Shooting laser beams into my eyes

[tetley]

The operation did not happen.

Everything was fine until I was handed the consent form. The last sentence waives my right to sue for anything that happens. I've never seen a waiver of liability this wide before.

.

Thumbs up for you!

I tremendously respect that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bummer. In the US signing a waiver does not mean you cannot sue for malpractice. There are two risks. First, that the procedure will not succeed and you will be no better off. The second is that you will be worse off. If the typical success rates are high then the first should not be a problem. If you end up worse off, because of what they did, you can sue. The higher the typical success rate, the greater the risk to the doctor if they make you worse.

I do not know about Philippine law.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The operation did not happen.

Everything was fine until I was handed the consent form. The last sentence waives my right to sue for anything that happens. I've never seen a waiver of liability this wide before.

I have a philosophical problem with the all of the risk being put onto the one person who can't do anything to lessen the risk while all of the potential parties who can lessen the risk are let off the hook. I talked to the surgeon [whom I really like and whom I have great respect for]. He told me there's nothing he can do about this provision, and that it's used everywhere in the Philippines.

So, right now I'm home and am about to begin checking into my alternatives.

I am not sure what to type, as I am unfamiliar (NOMB) with your age and finances.

Both my late parents had cataract operations in the 80s and 90s undertaken in
England, although they each had one eye done first and then the other a few
months later which minimised the impact of error. There were complications in
both instances, but it all worked out well in the end.

When I was in England, I paid for my mother-in-law and her sister to have
cataract operations done on both their eyes in the Philippines; that worked out fine.

I do not know what the surgeon was going to charge you, but there is a genuine
question of economic costs. From their perspective, there is the cost of doing
the operation and the cost of paying for insurance against possible legal claims.
Although as Americans are seen (not sure if this is true) as notoriously litiginious;
a busy surgeon may well decide that he does not need/wish to bother with the
administration of setting up a legal claims policy. I suppose you could consider
taking out an insurance policy yourself, but you'd end up paying a premium.

The fact is we have to put ourselves in the hands of others from time to time,
and the most we can do is (i) only do that when it is necessary (ii) after checking
up on any information as to official published success rates* and then (iii) trust them.

For example I have no idea what the liability of the pilot is to me if he crashes the
aeroplane, I take the philosophical view that it doesn't matter if we are all dead.

* These success rates are not always meaningful. For example some times the success
rates for the best surgeons appear worse than for the next grouping; because the best
surgeons are prepared to take on the operations where there are obvious complications,
which the rest of the profession may defer from doing and cautiously refer them to them.

 

[Old Hippy]

Well, typically socialized healthcare just bakes "you don't get to sue" into the system.

I recently spent 8 days in intensive care, they ended up stopping my heart and restarting it ...
what amazed me is that I only had to sign a waver for the Doppler specialist that fed a rather large probe down my throat to get the ultra sound reading from 'behind my heart' as it can possibly, sometimes, on rare occasions cause damage, the 4 doctors that stopped and restarted my heart only told me verbally what the procedure involved and joked about "did I remember anything" 'No' "good the forget drugs must be working"

 

[Zkribbler]

I've just come from a meeting with my lawyer. He opined that the waiver is unenforceable.

Then he told me that he'd been putting off his own cataract surgery because the doctor told him that he would not be able to use a computer for 6 months! A lady overheard us talking. She said a doctor told her no computer use for 3 weeks. I came home, looked on the internet, and found options of no wait, 1 week wait, 2 weeks, 3 weeks and 6 months.

Who has an experience with computer bans following cataract surgery?

 

[Cheetah]

Can't help you there I'm afraid. I only corrected my lenses a bit - or from -8 to 0, in numbers!

Though I was also told that I probably shouldn't strain my eyes or watch much TV for the next week or so, and especially the same day. So I planned to mostly keep my eyes shut. I had to peek a bit though to be able to navigate home, but then I just went to bed (with those eye protection things taped onto my face). However, by the evening I wasn't tired anymore, and not using TV or a PC was incredibly boring, so after a while I couldn't resist. Got many hours of screen time the same evening, and never had a problem.

