TRANSPLANT IS NOT A SOLUTION FOR
EVERYONE. MAYBE MS. KELLER KNOWS SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT. THERE
ARE SOME GRAFT PATIENTS WHO HAVE COUNT-FINGERS VISION, WHO CANNOT BE
FITTED WITH ANY TYPE OF CONTACT LENS. YOUR ASSUMPTIVE POST ABOUT THE
EFFICACY OF CORNEAL TRANSPLANTS SOUNDS EERILY FAMILIAR. DID YOU GET
YOUR INFORMATION FROM A REFRACTIVE SURGEON, PERHAPS?
IN MY OPINION, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT MS. KELLER'S 20/20 BEST CORRECTED
ACUITY, AS IF THAT MEANT GOOD VISUAL QUALITY, SUGGEST YOU ARE
UNQUALIFIED TO HEAD AN ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES QUALITY IN
REFRACTIVE SURGERY.
CP
> Sandy Keller's acceptance of responsibility: I never should have
> allowed someone else to do this to me.
>
Sandy should have followed Glenn's example. He sells refractive
surgery but will not purchase it himself because he knows he will be
unhappy with a good result and does not wish to risk a bad result. In
the end the patient is always the one to blame.
> The doctor's acceptance of responsibility: Over $250,000 (yes folks,
> more than a quarter of a million) in a malpractice settlement.
$250,000 (if accurate) does not begin to make up for lost quality of
vision. It's a pittance.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> allowed someone else to do this to me.
>>
>
>Sandy should have followed Glenn's example. He sells refractive
>surgery
As I have said to you every time you have made this false statement,
and as I will continue to state every time you say this, I have never
sold refractive surgery. CRSQA does not provide refractive surgery.
I have never told anyone publicly or privately that they should have
refractive surgery. It is of little consequence to me if someone who
uses the information we provide decides to have refractive surgery or
not.
>but will not purchase it himself because he knows he will be
>unhappy with a good result and does not wish to risk a bad result.
This is yet another of your often repeated lies. I am not concerned
with a bad result because I know that the probability of a bad result
in my circumstances is so low that I have little reason to be
concerned.
I know that the probability of my achieving with refractive surgery
the current 20/10 to 20/15 vision I have with spectacles is very low.
I also know that my tolerance of the 20/20 to 20/30 vision I get with
contacts is very low. Even though the probability of my achieving
with refractive surgery "perfect" vision of 20/20 is high, I know that
I prefer the superior vision I currently enjoy with spectacles.
As I have said many times, refractive surgery is not for everybody and
depends greatly on what a person requires to be satisfied and the
probability of achieving that satisfaction. It is unreasonable for me
to expect to achieve 20/10 to 20/15 uncorrected vision with refractive
surgery. It could happen, it has happened, but it is unreasonable to
expect.
>In
>the end the patient is always the one to blame.
The patient is the one to blame for the lies, misinformation,
rhetoric, and hyperbole propagated by the patient. The patient is the
one to blame for insulting people with real vision problems by
describing her 20/20 aberrated and quarter of a million dollar
compensated vision as a "shattered" life. It is the uncaring
insensitive arrogance of Sandy Keller that is to be blamed, not the
fact that she had a bad LASIK outcome. She bitches about her
difficulties. She doesn't know real difficulties. She needs to show
up at a National Federation of the Blind conference to see how people
with real challenges don't have "shattered" lives.
>> The doctor's acceptance of responsibility: Over $250,000 (yes folks,
>> more than a quarter of a million) in a malpractice settlement.
>
>$250,000 (if accurate) does not begin to make up for lost quality of
>vision. It's a pittance.
Yes, but you didn't see Sandy refusing it to go to court and have a
jury of her peers decide what it was worth. Of course, she blames
that on some sort of conspiracy with her lawyers against her.
Get a clue CP. The world does not care a flying fig about the petty
problems of Sandy Keller because the world has seen real problems.
She can take her whining gloom and doom to SurgicalEyes where they
will welcome it with open arms.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>MR. HAGELE:
>
>THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT PERSONAL ATTACK. IT WAS
>COMPLETELY UNCALLED, TOTALLY OUT OF LINE, DISGUSTING, CRASS, IN VERY
>POOR TASTE, AND OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE WITH A SHRED OF HUMANITY.
The shred of humanity I have long held for Sandy Keller is gone.
There is total justification for may statements. There is a long
history of Sandy Keller's misinformation, lies, and rhetoric here and
elsewhere. There is her entire website of anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry rhetoric that she recently had to change
because of a totally unsubstantiated false statement of patients
losing entire eyes to LASIK. There are years worth of personal
attacks on me and the organization I founded.
Through all of this BS, I have supported Keller's presence here. I
have supported her presence as an example of what can go wrong with
refractive surgery, but to be clear, the final and absolute
justification for my comments about Sandy Keller is her characterizing
those who have had bad refractive surgery outcomes as having
"shattered lives". That is an insult to people with real vision
challenges who do not even have the option of a corneal transplant or
other treatment to manage and/or improve their vision. An insult to
people who in their wildest dreams could never see as well as Keller
does on her worst day.
Keller is so arrogant and wrapped in self pity that she has apparently
lost all ability to realize where "shattered" lives really are. Her
comments are offensive, rude, abusive, and mean spirited to those with
whom I have worked for years who have real vision limitations, not
like Keller's whiny 20/20 aberrated problems. Her comments and acts
are an insult to those who live a life of real challenges.
>FOR YOUR INFORMATION, A CORNEAL TRANSPLANT IS NOT A SOLUTION FOR
>EVERYONE. MAYBE MS. KELLER KNOWS SOMETHING THAT YOU DO NOT. THERE
>ARE SOME GRAFT PATIENTS WHO HAVE COUNT-FINGERS VISION, WHO CANNOT BE
>FITTED WITH ANY TYPE OF CONTACT LENS. YOUR ASSUMPTIVE POST ABOUT THE
>EFFICACY OF CORNEAL TRANSPLANTS SOUNDS EERILY FAMILIAR. DID YOU GET
>YOUR INFORMATION FROM A REFRACTIVE SURGEON, PERHAPS?
Read Sandy Keller's own website where she states several knowledgeable
surgeons - including one who is both listed on the SurgicalEyes
website and a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon - have stated that a
transplant would be beneficial. Read my words about the limitations
of a corneal transplant. There is no assumption involved.
What sounds eerily familiar is the usual cry of the SurgicalEyes
faithful. That cry is that because someone had a bad outcome they can
say anything they want and do anything they want to any body and we
are all suppose to just sit by and let them because they had a bad
outcome. Well boo-hoo Sandy. It is a pity Sandy had a bad outcome
but that does NOT give her the right to lie, misinform, spill her
worthless rhetoric all over the Internet, and characterize people as
having "shattered" lives when she apparently doesn't have a toad's
notion of what a shattered life might really be.
>IN MY OPINION, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT MS. KELLER'S 20/20 BEST CORRECTED
>ACUITY, AS IF THAT MEANT GOOD VISUAL QUALITY, SUGGEST YOU ARE
>UNQUALIFIED TO HEAD AN ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES QUALITY IN
>REFRACTIVE SURGERY.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but you may want to
actually read my post. I state clearly that Sandy Keller's Snellen
20/20 vision is aberrated - not perfect. I did NOT say that she had
good visual quality. Perhaps if you read clearly what I said instead
of jumping to the defense of the indefensible you wouldn't be telling
me what I'm qualified to do.
This is the real world where lies are pointed out and rhetoric is
challenged. Keep up the lies, misinformation, rhetoric, and then
insult people who have real limitations, and the real world is going
to call you what you are.
If you do not like the real world, I suggest you visit SurgicalEyes
where no one who makes statements like Keller has made or does antics
like Keller has done is ever challenged. In fact, they are welcomed.
Sandy Keller's acts and comments are unjustifiable by any reasonable
person. They deserve the response with which they have been met.
