Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop trying to make a joke out of this thread.

Release/Consent Forms Preclude You From Suing? Medical Malpractice Laws - AllLaw.com

Peacegirl doesn't know what is in the article she is linking to, from the article,
"No legal form can bar a patient from bringing a legal claim if negligent treatment did, in deed, lead to harm (although some healthcare providers, like Kaiser Permanente, may force patients into arbitration rather than a lawsuit). If a doctor or hospital made errors that amounted to negligence, it can't hide from a medical malpractice claim behind a legal form".

[specious_reasons]

Every time I see this thread title, I think peacegirl is dissing Iftikhar.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to put you on ignore.

Promise?

[peacegirl]

How LASIK F%#@'s Up Your Eyes - YouTube

[But]

peacegirl, what's going on with the moons of Jupiter?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking myopic surgery, which does not have to do with someone losing their vision.

Peacegirl is backpedaling again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, what's going on with the moons of Jupiter?

Why do you keep harping on this? We are no longer in that thread. If you believe he was wrong, then let it go.

[peacegirl]

16x9 - 20/20 Hindsight: Laser eye surgery investigation - YouTube

[ChuckF]

Countdown to a new edition of the Corrupted Text with a bunch of weird anti-LASIK corruptions added

[But]

peacegirl, don't you think that the question whether the eye is a sense organ is relevant to this topic? Maybe there are complications because those eye surgeons don't know that eyes aren't sense organs. It's possible that they get better results by just cleaning the brain windows the right way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, don't you think that the question whether the eye is a sense organ is relevant to this topic? Maybe there are complications because those eye surgeons don't know that eyes aren't sense organs. It's possible that they get better results by just cleaning the brain windows the right way.

You can make fun all you want, but it doesn't take away the seriousness of this issue.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can make fun all you want, but it doesn't take away the seriousness of this issue.

Which one? The one about eyes not being sense organs?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Which one? The one about eyes not being sense organs?

Yup, that one.

[But]

If it's that serious, maybe you should tell those eye surgeons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If it's that serious, maybe you should tell those eye surgeons.

[thedoc]

Pitfalls of Thinking: Anecdotal Evidence -...

[The Lone Ranger]

I wonder how peacegirl explains the fact that optometry works at all, given that (according to her), it's flat-out wrong in every particular when it comes to the eyes and how they work.

Amazingly, I just got a new set of contacts and strangely enough, I can now see pretty well. Even though (according to peacegirl) the theory and practice behind how the contacts allow me to see is completely wrong.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are deemed competent and you sign a consent form that explains the known risks ---and there was no negligence --- you can sue but you probably won't win.

Unless I am completely mistaken peacegirl's original complaint was that the true risks associated with Lasik surgery were being hidden from the public. If that were true, then those risks would not be included in a consent form and an injured patient would have legal recourse.

Let's break this thing down.

Consent form fails to disclose risks - patient signs- patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient signs - the surgeon is negligent - patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient is incompentent to give informed consent - patient signs anyway - patient is injured - patient's legal guardian successfully sues on behalf of incompetent patient despite the fact that the patient signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient fails to read the consent form but signs it anyway - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

Consent form discloses the risks - competent patient reads and signs the consent form - there is no negligence on the part of the surgeon - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

As I see it, so long as the consent form discloses the risks, the patient is competent and the surgeon is not negligent there are only two scenarios in which a patient harmed by the procedure fails to sue successfully.

1. Negligence on the part of the patient: Though the patient was able to do so the patient didn't bother to read the consent form. Patient is guilty of failure to exercise due diligence and of lying about having read the consent form before signing it.

2. Accidental injury: Patient sustains an injury that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the surgeon.

Am I missing anything here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I wonder how peacegirl explains the fact that optometry works at all, given that (according to her), it's flat-out wrong in every particular when it comes to the eyes and how they work.

Amazingly, I just got a new set of contacts and strangely enough, I can now see pretty well. Even though (according to peacegirl) the theory and practice behind how the contacts allow me to see is completely wrong.

