Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by darksidZz, Jun 18, 2007.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's reasonable. I never try to "talk someone into" LASIK, I just offer it to those who are interested and steer them to a good surgeon.
With one exception. If you are a patient who abuses his contact lenses, your risk of blindness or other complications is higher with contacts than with LASIK. I tell such patients this is the case and recommend LASIK, or that they turn over a new leaf.
I wear soft contacts. My uncorrected vision is 800/20 in one eye and 600/20 in the other. I cannot read billboards without glasses or contacts. I would not consider laser surgery, and would not consider it if I were much younger than I am.
Tiger Woods had laser eye surgery 2-4 years ago, and I think he just had it done again. With his money and celebrity status, I am sure that he had it done by one of the best in the business. I wonder why he needed another treatment.
It is my understanding that there have been both good & bad results, with the good out numbering the bad. I do not think they really know what will happen 10-20 yers after having the surgery done.
In the morning, it takes me about 2-4 minutes to put my contacts in, and about one minute to take them out at night. While wearing them, I am unaware of their being in my eyes. A set of contacts lasts me 2-3 months. My cost is less than 200 (American $) per year.
I would not risk being one of the bad surgery patients. When I was young and active in sports, I would have considered the surgery because at that time my only alternative was heavy clumsy glasses.
While wearing contacts my vision is as good as it would be with the surgery. I play golf, tennis, and ski with contacts. The few minutes a day to put them in and take them out is all I would save in comparison to the surgery. That is a small price to pay to avoid the risk of surgery.
I think there the odds are in your favor if you have the surgery. but the odds are not as important as the potential risk. If the odds were very good and the worst that could happen is losing the little finger of your left hand, I would say go for it. If the worst that could happen is being blind or being forced to wear regular glasses, I would not take any risk at all.
While the effect of the surgery is permanent (a portion of your cornea is vaporized by the laser), this will not stop your eye from changing. It's just like when you go to the doctor and then return a few years later to find your prescription has changed. Are you surprised? It's perfectly natural and will continue after surgery.
All true. Deciding to have LASIK is a personal decision. Whether the risk is worth it is totally up to you. It is a very low risk but, as you said, the fact that the risk is low is cold comfort is you're one of the unlucky ones.
My father had it done and he's been fine. He only had a bit of dry eyes afterwards, but it cleared up within a few weeks. He swears by it.
I've been fine fine. Slight mishap when the lazer stayed on too long in me blighty righty. But I'm fine. It was just on a little long time. Been a long time,been a long time, been a long lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lone (ly).
Time. Shit, look at it.
His experience is typical. I've co-managed hundreds of cases and only had one significant problem, but even that guy was seeing 20/20 in each eye at his last check up.
I think people need to realise that the effects may not be instant. While it is laser treatment, it is still surgery and the eyes need to have time to heal. And as with many surgeries, you sometimes need to have follow-ups to get the full effect.
A lot of people have it done and expect the results to be perfect and instant. In most cases that I have heard of, it takes a while and sometimes subsequent treatments are needed. I wear glasses (I am a bit short sighted) and I am not comfortable with having it done at the moment. Personal choice really. I don't think my problem warrants it. If one day in the future I feel it does, then I will most probably have it done.
My mother is also considering it, but she is a diabetic, so she has to talk to the doctor first to see if it is viable for her to have it done, since diabetics tend to have a faster deterioration rate when it comes to eyesight (from what she has told me anyway). So it may not be the thing for her at this time or ever. *Shrugs*..
Now that I think about it, that price may have been cost out-of-pocket after my insurance paid their part.
How old is your mother? If she's in her 50's or 60's, she should simply wait until she has a cataract. Cataract surgery is covered by insurance and most people do not require glasses post cataract surgery, except for reading. If she has an extra $4200, she could even spring for bifocal implants and then she would probably not need glasses at all.
PS Diabetics tend to get cataracts at a younger age as well.
Where I live is about $900 per eye. That's Canadian. So in terms of american dollars, it's probably about $1,000, without taxes.
YOu can get one eye done, and the other half price.
Oh. And I can't answer the poll, cause I'm smarter then the guy who created it... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would do only one eye at first, see the results (literally! HA HA!) and then, if satisfied, I would do the other as well. After all, I have two eyes. So why not use my brain? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or the other at full price and one at half price.
Not here, apparently... Never seen that around here. But even then! Over $1,500!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can do it for you for $40 and a place to sleep for a night.
You say that to everyone.
Only to fat chicks.
*wonders if anyone will catch the reference*
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.