Billy
news:7519858e.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
news:<3psfbvo985a246ic0...@4ax.com>...
> > Sandy Keller's acceptance of responsibility: I never should have
> > allowed someone else to do this to me.
> >
>
> Sandy should have followed Glenn's example. He sells refractive
> surgery but will not purchase it himself because he knows he will be
> unhappy with a good result and does not wish to risk a bad result. In
> the end the patient is always the one to blame.
CP, I have asked you a few times, but must have missed the answer of which I
am still very interested to read. You have said that CRSQA's
standards/certification are not acceptable and are far to low. I would be
very interested in seeing what you would offer as an alternative, acceptable
certification for refractive surgeons. And, what particularly about the
CRSQA you do not like, and what you think it should be changed to.
While I am curious about this, it is possible that Glenn might use this
feedback in future revisions of the certification.
Billy
>
> There are many of us that are willing to accept risks, since we do it
every
> time we step out of our door. I have a private pilots license. I know
that
> when I fly, there is a risk that I will crash, and possibly die. I know
> that the risk of dieing in my plane is higher than driving in my car.
Until
> recently, I have accepted those risks and chosen to fly. However, I have
> not flown in over a year, because while the risk factor has not changed,
my
> life has. My wife has cancer and I am not willing to let her go through
> that alone. Therefore, for the time being, the risk of flying (my own
> single engine plane) is too high for me. In the future, I may reevaluate
> the risk factors and choose to fly again, I hope this is the case.
I love replying to myself. Since nobody else does, I figure I might as
well. Actually, I thought I should expand slightly on the risk/reward
process that I went through with Lasik. I mentioned above that currently I
am not willing to take the risk of piloting my own plane, because I do not
want to take the chance of my wife going through her trials on her own. I
should go into a little more detail on my decision to have Lasik.
When I was flying, I was not willing to have Lasik, because flying was too
important to me. I knew there was a small chance that I could have
complications that would make it impossible for me to pass my flight
physical. So, I kept investigating Lasik, but didn't pull the trigger, so
to speak. Once the time came that I was no longer flying, for reasons I
have stated, then I know longer had the "one" risk I was not willing to
accept preventing me from having Lasik.
I have said it numerous times, each person has to take responsibility for
weighing how Lasik can benefit them, and how it could disrupt their life if
they have a serious complication.
YNFernandez
>
> Next time you are going to spread your bovine fertilizer here or
> anywhere, think about the white cane that YOU DO NOT USE and think
> about the people who you insult by claiming some sort of righteous
> indignation because you made a bad decision in your life.
MR. HAGELE:
YOU HAVE MADE A FREUDIAN SLIP.
YOU STATED THAT MS. KELLER MADE A BAD DECISION BY HAVING LASIK.
MS. KELLER AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS BAD DECISION BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RISKS.
NO DEBATE HERE, HAVING LASIK IS A BAD DECISION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. HAGELE. IF SOMEONE IS DECLARED A GOOD
CANDIDATE FOR LASIK, YET HAS A TERRIBLE RESULT, DO YOU ALWAYS BLAME
THE PATIENT FOR MAKING A BAD DECISION, OR DOES THAT BLAME APPLY ONLY
TO MS. KELLER OR OTHER PATIENTS WHO STEP FORWARD TO EXPOSE LASIK FOR
THE RISKY PROCEDURE THAT IT IS?
I HOPE MS. KELLER CONTINUES TO POST ARTICLES HERE THAT EXPOSE THE
RISKS OF LASIK FOR FUTURE PATIENTS TO READ AND CONSIDER. NO ONE HAS
BEEN HARMED BY NOT HAVING LASIK, INCLUDING YOURSELF. THAT WAS A VERY
GOOD DECISION.
Billy
news:34715cd3.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
>
Is there a reason you are yelling? You may or may not be aware, but posting
in all capital letters is considered the equivalent of yelling during a
conversation, so is generally frowned upon. Some people that have not been
online long, are not familiar with this. In addition, it is much harder to
read a post in all caps, since all the letters are the same height.
> MS. KELLER AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS BAD DECISION BECAUSE
> THEY ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RISKS.
This may very well be true, but just as with every other medical procedure
being performed (elective and not) the patient has to take a certain degree
of responsibility for their own treament decissions. It is fine to say,
"well the doctor said it would be ok" and that is fine and dandy when it
comes to casting blame, but that will not undue a bad decission. Far too
many people take no responsibility to do their own due diligence about a
medicine prescribed to them, or a medical procedure recomended, they simply
blindly follow anyone whereing a lab coat or with doctor as a prefix. While
this fact does not absolve a doctor of not fully informing a patient, it
also doesn't change the fact that the patient did nothing to actively
co-manage their own medical treatement.
Not fully informing patients is not restricted to Lasik surgeons. This is
VERY common in the medical community at large. How many doctors prescribing
Propecia for baldness tell you that it might affect their libido. Or, when
prescribing certain hormones for women, tell them they may grow hair on
their chest. Or, before performing heart surgery, tell the patient that one
rare complication is that a lymph channel could be nicked with the result
that you lungs will fill up with lymph fluid? Or, before having an
angiogram, there is a one in several thousand chance that you will have an
allergic reaction to the colored dye, and then may die on the table? Or,
when having bariatric surgery, that one in 200 patients die within weeks of
having the surgery?
Whether it is through negligence, or because they feel these complications
are rare and the patient should not worry, or for whatever other reason, it
is VERY common for doctors to no fully inform their patients. This is why
an informed patient is one that has decided to co-manage their own medical
treatment and has done the research. Now, almost everything you need to
know is available on the Internet. Not too long ago, you had to go to
libraries to do a medline search and obtain the articles, but even then
there was a way to get the information.
> NO DEBATE HERE, HAVING LASIK IS A BAD DECISION.
It is not a bad decission. Some people have bad outcomes. Those are two
very seperate concepts. For most of use, having Lasik is a GOOD decission.
IHATESPAM
Excellent point, Billy, and I agree with you 100%. I don't know if
there are any ways of reducing surgical risks to zero percent, so each
patient needs to be very aware of the risks going into the surgery
(unlike me, who did a lousy job of educating herself prior to surgery
but was lucky anyway).
Love, Leora
P.S. I am not against you, or Glenn, or anything - mostly I am really
annoyed by Ragnar so I want to be for anything he is against. Plus, I
am grateful that SE exists because they helped me when I was anxious
and it seemed like everyone else was just laughing at my fears. >
serebel
>
>
> MR. HAGELE:
>
> YOU HAVE MADE A FREUDIAN SLIP.
>
> YOU STATED THAT MS. KELLER MADE A BAD DECISION BY HAVING LASIK.
>
> MS. KELLER AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS BAD DECISION BECAUSE
> THEY ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RISKS.
>
> NO DEBATE HERE, HAVING LASIK IS A BAD DECISION.
>
> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. HAGELE. IF SOMEONE IS DECLARED A GOOD
> CANDIDATE FOR LASIK, YET HAS A TERRIBLE RESULT, DO YOU ALWAYS BLAME
> THE PATIENT FOR MAKING A BAD DECISION, OR DOES THAT BLAME APPLY ONLY
> TO MS. KELLER OR OTHER PATIENTS WHO STEP FORWARD TO EXPOSE LASIK FOR
> THE RISKY PROCEDURE THAT IT IS?
>
> I HOPE MS. KELLER CONTINUES TO POST ARTICLES HERE THAT EXPOSE THE
> RISKS OF LASIK FOR FUTURE PATIENTS TO READ AND CONSIDER. NO ONE HAS
> BEEN HARMED BY NOT HAVING LASIK, INCLUDING YOURSELF. THAT WAS A VERY
> GOOD DECISION.
What's your point? If I had to have a heart operation and made the
choice to go ahead,then dropped dead on the table, would that have
been a bad decision? I'll admit that this scenerio is a bit of a
reach, but still in the ballpark.
Sandy didn't make a BAD decision to have lasik, the doctor screwed up
big time.