What are you talking about Lone Ranger? The shape of the eye and the corrective nature of a lens has everything to do with clear vision. Light has to strike the eye for any kind of vision to occur. Lessans never said otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Misleading LASIK Eye Surgery Ads Draw FDA Warning - AboutLawsuits.com

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Unless I am completely mistaken peacegirl's original complaint was that the true risks associated with Lasik surgery were being hidden from the public. If that were true, then those risks would not be included in a consent form and an injured patient would have legal recourse.

Let's break this thing down.

Consent form fails to disclose risks - patient signs- patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient signs - the surgeon is negligent - patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient is incompentent to give informed consent - patient signs anyway - patient is injured - patient's legal guardian successfully sues on behalf of incompetent patient despite the fact that the patient signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient fails to read the consent form but signs it anyway - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

Consent form discloses the risks - competent patient reads and signs the consent form - there is no negligence on the part of the surgeon - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

As I see it, so long as the consent form discloses the risks, the patient is competent and the surgeon is not negligent there are only two scenarios in which a patient harmed by the procedure fails to sue successfully.

1. Negligence on the part of the patient: Though the patient was able to do so the patient didn't bother to read the consent form. Patient is guilty of failure to exercise due diligence and of lying about having read the consent form before signing it.

2. Accidental injury: Patient sustains an injury that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the surgeon.

Am I missing anything here?

A big problem is false advertising and the way people are misled regarding the true complication rate. I started this thread is to make people aware That this surgery is extremely risky and if something goes wrong, the damage has already been done whether a lawsuit is won or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Unless I am completely mistaken peacegirl's original complaint was that the true risks associated with Lasik surgery were being hidden from the public. If that were true, then those risks would not be included in a consent form and an injured patient would have legal recourse.

Let's break this thing down.

Consent form fails to disclose risks - patient signs- patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient signs - the surgeon is negligent - patient is injured - patient sues successfully despite having signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient is incompentent to give informed consent - patient signs anyway - patient is injured - patient's legal guardian successfully sues on behalf of incompetent patient despite the fact that the patient signed the consent form.

Consent form discloses the risks - patient fails to read the consent form but signs it anyway - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

Consent form discloses the risks - competent patient reads and signs the consent form - there is no negligence on the part of the surgeon - patient is injured - patient sues unsuccessfully.

As I see it, so long as the consent form discloses the risks, the patient is competent and the surgeon is not negligent there are only two scenarios in which a patient harmed by the procedure fails to sue successfully.

1. Negligence on the part of the patient: Though the patient was able to do so the patient didn't bother to read the consent form. Patient is guilty of failure to exercise due diligence and of lying about having read the consent form before signing it.

2. Accidental injury: Patient sustains an injury that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the surgeon.

Am I missing anything here?

A big problem is false advertising and the way people are misled regarding the true complication rate. I started this thread because the more I looked into this "miracle" procedure, for many it has been a total nightmare. I wanted to make people aware that this surgery is extremely risky and if something goes wrong, the damage has already been done whether a lawsuit is won or not.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Misleading LASIK Eye Surgery Ads Draw FDA Warning - AboutLawsuits.com

So the FDA warned some LASIK providers over advertising that "failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks of laser eye surgery."

peacegirl, didn't you start this thread complaining that consumers were not sufficiently warned of risks and about the FDA and "their advertising"? peacegirl, should the FDA not have issued warnings?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can we trust the FDA when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Lone Ranger? The shape of the eye and the corrective nature of a lens has everything to do with clear vision. Light has to strike the eye for any kind of vision to occur. Lessans never said otherwise.

You're lying again, Lessans wrote in his book that molecules of light only had to surround an object for the brain to look out through the eyes and see the object. He never wrote that light had to enter the eyes, in fact he claimed that nothing, even light, did not enter the eye and impinge on the retina. Seeing clearly would depend on the brain's ability to look out through the eyes clearly, so you'd better clean those windows with Windex.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Lone Ranger? The shape of the eye and the corrective nature of a lens has everything to do with clear vision. Light has to strike the eye for any kind of vision to occur. Lessans never said otherwise.

If you see an object blurred, there is the same amount of light at the retina and nothing has changed about the object. You can't even explain how a lens works.