I.e., I suspect the warnings vary based on what the doctors think of probabilities, discomfort, etc. I'd try not to get too much screen time, but in most things like this, I just follow a simple rule: As long as it doesn't hurt, it's probably fine.

 

[Leonel]

I think I can understand the discomfort at the idea of someone shooting laser beams into your eyes.

It's been suggested to me by people over the years that I should get laser eye surgery since I look better without my glasses. However, I completely depend on my eyes for my work and I'm terrified that if there's a complication, I could lose that. So I stick with glasses.

 

[Cheetah]

Sight is the most important sense we've got. Our eyesight gives far more sensory data than our ears or noses. Compared to many other animals, it's a really dominant sense.

So I can totally understand the risk aversion. I was considering it myself, but the benefits are so humongous in comparison to the risk.

 

[Zkribbler]

So I can totally understand the risk aversion. I was considering it myself, but the benefits are so humongous in comparison to the risk.

I understand what you're saying. However, my right eye is practically useless. My laptop screen is about 8 inches away from it, and I can't read a thing.

I had a long talk with CavLancer yesterday. He convinced me of the wisdom of having my right eye done first. If that get fixed, then I can risk the other eye. If the first op fails, then I can either stop there, or I can seek treatment elsewhere.

 

[Leonel]

If I were to do laser eye surgery, that is exactly what I would do. Get one eye done and if that one is fine after a while, do the other. That way if something (god forbid) goes wrong, you still have at least the good eye left over.

 

[Arakhor]

Besides, if your eye is already nearly worthless due to cataracts, something has to go seriously wrong for you to come out worse.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I had a long talk with CavLancer yesterday. He convinced me of the wisdom of having my right eye done first. If that get fixed, then I can risk the other eye. If the first op fails, then I can either stop there, or I can seek treatment elsewhere.

That is a good strategy.

Go for it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

All good advice. Onward!!! CFC is behind you...many thousands of miles.

 

[tetley]

I wonder if shooting my laser pointer in my cat's eyes would cure his cataracts. But can't understand why he never holds still.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I wonder if shooting my laser pointer in my cat's eyes would cure his cataracts. But can't understand why he never holds still.

Not even slightly funny.

 

[tetley]

(I didn't actually shine a laser pointer in anyone's eyes)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

(I didn't actually shine a laser pointer in anyone's eyes)

That's good.

But my point is that even though some people use those things as toys for their cats, they're not really safe toys.

Disclosure: When I volunteered at a cat shelter several years ago, laser pointers were part of the "toy bin" and we volunteers were encouraged to buy one. So I did, and yeah, the shelter cats loved them.

My own cats, when I tried it with them, just gave me a "WTH? I know there's nothing there" look. And then I started reading up on these pointers and concluded that they're really not a good thing to use for cat playtime. Accidents are very easy, and while I as a human have coverage for eye appointments (once every two years), my cats don't. And I've seen cats literally crash into walls, trying to catch the red dot.

 

[tetley]

There's a balance. The Calgary Stampeders aren't really being safe what they're doing, either, but most people believe the league should go on. Unless you're the mother of one of the players, in which case...maybe not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's a balance. The Calgary Stampeders aren't really being safe what they're doing, either, but most people believe the league should go on. Unless you're the mother of one of the players, in which case...maybe not.

I was not aware that laser pointers were part of their normal equipment.

 

[tetley]

I'll try again. There's a balance to be had between playing around, enjoying life, and being safe. Football is one such thing: most would like to have football, but a lot of mothers would prefer that their sons not play that game.

Laser pointers on kittens is just playing around. As long as it's safe, why not? You might not want to shine one next to a cliff. I hear laser pointers on airplanes doesn't work too well, either.

Boy, my joke fell brutally flat. Ah, the life as an aspiring comedian. Way too short.