The procedure itself isn't at fault in my opinion, but it is performed
on humans by humans,therefore subject to human error.
Billy
news:110e7146.03050...@posting.google.com...
> "Billy" <tned...@ipa.net> wrote in message
news:<DK%ta.790$7e6.47...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> Excellent point, Billy, and I agree with you 100%. I don't know if
> there are any ways of reducing surgical risks to zero percent, so each
> patient needs to be very aware of the risks going into the surgery
> (unlike me, who did a lousy job of educating herself prior to surgery
> but was lucky anyway).
Unfortunately, you are not alone. Most patients blindly follow their
doctors, eye care and medical, without ever doing their own research. This
is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that not
every doctor has the same level of skill or knowledge. Just as in every
other profession, quality varies. Beyond that, it is not easy for a doctor
to stay up to date on all of the facts and details in every study. There is
a temendous amount of new information coming out every day, and most doctors
work very long hours just treating their patients.
>...mostly I am really
> annoyed by Ragnar so I want to be for anything he is against. Plus, I
> am grateful that SE exists because they helped me when I was anxious
> and it seemed like everyone else was just laughing at my fears. >
I am disappointed to hear this. I think basing your decision to publicly
declare who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, simply because you
dislike Ragnar and are going to support anything he is against, is not a
logical way to approach the subject.
Scooby
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
>
>
>
Would you please define what makes this a bad decision? A recent post by
Sandy states the serious complication rate at .5%. Another post by her
states that malpractice rates for Lasik are low due to low risk. While you
are welcome to think this is a bad decision for you, it is not your place to
say it is a bad decision for everyone. I've asked Sandy before and she has
not answered this question - perhaps you will try. What, to you, is an
acceptable percentage for complication rates? What percentage would you
accept before saying Lasik could be a good solution?
Let me ask you... Do you skydive, ski, scuba dive, play football, go to
bars, do anything that involves risks? Do you drive? Isn't that dangerous
and have risks? What kind of car do you drive? Did you choose it based on
safety or did you opt for that cool sports car or something compact that
gets good mileage? No matter what one you took, there are people that would
argue with you that you made the wrong decision for one reason or another.
It is called personal choice/preference. God (and America) gives you free
will to make choices for yourself. But, it is not your right to take that
decision for other people.
.
> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. HAGELE. IF SOMEONE IS DECLARED A GOOD
> CANDIDATE FOR LASIK, YET HAS A TERRIBLE RESULT, DO YOU ALWAYS BLAME
> THE PATIENT FOR MAKING A BAD DECISION, OR DOES THAT BLAME APPLY ONLY
> TO MS. KELLER OR OTHER PATIENTS WHO STEP FORWARD TO EXPOSE LASIK FOR
> THE RISKY PROCEDURE THAT IT IS?
Personally, I don't blame the person for the bad outcome. But, honestly,
I've come to the conclusion that Sandy did not do due diligence before hand.
She admitted that the wouldn't look on the net, because she wasn't
comfortable that she could get good information on there. Funny, that is
where she' spending so much time these days. She has also stated that if she
knew of the dangers, she would never have had the procedure done. I do
blame any person for going into any procedure, not matter how small, without
knowing and accepting that there are risks involved.
I have nothing against Sandy trying to educate the public to the dangers.
The problem is that she is fear mongering. She is not the least bit
objective, as you are showing youself to not be either.
Jim
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> Next time you are going to spread your bovine fertilizer here or
>> anywhere, think about the white cane that YOU DO NOT USE and think
>> about the people who you insult by claiming some sort of righteous
>> indignation because you made a bad decision in your life.
>
>
>YOU STATED THAT MS. KELLER MADE A BAD DECISION BY HAVING LASIK.
No Freudian slip at all. Keller did make a bad decision to have
LASIK. She obviously cannot handle the potential adversity that
befalls the unfortunate few. She, and anyone like her, should never
have elective surgery of any kind.
Refractive surgery is not for everybody. That does not mean just the
physiology of the eye. That includes the psychology of the patient.
Someone who is going to become irrational and obsessive if things go
wrong should never have elective surgery.
Certainly it was reasonable for Keller to expect better than she got,
but she is obviously of a personality type that cannot handle
adversity. Her abusive and insensitive comments about a "shattered"
life is case in point.
Keller doesn't have a clue. She does not get it. She never will. The
world does not care about Sandy Keller's wimpy-ass 20/20 aberrated
vision because the world knows what real shattered lives are about.
She insults people with real challenges with her sanctimonious self
pity.
>MS. KELLER AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS BAD DECISION BECAUSE
>THEY ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RISKS.
Then they have not visited CRSQA or spent much time doing research.
People have the right to make uninformed decision too, if that is what
they want to do. I think that is rather foolish, but it is an
individual's choice..
>NO DEBATE HERE, HAVING LASIK IS A BAD DECISION.
For some, it is indeed a bad decision. Look at my Patient Q&A posts
here and you will see that I acknowledge this fact time and again. It
can be a bad decision because you are not a good candidate physically.
It can be a bad decision because you are expecting an outcome that is
not reasonable to expect. It can be a bad decision because you cannot
handle what might go wrong.
Even if the possibility of something bad happening is a gazillion to
one, you must accept that the possibility is real.
>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. HAGELE. IF SOMEONE IS DECLARED A GOOD
>CANDIDATE FOR LASIK, YET HAS A TERRIBLE RESULT, DO YOU ALWAYS BLAME
>THE PATIENT FOR MAKING A BAD DECISION, OR DOES THAT BLAME APPLY ONLY
>TO MS. KELLER OR OTHER PATIENTS WHO STEP FORWARD TO EXPOSE LASIK FOR
>THE RISKY PROCEDURE THAT IT IS?
Ah yes. The standard issue SurgicalEyes line. If you criticize
someone who had a bad refractive surgery for her abuse, lies,
misinformation, hypocrisy, and insensitivity to others, you are
"blaming the patient" because she had a bad result. Oh, yes, the
derivative of this is that you are "attacking" someone because they
had a bad result. That is bovine fertilizer and you know it. I am
blaming the Sandy Keller for her abuse, lies, misinformation,
hypocrisy, and insensitivity to others.
Sandy Keller is not stepping forward to expose LASIK risks. Sandy
Keller is lying, manipulating, misinforming, and abusing people with
real problems in a vindictive campaign to forward her own self-pitying
agenda.
>I HOPE MS. KELLER CONTINUES TO POST ARTICLES HERE THAT EXPOSE THE
>RISKS OF LASIK FOR FUTURE PATIENTS TO READ AND CONSIDER. NO ONE HAS
>BEEN HARMED BY NOT HAVING LASIK,
I guess one would have to consider what is meant by "harmed". If
someone is lied in order to manipulate you away from something
beneficial, then I'd say that is harm. If an entire group of people
are insulted because Sandy Keller describes her 20/20 aberrated vision
as "shattering" her life, I'd say that is harm.
>INCLUDING YOURSELF. THAT WAS A VERY
>GOOD DECISION.
As I have said many, many times, refractive surgery is not for
everyone. The decision requires an acceptance of the probability of
one achieving what one requires to consider the outcome a success. I
know that the probability of my achieving with refractive surgery the
20/10 to 20/15 vision I enjoy with spectacles is not good. I also
know that I am not satisfied with "perfect" 20/20 or the 20/30 vision
I get with contacts. I am not a good candidate for refractive
surgery. Anyone else in my position should also consider themselves a
poor candidate, but everyone must come to his or her own decision.
If you want to come back again and again trying to defend the
indefensible, that is fine with me. There are plenty of ways to show
Sandy Keller for what she is. Each time you try to defend her acts,
you bury her, and yourself, deeper.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Sandy didn't make a BAD decision to have lasik, the doctor screwed up
>big time.
>The procedure itself isn't at fault in my opinion, but it is performed
>on humans by humans,therefore subject to human error.
If Sandy knew that she had an imbalanced obsessive personality that
would blow a fuse if something did go wrong, then refractive surgery,
and any elective surgery, is a bad idea for her. Otherwise, I agree.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Ragnar Suomi
- and she currently has 20/20 vision. I suspect that after surgery -
when she took a tropical vacation - she either opened her eyes in sea
water or got hair dye or perm solution in her eyes to look good on her
vacation.
On 07 May 2003 17:27:39 GMT, Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive
CP
>
> CP, I have asked you a few times, but must have missed the answer of which I
> am still very interested to read. You have said that CRSQA's
> standards/certification are not acceptable and are far to low. I would be
> very interested in seeing what you would offer as an alternative, acceptable
> certification for refractive surgeons. And, what particularly about the
> CRSQA you do not like, and what you think it should be changed to.
>
> While I am curious about this, it is possible that Glenn might use this
> feedback in future revisions of the certification.
Billy,
I have already answered this several times in this newsgroup. Here is
another version and I am happy to post it again.
First, I will state again that I do not endorse refractive surgery and
have spent time educating friends and families who were interested in
lasik about the real risk they are taking with their lives. A photo of
multiple images in each eye printed out from the Surgical Eyes website
is a big help in explaining irregular astigmatism (which most lasik
providers hide in the legalese of their consent documents and which
Glenn refuses to add to his site).
Second, what I do not like about Glenn's site is that he claims that
CRSQA is "an independent, nonprofit, patient/consumer health
organization". It is not. Independent, nonprofit, patient/consumer
health organizations do not accept profits from referrals. CRSQA is
not the "Consumer Reports" of refractive surgery. If Consumer Reports
were to follow Glenn's business model they would take cash payments
from each of the companies manufacturing the products they review.
Glenn is free to market lasik. It is wrong of him to pretend that his
marketing of lasik is somehow patient advocacy. It is also wrong of
him to continue his attacks on Surgical Eyes and the people who
participate there. Glenn sees a potential profit in his second
referral program (or whatever he calls it) and would like to get the
competition out of the way so that he can own the show.
Third, Glenn's "Outcomes Requirements For Refractive Surgeon
Certification" are set extremely low and only equate to the norm of
all practicing refractive surgeons. Almost any refractive surgeon
qualifies to purchase certification and the marketing that goes along
with it.
If you are looking for specifics, I offer the following suggestions
(they are far from complete).
IS NOW:
-Not less than 90% of applicant's refractive surgery patients must
achieve Snellen 20/40 Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA) or better in
each surgical eye.
SHOULD BE:
-Not less than 98% of applicant's refractive surgery patients must
achieve Snellen 20/40 Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA) or better in
each surgical eye, a level of higher order aberrations that is the
same or lower than that measured by a wavefront device preoperatively
and within +- 0.5 diopter of stated refractive target.
IS NOW:
-Not less than 50% of applicant's refractive surgery patients must
achieve Snellen 20/20 UCVA or better in each surgical eye.
SHOULD BE:
-Not less than 99% of applicant's refractive surgery patients must
achieve Snellen 20/20 UCVA or better in each surgical eye, a level of
higher order aberrations that is the same or lower than that measured
by a wavefront device preoperatively and within +- 0.25 diopter of
stated refractive target.
IS NOW:
-Not more than 3% (1 in 33) of applicant's monitored refractive
surgery patients may report debilitating refractive surgery
complications such as glare, haze, halo, etc.
SHOULD BE:
-Not more than 0.02% (1 in 5,000) of applicant's monitored refractive
surgery patients may report debilitating refractive surgery
complications such as glare, haze, halo, etc.
IS NOW:
-Not more than 0.5% (1 in 200) of applicant's monitored refractive
surgery patients may experience vision-threatening postoperative
complications such as infection, flap complications, Diffuse Lamellar
Keratitis, epithelium ingrowth, etc.
SHOULD BE:
-Not more than 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of applicant's monitored refractive
surgery patients may experience vision-threatening postoperative
complications such as infection, flap complications, Diffuse Lamellar
Keratitis, epithelium ingrowth, etc.
CP
Billy
So, what you are saying is that you want the impossible? I don't think
there is a surgeon performing Lasik anywhere on Earth that can achieve those
numbers. In fact, if I read your above requirements above, you expect the
surgeon to have more patients (99% ) to have 20/20 UCVA then you do patients
with 20/40 UCVA (98%). How is this even statistically possible?
At least you answered my question. Until Lasik is basically a 100% success
procedure, you don't believe it should be done. So you don't really have a
problem with CRSQA's requirements, you just have a problem with Lasik. If
CRSQA had your requirement's, then not 1 single surgeon currently performing
Lasik could be certified under your criteria.
Am I missing something?
Billy
> "YNFernandez" <ynfer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34715cd3.03050...@posting.google.com...
> > Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
> <glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > NO DEBATE HERE, HAVING LASIK IS A BAD DECISION.
> >
>
> Would you please define what makes this a bad decision? A recent post by
> Sandy states the serious complication rate at .5%. Another post by her
> states that malpractice rates for Lasik are low due to low risk. While
you
> are welcome to think this is a bad decision for you, it is not your place
to
> say it is a bad decision for everyone. I've asked Sandy before and she
has
> not answered this question - perhaps you will try. What, to you, is an
> acceptable percentage for complication rates? What percentage would you
> accept before saying Lasik could be a good solution?
This is what CP says would be acceptable complication rates:
"-Not more than 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of applicant's monitored refractive
surgery patients may experience vision-threatening postoperative
complications such as infection, flap complications, Diffuse Lamellar
Keratitis, epithelium ingrowth, etc."
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> am still very interested to read. You have said that CRSQA's
>> standards/certification are not acceptable and are far to low. I would be
>> very interested in seeing what you would offer as an alternative, acceptable
>> certification for refractive surgeons. And, what particularly about the
>> CRSQA you do not like, and what you think it should be changed to.
>>
>> While I am curious about this, it is possible that Glenn might use this
>> feedback in future revisions of the certification.
>
>Billy,
>
>I have already answered this several times in this newsgroup. Here is
>another version and I am happy to post it again.
>
>First, I will state again that I do not endorse refractive surgery and
>have spent time educating friends and families who were interested in
>lasik about the real risk they are taking with their lives.
Okay, you have a bias against refractive surgery. No problem. It
would be reasonable to assume that you have a bias against any entity
that might provide information that could be considered by some as
showing refractive surgery in a positive light. Not surprising. Your
opinion is as valid as any other person's opinion, but where we
disagree, CP, is when you lie and are hypocritical in an attempt to
discredit an entity that might provide information that could be
considered by some as showing refractive surgery in a positive light.
From your previous statements, the fact that the information provided
is substantiated and objective does not seem to interest you in the
least. You have made your decision about refractive surgery and you
don't like anything that may not agree with your negative opinion
about refractive surgery - even if it is the truth.
Equally, you have made your decision about CRSQA and you don't like
anything that may not agree with your opinion about CRSQA - even if it
is the truth.
> A photo of
>multiple images in each eye printed out from the Surgical Eyes website
>is a big help in explaining irregular astigmatism (which most lasik
>providers hide in the legalese of their consent documents and which
>Glenn refuses to add to his site).
We also do not have photos of perfect vision, a surgical procedure, or
much else. The only photos on our website are the icons and portraits
of affiliated individuals.
I'll tell you what, CP, you set up a website with factually
representative photos of vision through complications and I'll provide
a link to it from our website. We already have a link to SurgicalEyes
(where the photos you describe are located), Sandy Keller's
lasikdisaster.com website, Brent Hanson's website, the EyeKnowWhy
website, and just about every other anti-LASIK website. I'll be happy
to add a link to your anti-LASIK website.
>Second, what I do not like about Glenn's site is that he claims that
>CRSQA is "an independent, nonprofit, patient/consumer health
>organization". It is not. Independent, nonprofit, patient/consumer
>health organizations do not accept profits from referrals.
I have stated this to CP many times and it is clearly stated on our
website. CRSQA receives funding from certifying refractive surgeons.
We do not receive funding from patient referrals. We do not receive
any kind of quid pro quo (charge per click, page view, patient seen,
surgery performed, etc.). We never have and never will. CP stating
that CRSQA profits from referrals is a lie, pure and simple. CP is
not confused on this issue. CP is not inaccurately informed. This
has been shown and stated over and over, like many other unfounded
accusations he has made.
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/crass_commercialism.htm
The fact is; if we received funding from patient referrals we would be
in violation of capitation and steering laws in all 50 states, the IRS
would not have granted our nonprofit status, and the state of
California would not have allowed us to incorporate as a nonprofit.
CP is lying. Why he lies about this is anybody's guess, but his bias
is obvious.
>CRSQA is
>not the "Consumer Reports" of refractive surgery. If Consumer Reports
>were to follow Glenn's business model they would take cash payments
>from each of the companies manufacturing the products they review.
Consumer Reports magazine is published by the nonprofit Consumers
Union organization.
CRSQA has never claimed to be the Consumers Union. We have never
claimed to be anything but what we are: an independent, nonprofit,
patient/consumer health organization that provides objective and
factually substantiated information about refractive surgery issues,
plus evaluates and certifies refractive surgeons based on patient
outcomes.
How we are funded is clearly stated on our website and I have stated
it here and elsewhere time and again.
I further submit that Ron Link of SurgicalEyes has received donations
from doctors who he has listed on his website. Malpractice attorneys
too, but that is another thread. Link has also asked the world's
second largest ophthalmic organization for over $380,000 to fund his
organization. Of course, SurgicalEyes does not provide any evaluation
of any doctors.
I suggest that how CRSQA is funded is not the issue. How we are
funded is the proverbial red herring. CP does not condemn
SurgicalEyes for seeking or receiving of funding from doctors - even
refractive surgeons. The real issue for CP is that CRSQA does not
condemn refractive surgery.
>Glenn is free to market lasik. It is wrong of him to pretend that his
>marketing of lasik is somehow patient advocacy.
I do not market LASIK or any other refractive surgery procedure. I do
not sell refractive surgery. CRSQA does not provide refractive
surgery. I have never told anyone privately or publicly to have
refractive surgery. It is of little consequence to me if someone who
visits our website does or does not have refractive surgery, does or
does not use a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon, does or does not
use our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor.
What we do "market" is objective and factually substantiated
information about refractive surgery issues and information how to
select a better surgeon. Of course, we do not charge for this
information.
>It is also wrong of
>him to continue his attacks on Surgical Eyes and the people who
>participate there.
I do not attack SurgicalEyes or the people who participate there.
What I will do and have done is reveal and challenge the lies,
rhetoric, misinformation, and hypocrisy that I have seen from Ron
Link, SurgicalEyes, and some of the SurgicalEyes faithful. Of course,
I've done this with the pro-LASIK zealots too, but there is really
only one of them around here.
What CP always fails to acknowledge is that the lie, rhetoric,
misinformation, and hypocrisy that I expose is substantiated fact. He
condemns me because I point it out, rather than condemning the
transgressor - IF the transgressor is anti-LASIK.
> Glenn sees a potential profit in his second
>referral program (or whatever he calls it) and would like to get the
>competition out of the way so that he can own the show.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen CP say. The
CRSQA Second Response Team does not generate any funding whatsoever.
In fact, it depletes our funding provide the specialized and
individualized referral service for patients both long or short-term
refractive surgery induced problems.
As for competing with SurgicalEyes, I'm glad to provide patients in
need with another resource. I think people in need of care should
have all the resources they can get. Ron Link and SurgicalEyes may
see this as competition, but the patients who need help undoubtedly
don't care. They just have another resource available.
>Third, Glenn's "Outcomes Requirements For Refractive Surgeon
>Certification" are set extremely low and only equate to the norm of
>all practicing refractive surgeons.
Our philosophy behind using the national norms as our requirements has
been stated many times in this newsgroup and elsewhere. We educate
the public what they can reasonably expect from refractive surgery and
where they can reasonably expect to receive it. We do not apologize
one iota for our standards and why we elected to utilize the national
norms. If a patient wants a doctor that meets or exceeds the national
norms, then the patient would want to consider a CRSQA Certified
Refractive Surgeon.
>Almost any refractive surgeon
>qualifies to purchase certification and the marketing that goes along
>with it.
We estimate about one-third of refractive surgeons would not be able
to meet our certification standards.
A CRSQA certification can not be purchased, it must be earned.
How a refractive surgeon uses the fact that s/he is certified in his
or her marketing is the decision of the certified surgeon, however we
do encourage the use of this fact in a CRSQA Certified Refractive
Surgeon's marketing. It is important for a patient to know if his or
her potential doctor has been willing to stand to outside scrutiny.
Your list of "Should Be" is wonderful and I truly wish that the
national norm was as you provide, but it is not. I wish that there
were doctors who could day in and day out provide these kinds of
outcomes, but I have not seen any evidence that what you suggest is
possible. To suggest that such outcomes are reasonable expectations,
even by inference, is a disservice to the public. As I said, we do
not apologize for our standards and our policy to utilize the national
norms as our outcomes guidelines.
Since you love to compare SurgicalEyes with CRSQA, let's add another
comparison. Ron Link stated that "early" doctors were asked four
questions before it was determined if they could be listed as one of
the "world's best doctors" on his website. He has refused to say what
those four questions might be. He has also refused to say if doctors
are currently asked anything at all. Link has refused to state what,
if any, qualifications must be met for a doctor to be listed at his
website for patient referral.
The standards which Ron Link requires a refractive surgeon to be
listed on his website are so non-existent, that he didn't even know if
his own proclaimed co-medical director met them for more than four
months. Heck, he didn't even know his proclaimed co-medical director
was NOT his co-medical director for those four months.
Let's tally this up. Ron Link receives and seeks funding from
refractive surgeons to fund SurgicalEyes. CRSQA receives funding from
refractive surgeons for certification services, but CP condemns this.
Ron Link apparently has no requirements or qualifications for a doctor
to be listed as one of the "world's best doctors" for patient referral
on the SurgicalEyes website. CRSQA has clearly defined standards and
an extensive evaluation process, but CP condemns them. Ron Link only
allows negative information about refractive surgery on the
SurgicalEyes website, anything positive is swiftly removed. CRSQA
provides factually substantiated objective information that could be
seen as both positive or negative about refractive surgery on its
website and links to every major anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry website (including SurgicalEyes), but CP
condemns us because he says CRSQA needs more photographs depicting
complications.
Does anyone else see they hypocrisy here?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>So, what you are saying is that you want the impossible? I don't think
>there is a surgeon performing Lasik anywhere on Earth that can achieve those
>numbers. In fact, if I read your above requirements above, you expect the
>surgeon to have more patients (99% ) to have 20/20 UCVA then you do patients
>with 20/40 UCVA (98%). How is this even statistically possible?
>
>At least you answered my question. Until Lasik is basically a 100% success
>procedure, you don't believe it should be done. So you don't really have a
>problem with CRSQA's requirements, you just have a problem with Lasik. If
>CRSQA had your requirement's, then not 1 single surgeon currently performing
>Lasik could be certified under your criteria.
>
>Am I missing something?
You've got it Billy. You hit the old nail on the head.
This is like when the SurgicalEyes' trustee said that SE is not
against refractive surgery for an appropriate candidate. Then went on
to say that according to SE there are no appropriate candidates.
That has been updated with Ron Link's statement that refractive
surgery is okay as long as the patient is fully informed. Of course
he refuses to state if he believes that a patient actually is able to
be fully informed or give any kind of indication what might be needed
to be fully informed.
Lying the truth.
It is very simple. CP, like many others here, are anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry. Rather than just saying that this is their
opinion, they try to justify their opinion as somehow being
reasonable. They try to make others adopt their opinion.
Unfortunately, the can't convince many others to adopt their opinion
without lies, misinformation, hypocrisy, and rhetoric. So they make
inflammatory statements and put up these red herrings to make people
go around in circles and miss the fact that this whole thing is
because some people don't like LASIK for anybody, not that LASIK is
bad or everybody.
When lies, misinformation, hypocrisy, and rhetoric fail, then they
attack a person or organization that does not share their anti-LASIK
opinion. It's not that there is anything wrong with that person or
organization. In fact, everything about that organization may be
ideal. No, it is all very, very simple. These folks don't like LASIK
and they will do whatever it takes to manipulate people into doing
what they have decided others should do.
One big exception to this attack rule is if anyone might lend them
credibility or give them money. You see how the refractive surgeons
listed at SurgicalEyes are almost absolved of any criticism. You see
that Ron Link will endorse an ASCRS patient guideline, even though it
has a 1% complication rate statement, if ASCRS might be giving
SurgicalEyes $380,000.
What is really unfortunate is that in the process of trying to force
their opinion on others, they used tactics that undermine their own
credibility so badly that even the important message they bring is
ignored.
Now honestly, after all the lies, hypocrisy, and double talk that we
have seen from Ron Link on this newsgroup, would any reasonable person
believe something he says? Would you trust your eyes to a proven liar
and hypocrite?
No, I still think that the best thing is for people to look at the
substantiated facts and make up their own minds, based upon their own
individual and unique circumstances.
But then, that is not anti-LASIK enough for the zealots, so I'm sure
to be attacked for suggesting that people should be able to make up
their own minds and not be manipulated by lies, misinformation,
hypocrisy, and rhetoric.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
leukoma
By this standard even contact lenses are unsafe. The rate of
keratitis is about 2/10,000 for daily wear and 1/500 for extended wear
- per year. However, only about 10 - 15% of these results in loss of
vision. Probably CP wears eyeglasses.
DrG
Ragnar Suomi
>
>By this standard even contact lenses are unsafe. The rate of
>keratitis is about 2/10,000 for daily wear and 1/500 for extended wear
>- per year. However, only about 10 - 15% of these results in loss of
>vision. Probably CP wears eyeglasses.
>
>DrG
I disagree DrG. I think CP uses a periscope device. How else could
a human asshole see?
CP
>
> By this standard even contact lenses are unsafe. The rate of
> keratitis is about 2/10,000 for daily wear and 1/500 for extended wear
> - per year. However, only about 10 - 15% of these results in loss of
> vision. Probably CP wears eyeglasses.
>
> DrG
DrG, et al,
Thank you for the posts. I meant to post data reflective of contact
lens complication rates and erred in my post. It is my belief that
refractive surgery should not be marketed as "safe and effective"
until it reaches a complication rate approaching that of contact
lenses. The current rate of complications is way too high. People
generally do not understand what they are risking and those who market
refractive surgery (like CRSQA) take advantage of this.
CP
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>People
>generally do not understand what they are risking
I believe that people who spend some time doing basic research at
CRSQA and similar websites will understand exactly what they are
risking.
>and those who market
>refractive surgery (like CRSQA) take advantage of this.
CRSQA does not market refractive surgery. We do nothing to promote
refractive surgery. We provide objective and factually substantiated
information about refractive surgery for those already interested in
refractive surgery. We do not do any marketing to entice people not
interested in refractive surgery to become interested in refractive
surgery. I have never publicly or privately told anyone that he or
she should have refractive surgery. That is a decision everyone must
make based upon that individual's unique set of circumstances.
Some people who review our objective information decide that
refractive surgery is not for them. Some people who review our
objective information decide that refractive surgery might be for them
and proceed to selecting a surgeon for evaluation. We have a few
thoughts on how to select a surgeon too.
Your only problem with CRSQA, CP, is that we are not anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry like you. The truth is we are neither for or
against refractive surgery. It is of little consequence to us if
someone does or does not have refractive surgery, does or does not
select a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon, does or does not use our
50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor to evaluate a potential surgeon.
All we want is for people to be well informed and select the best
available surgeon if they decide to have refractive surgery.
It just irritates you that many well informed people do not agree with
your anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry opinion, and that CRSQA
helps people become well informed.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
CP
>
> Okay, you have a bias against refractive surgery. No problem. It
> would be reasonable to assume that you have a bias against any entity
> that might provide information that could be considered by some as
> showing refractive surgery in a positive light. Not surprising. Your
> opinion is as valid as any other person's opinion, but where we
> disagree, CP, is when you lie and are hypocritical in an attempt to
> discredit an entity that might provide information that could be
> considered by some as showing refractive surgery in a positive light.
>
First, I will state that my figures were incorrect. I meant to post
figures reflective of the complication rate for the use of contact
lenses.
Glenn, you are the one lying when you claim to be a patient advocate
when you are really marketing the services of the surgeons who
purchase your certification.
> From your previous statements, the fact that the information provided
> is substantiated and objective does not seem to interest you in the
> least. You have made your decision about refractive surgery and you
> don't like anything that may not agree with your negative opinion
> about refractive surgery - even if it is the truth.
>
Unfortunately, most of what you post is not really the truth. You
support industry claims and do not question them until they are proven
wrong. You discredit anything that questions your industry until the
data is overwhelming to support it. You have let your pro-lasik
zealotry affect your understanding of what is really true.
> Equally, you have made your decision about CRSQA and you don't like
> anything that may not agree with your opinion about CRSQA - even if it
> is the truth.
But the fact is that CRSQA has no solid foundation. You are paid to
market refractive surgery and everything you state must be examined in
that light. You are biased towards refractive surgery.
>
> > A photo of
> >multiple images in each eye printed out from the Surgical Eyes website
> >is a big help in explaining irregular astigmatism (which most lasik
> >providers hide in the legalese of their consent documents and which
> >Glenn refuses to add to his site).
>
> We also do not have photos of perfect vision, a surgical procedure, or
> much else. The only photos on our website are the icons and portraits
> of affiliated individuals.
>
Your potential customers generally have a good idea of what they
consider to be perfect vision. They do not have a good understanding
of what life can be like seeing multiple images out of each eye that
cannot be fixed by putting on a pair of glasses. They do not have a
good understanding of how debilitating starbursts at night can be.
> I'll tell you what, CP, you set up a website with factually
> representative photos of vision through complications and I'll provide
> a link to it from our website. We already have a link to SurgicalEyes
> (where the photos you describe are located), Sandy Keller's
> lasikdisaster.com website, Brent Hanson's website, the EyeKnowWhy
> website, and just about every other anti-LASIK website. I'll be happy
> to add a link to your anti-LASIK website.
>
>
Glenn, you are not the first to suggest that to me. I will certainly
consider it. There is great need for a balanced site from the
perspective of someone who is neither selling refractive surgery nor
has been harmed by refractive surgery.
> I have stated this to CP many times and it is clearly stated on our
> website. CRSQA receives funding from certifying refractive surgeons.
> We do not receive funding from patient referrals. We do not receive
> any kind of quid pro quo (charge per click, page view, patient seen,
> surgery performed, etc.). We never have and never will. CP stating
> that CRSQA profits from referrals is a lie, pure and simple. CP is
> not confused on this issue. CP is not inaccurately informed. This
> has been shown and stated over and over, like many other unfounded
> accusations he has made.
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/crass_commercialism.htm
>
Sorry, Glenn, but you are distorting the truth. Doctors purchase your
certification and, as part of that certification, you provide
referrals. Because it is a global fee for CRSQA services instead of
"pay per click" or another per item fee does not render it patient
advocacy. Just because CRSQA is not as crassly commerical as some of
the other organizations does not mean that CRSQA qualifies as a
patient advocate. Glenn is purposely distorting the truth. If CRSQA
receives money from doctors in return for services rendered
(certification and the marketing that goes with it) then CRSQA profits
from these referrals, even if it has found a way to meet the
non-profit laws of his state. Glenn can repeat his claims over and
over but repeating them will not make them true.
> The fact is; if we received funding from patient referrals we would be
> in violation of capitation and steering laws in all 50 states, the IRS
> would not have granted our nonprofit status, and the state of
> California would not have allowed us to incorporate as a nonprofit.
>
> CP is lying. Why he lies about this is anybody's guess, but his bias
> is obvious.
The fact that payment for direct patient referrels is illegal (as
Glenn indicated) is why such referrals are included as part of the
global certification and marketing fee. I have no doubt that CRSQA
operates within the law. That it does does not mean that he is not
actually marketing and selling refractive surgery.
>
> CRSQA has never claimed to be the Consumers Union. We have never
> claimed to be anything but what we are: an independent, nonprofit,
> patient/consumer health organization that provides objective and
> factually substantiated information about refractive surgery issues,
> plus evaluates and certifies refractive surgeons based on patient
> outcomes.
>
Wow, Glenn actually forgot to mention "Patient Advocacy", the first
bullet on his home page. Patient advocacy means putting the patient
first, not the doctors who pay for certification and marketing
services.
> I further submit that Ron Link of SurgicalEyes has received donations
> from doctors who he has listed on his website. Malpractice attorneys
> too, but that is another thread. Link has also asked the world's
> second largest ophthalmic organization for over $380,000 to fund his
> organization. Of course, SurgicalEyes does not provide any evaluation
> of any doctors.
>
CRSQA and Surgical Eyes are two different organizations. CRSQA markets
refractive surgery and it's product is pro-rs information. Surgical
Eyes was born of lost quality of vision and is dedicated to providing
information for people harmed by the product Glenn markets. Glenn's
accusation that "SurgicalEyes does not provide any evaluation of any
doctors" doesn't mean anything since he does not provide required
outcomes for the doctors he claims are part of his second response
team.
The CRSQA website states that "CRSQA now has over $250,000 of grant
money available to pay for all or part of initial certification fees
and quarterly recertification fees. In some cases, all fees will be
paid by the grant funds." If Glenn's organization were truly a patient
advocacy organization this money (which is probably twice what
Surgical Eyes annual operating budget is) he would be directing this
money to helping patients who have been harmed by the purchasing the
product he markets. Clearly, his goal is to attract more doctors to
become part of his organization. Patients with problems are a distant
second.
> I suggest that how CRSQA is funded is not the issue. How we are
> funded is the proverbial red herring. CP does not condemn
> SurgicalEyes for seeking or receiving of funding from doctors - even
> refractive surgeons. The real issue for CP is that CRSQA does not
> condemn refractive surgery.
>
CRSQA funding is the issue, despite Glenn's attempts to mislead. If
Surgical Eyes began accepting money from refractive surgeons for
refractive surgery marketing services I would condemn Surgical Eyes.
The issue is not that I condemn refractive surgery. The issue is that
CRSQA profits financially from the marketing of refractive surgery
while pretending to be a patient advocate.
>
> >Glenn is free to market lasik. It is wrong of him to pretend that his
> >marketing of lasik is somehow patient advocacy.
>
> I do not market LASIK or any other refractive surgery procedure. I do
> not sell refractive surgery.
Glenn, you most certainly do market refractive surgery. No one
believes that you do not. You accept money from refractive surgeons to
provide certification and referrals. That is marketing, which is part
of sales. There is no getting around it.
> It is of little consequence to me if someone who
> visits our website does or does not have refractive surgery,
Sure it is. If the refractive surgeons who purchased your
certification and marketing services did not get a financial benefit
from the referrals you provide to them they would not renew your
services.
> >It is also wrong of
> >him to continue his attacks on Surgical Eyes and the people who
> >participate there.
>
> I do not attack SurgicalEyes or the people who participate there.
> What I will do and have done is reveal and challenge the lies,
> rhetoric, misinformation, and hypocrisy that I have seen from Ron
> Link, SurgicalEyes, and some of the SurgicalEyes faithful. Of course,
> I've done this with the pro-LASIK zealots too, but there is really
> only one of them around here.
>
Of course you attack Surgical Eyes. You wish to destroy that
organization not only because it shows the hypocrisy of your industry
but also because you wish to set yourself up as the place for people
with problems from refractive surgery to turn to (hence your second
response team). It's all marketing.
> What CP always fails to acknowledge is that the lie, rhetoric,
> misinformation, and hypocrisy that I expose is substantiated fact.
No. More often than not it is your spin which contains some fact and
is repackaged to make refractive surgery look safer than it really is.
>
> That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen CP say. The
> CRSQA Second Response Team does not generate any funding whatsoever.
Perhaps not, but it can be certainly be used for marketing purposes.
> As for competing with SurgicalEyes, I'm glad to provide patients in
> need with another resource. I think people in need of care should
> have all the resources they can get. Ron Link and SurgicalEyes may
> see this as competition, but the patients who need help undoubtedly
> don't care. They just have another resource available.
>
I have no idea how Ron Link and Surgical Eyes see your organization.
From some of their posts here it looks like they do not trust anything
you say. This is probably more your fault than their's. If you had
truly been a patient advocate you would have been seen as a patient
advocate. There is nothing worse than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Eventually the sheep understand and the natural response is to expose
the wolf.
> Our philosophy behind using the national norms as our requirements has
> been stated many times in this newsgroup and elsewhere. We educate
> the public what they can reasonably expect from refractive surgery and
> where they can reasonably expect to receive it. We do not apologize
> one iota for our standards and why we elected to utilize the national
> norms. If a patient wants a doctor that meets or exceeds the national
> norms, then the patient would want to consider a CRSQA Certified
> Refractive Surgeon.
>
If you use the national norms as your standard you should clearly
state that the doctors you market have outcomes typical of the norm
across the country and that CRSQA certification merely means that the
doctors CRSQA markets are at the average or above.
>
> Your list of "Should Be" is wonderful and I truly wish that the
> national norm was as you provide, but it is not. I wish that there
> were doctors who could day in and day out provide these kinds of
> outcomes, but I have not seen any evidence that what you suggest is
> possible. To suggest that such outcomes are reasonable expectations,
> even by inference, is a disservice to the public. As I said, we do
> not apologize for our standards and our policy to utilize the national
> norms as our outcomes guidelines.
>
My numbers were incorrect and should have reflected the complication
rates of contact lens use. Nevertheless, the outcomes for refractive
surgery could be far better than they are now. Corrected for mistakes,
the complicaton rates I desire are very reasonable. The fact that they
cannot currently be met is reflective not of the desire for good
vision but on the problems with refractive surgery.
> Since you love to compare SurgicalEyes with CRSQA, let's add another
> comparison. Ron Link stated that "early" doctors were asked four
> questions before it was determined if they could be listed as one of
> the "world's best doctors" on his website. He has refused to say what
> those four questions might be. He has also refused to say if doctors
> are currently asked anything at all. Link has refused to state what,
> if any, qualifications must be met for a doctor to be listed at his
> website for patient referral.
>
If Surgical Eyes was accepting money to provide certification and
marketing referrals than the comparison would be fair. Further, if
CRSQA applied it's "Required Outcomes" to its second response team
(who he implies are doing additonal surgeries to repair damage) then
Glenn would have a valid complaint. Since Surgical Eyes does not offer
doctors certification or marketing services the two organizations are
quite different. Surgical Eyes does seem to have attracted some top
doctors, both surgeons and ODs. Link certainly does not owe Glenn
anything.
> The standards which Ron Link requires a refractive surgeon to be
> listed on his website are so non-existent, that he didn't even know if
> his own proclaimed co-medical director met them for more than four
> months. Heck, he didn't even know his proclaimed co-medical director
> was NOT his co-medical director for those four months.
>
Do all CRSQA surgeons who participate in the CRSQA Second Response
Team meet the "Required Outcomes" for re-operations to fix problems?
The CRSQA website provides no information on the standards regarding
outcome or anything else for these doctors. What exactly are the CRSQA
outcome standards for doctors on the Second Response Team?
> Let's tally this up. Ron Link receives and seeks funding from
> refractive surgeons to fund SurgicalEyes. CRSQA receives funding from
> refractive surgeons for certification services, but CP condemns this.
> Ron Link apparently has no requirements or qualifications for a doctor
> to be listed as one of the "world's best doctors" for patient referral
> on the SurgicalEyes website. CRSQA has clearly defined standards and
> an extensive evaluation process, but CP condemns them. Ron Link only
> allows negative information about refractive surgery on the
> SurgicalEyes website, anything positive is swiftly removed. CRSQA
> provides factually substantiated objective information that could be
> seen as both positive or negative about refractive surgery on its
> website and links to every major anti-refractive
> surgery/surgeon/industry website (including SurgicalEyes), but CP
> condemns us because he says CRSQA needs more photographs depicting
> complications.
>
Let's tally this up.
CRSQA receives funding from refractive surgeons to certify that they
generally provide average outcomes.
CRSQA has no published outcome requirements for CRSQA certified
doctors who participate in the CRSQA Second Response Team but demands
that Surgical Eyes have such published requirements for doctors who
often volunteer their services at no cost.
CRSQA recommends a bulletin board operated by a refractive surgeon
affiliated with LasikPLUS, an organization which has recently been
forced by the FTC to stop misleading advertising. Further, this
bulletin board is heavily censored (far more than Surgical Eyes) and
all of the censors are people with good outcomes from refractive
surgery. Posts hypercritical of refractive surgery are never approved
and never seen by readers of that bulletin board.
Ron Link may or may not receive funding from some or the refractive
surgeons and ODs that are listed as willing to help on his website. He
makes it clear that Surgical Eyes does not endorse, certify or provide
referrals and that these volunteer doctors are interested in helping
people with problems from refractive surgery and may or may not charge
for their services (there are numerous stories of doctors who help
people without charge).
Ron Link makes no claim of having the "world's best doctors" and makes
it clear that anyone considering additional surgery to fix vision
problems from prior surgery is taking risk and should be fully
informed of the possible positive AND negative outcomes.
Glenn's claim that Ron Link only allows negative information about
refractive surgery is totally false. There are currently several
threads by people who have been helped by additional surgery and all
of posters in those threads have expressed support and happiness for
the individual. The threads that are removed are those by people with
good outcomes who taunt people with bad outcomes. One simply cannot
expect people who have been harmed by refractive surgery to be
positive about it, recommend it or accept the claims of that industry
without question.
> but CP
> condemns us because he says CRSQA needs more photographs depicting
> complications.
I condemn CRSQA because the CRSQA website is purposely designed to
acknowledge the potential of problems with refractive surgery while
strongly suggesting that such problems are far less likely if they
purchase refractive surgery from one of the doctors marketed by CRSQA.
It is a variant of the "go to a good doctor and you'll have a good
result" theme of the refractive surgery industry he is part of.
Glenn lives in a glass house and is throwing bones.
His hypocrisy is clear.
CP
Billy
news:20030509080225...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> If I had surgery to fix my endometriosis and woke up to find they'd
mistakenly
> done a double mastectomy on me instead because they got confused about who
was
> getting what operation, I'd probably be pretty upset. (Again, purely
> hypothetical example, not related in any way to Lasik or any real-life
cases on
> this group, just a philosophical debate type of question.)
I don't think that your comparison works for this reason. If you were
having surgery for endometriosis and the messed up the paperwork and
performed a mastectomy, it would be pure malpractice from human error. From
what I have heard, this is not what generally happens when someone has Lasik
complications.
I think a better hypothetical comparison (hypothetical because I don't know
if this is an actual risk for this type of procedure) would be that you went
in for endometriosis surgery, and during the surgery known, but rare,
complication occurred, which was severe bleeding in the uterus, and the
doctor had no option other than to do a hysterectomy during the surgery to
save your life. You might be very upset with your outcome, but it would be
a rare complication of the surgery, not a result of complete incompetence or
paperwork mistakes.
Billy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
I will let most of you comments stand, as they show the nonsense that
they are, except for the following:
The CRSQA Second Response Team (SRT) is not about marketing at all.
The doctors who participate are not listed on our website as SRT
members. The doctors are not allowed to advertise or otherwise
promote that they are SRT doctors. We do not use the doctors who
participate in SRT in an attempt to lend more credibility to our
organization, and they do not use their participation in SRT to lend
more credibility to themselves.
We do not limit the CRSQA-SRT to only CRSQA Certified Refractive
Surgeons for many reasons, including that many of the SRT
participating doctors are international and CRSQA only certifies US
surgeons. We are not putting any limits on a patient with a bad
outcome getting needed care.
I have stated many times that CRSQA does not market refractive
surgery, however we do provide objective substantiated information
about refractive surgery. If you have a problem with substantiated
truth tending to be positive about refractive surgery, well that is
your problem. It is still the truth.
As I have said many times, if you find something on our website that
is factually incorrect, let me know and I'll change it.
We do list CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeons on our website and I am
absolutely delighted that potential patients use this list to find a
surgeon. We also encourage CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeons to
include the fact that they are certified in their own marketing
material. We want patients to go to the better (or at least
evaluated) surgeons. CRSQA certification is one of the ways that
patients identify which surgeon to visit.
It would be disingenuous to ignore that to some extent our affiliated
refractive surgeons expect their CRSQA certification to generate more
patients, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, this
is a positive for patients. The more patients that go to the better
surgeons, the more patients that receive appropriate screening,
evaluation, and care. I don't care if doctors make millions because
they are CRSQA certified or they make nothing. All I care about is
that if people decide they want to go ahead with refractive surgery,
they find their way to the better doctors.
Of course, patients are not limited to just CRSQA Certified Refractive
Surgeons. They can rely on other certifications as evidence of a
doctor's ability (such as ABES http://www.aces-abes.org) or use our 50
Tough Questions For Your Doctor to help evaluate an uncertified
surgeon.
Whatever path a person takes is not the issue, CP. What is the issue
is that patients need to go to the better surgeons if they are
considering refractive surgery.
Yes, CRSQA and SurgicalEyes are two very different organizations.
CRSQA is all about objective information and patients getting to the
best doctors to increase the probability of getting a good outcome and
to proven specialists if something has gone wrong.
There are also enough similarities between CRSQA and SurgicalEyes that
your condemnation of CRSQA is hypocritical in the many ways I have
already shown in this thread.
Suggesting that I want to destroy SurgicalEyes is idiotic. I would
like, however, for its leader to quit lying and being hypocritical.
Of course, that is for the SurgicalEyes board to decide, not me.
There is one point on which you and I do agree. The outcomes for
refractive surgery could be far better than they are now. CRSQA is
making a positive effort to effect this change by giving those
interested objective and factual information about refractive surgery
and pointing patients in the direction of surgeons who are at or above
the national norms. If more people went to the better surgeons, more
people would have better outcomes. Surgery will never be perfect, but
going to the better doctors will make the outcomes better.
We do link our website to the bulletin board run by a doctor
affiliated with LASIKPlus, but we make it clear in our disclaimer that
there is no affiliation or endorsement. I have been openly critical
of some of the advertising stunts of LASIKPlus - including taking them
to task in my Ocular Surgery News column, "The Patient's Advocate".
One last thing CP. Apparently you forgot how the owner of the
bulletin board to which we are linked is revered by the SurgicalEyes
faithful. For some reason (could it be more hypocrisy?) they just
ignore his affiliation with LASIKPlus and all the things you just said
about him..
Any refractive surgeon who is willing to give SurgicalEyes money or
provide them some credibility by association is immediately exempt
from the same scrutiny and negativity aimed at any other refractive
surgeon. I give you points for not toeing the SurgicalEyes line and
pointing out the problems with LASIKPlus. Of course I'm sure when you
wrote that you were only intending to criticize CRSQA, not
SurgicalEyes.
That is the problem with supporting a hypocritical organization. You
don't know who it is okay to condemn without first verifying with Ron
Link.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance