'Fully Informed' CONSENT

OE had refused to refund my £500 after I cancelled surgery booked with Luca Antico, but after contacting OERML for help I received a full refund very quickly. [see Deposit Refund Topic]

I should also mention this!

In her email of 18 April 2017 Rebecca O'Hear wrote,



This is the document...



Firstly, I did not sign it and the surgeon did not speak or meet with at any time, even though he (Luca Antico?) signed a declaration claiming that he did. Secondly, the document is dated 1 April but my appointment at OE was on 31 March, as Rebecca O'Hear has written!
_____________________________
admin: This will be sent to the GMC and CQC for their attention

I am not an NHS employee but I have seen both sides. I had lens exchange at Optical Express when I was 50 after going to buy new reading glasses. I was given a fantastic sales pitch so it seemed silly not to do it. Not understanding at the time that lens exchange is the same surgery as cataract surgery because I did not have cataracts and the emphasis was on the benefits of the “procedure”. I was told it was forever and I would never need glasses again. All very convincing. Little was said about possible problems and the main issue was how I would be paying. 4 years down the road I wish I’d stuck to reading glasses and waited until I developed cataracts becuase I had sharper vision with reading glasses than I do now and having this surgery wsa a bad decision. My partner had cataract surgery last year with the NHS and was seen by the surgeon who operated on him before he gave his consent. He was also examined by another doctor and optometrist. But I am not sure that is the point here. I think the important point is that the NHS was not pressurising him to “buy” something.

Can any NHS employees confirm if in the NHS there are Nurse and Junior Doctor lead pre-Lens Surgery Consenting Clinics. Does Catarct Surgery on the NHS require a less stringent standard of Consenting than in the non NHS sector? I am told that in many NHS Hospitals the operating Surgeon only meets the Surgery patients on the day of Surgery.

I really hope that Stephanie wins her case on "lack of informed consent". This would hopefully bring about improvements to the current processes Optical Express utilise.

Hmmm, by signing the consent form you have confirmed that you have read and understood it all?!

My RLE consent form was only provided at the consent appointment with the surgeon. It should have been issued with my information pack in advance for me to reflect on but was not. I so wish that I had asked to be given a copy to take away with me. However, in any case it didn't mention problems from yag laser i.e. movement of the intraocular lens, nor did it mention vitreous floaters/opacities. Is this really informed consent? Nor did it specify which laser "enhancement" would be required if needed.

I had thin corneas, so lasek was the "tweak" that would be needed. I was not cautioned about this at my initial RLE consent, supposed "informed consent" with my surgeon.

I ended up needing many treatments. I signed a consent form for "wavefront lasek" needed after a lens replacement procedure. " Wavefront" was scored out on my consent form and "standard" was ticked instead! No explanation or initialing to this alteration to a legal document was carried out. I was not informed by my surgeon who I saw immediately before treatment. I was lying under the laser when I overheard them read out "standard lasek". I queried this, saying I was expecting wavefront laser! My surgeon said nothing! It was a nurse who piped up "you will still get a good result". Well if seeing traffic lights with lines shooting out of them and car tail lights in triplicate is a good result, she was correct!

My supposed "expert witness" who I trusted would look through my notes with a fine tooth comb just agreed that this was the case, I had had a consent form altered and he made no comment. This says it all really. What a waste of money and expectation. I thought an expert witness would actually take the time to read through my entire case notes although lengthy. Maybe this was too big an ask? But clearly he did not and it suited him to consider "informed consent" as he had already done this for others, and in my report on "consent" another person's name featured. That he had only seen his own consent form on the day when he had cataract surgery on the NHS, in his mind justified my only seeing a consent form on the day of "consent appointment".

This doesn't seem comparable to me. I had no cataract and was not fully informed as to the huge risk I was taking with my eyes. Lens exchange for cataract is NOT the same as lens exchange without cataract to see without glasses!

This is why the government needs to be involved and collect statistics of patients like myself who end up with problems and only offered "help" by Optical Express on condition they sign a gagging clause.

Informed consent

Has anyone been successful in pursuing "lack of informed consent"?!

Having undergone the process of refractive lens exchange I have to say that I feel I was not properly informed.

In my opinion now with the benefit of hindsight, the practice of utilising a combined consent form for cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange may be convenient, but it makes for a longer document which takes longer to navigate and I strongly feel that there are extra risk factors in the younger patient that must be emphasised for consent to be truly informed.

I was not given the consent form until I saw the surgeon at the consent appointment. Nor was I given a copy to take away with me. Of course, it was for me to request this, and I will forever regret that I did not.

Verbal information" was noted to be lacking by Which in their recent report. I feel that I should have had it stressed to me by my surgeon, verbally, at my consent appointment, that it was likely that I, a younger patient without cataract would need yag very early on. He told me " you might need yag laser"! I stupidly did not ask,assuming this would be years down the line, like my relatives who had had cataract surgery. This risk factor was not mentioned to me verbally or on the consent form. Not was it verbally mentioned to me that yag laser could alter the position of the intraocular lens thus changing your vision. Not were vitreous floaters following yag laser mentioned to me or on the consent form. How can this be "informed consent". My surgeon failed to mention to me at the consent appointment that the " laser tweak" that might be needed, 10% chance, would be lasek, not LASIK! which would be painful and could take many weeks or even months to achieve its effect. Of course, it was for me to ask?

My expert witness, was not willing to discuss the issue of a consent form presented "on the day" as he had been given his consent form on the day when he had his cataract surgery carried out!:

The system is carefully worked out!

If it were unbiased then they would have a group meeting before surgery when everyone could pool questions and answers.

The way OE rush you through the conveyor system means there's no sharing of worries and so you're left thinking you're the only one who has these concerns and you're being irrational.

it's only when it's too late & your eyes are ruined you realise your concerns were perfectly valid!

My god, the more I read about this subject, the more foolish I feel for putting my trust into this corrupt company!
They told me that because I had dry eyes to start with, this meant I may take my eyes 6 months instead of 3 month to 'fully' heal...
3 years on... they still haven't healed. the starbursts are still there and the uncomfortable dryness and soreness still remains.

Yes the cornea never heals regardless of the surgical approach. All cosmetic refractive surgery is faulty in that it leaves a permanent unwanted 'side-effect'. The histology of the cornea has been well known prior to any refractive surgery. It is avascular and hence has limited healing ability.

The collagen or connective tissue of the cornea heals with a disorganized matrix, never to be the same. Like cutting into a golf ball, the layers of tightly woven organized connective tissue are permanently damaged and in essence 'unravel'. Bowman's layer, whose function is still not truly known but is postulated to be a strength giving layer never heals at all. This densely woven 'Kevlar' like layer helps the cornea keep its shape.

In RK the cutting of the stroma and bowman's left the cornea permanently weakened and prone to trauma and the forces of daily living. This is why 40% or more RK corneas kept on flattening producing farsightedness or hyperopia. This was known early in the PERK study. It did not stop the RK surgeons as it was all they had to sell.

In PRK or Lasek the outer bowmans layer and part of the stroma are lased away. This leaves a weakened area prone to bulging or ectasia. The unraveling stroma never regains its original smoothness and optical purity.

In Lasik the flap only regains 2% of its original strength and can be lifted easily over a decade later. There will be a constant supply of patients for corneal transplants in the future as daily living trauma like an errant fingernail causes the the flaps to 'fall' off.

All refractive surgery carries lifelong risks from the weakened corneal structure. The technique changes over the decades but in the end the cornea never heals as it is avascular and was engineered never to be touched.

Yes, all of us were told this! They used the exact wording/verbatim:
"Dean, the LASIK flap will heal like a cut heals on your hand..."

Again, all lies! They knew from day one, when LASIK started, that there were KNOWN LONG TERM PERMANENT INJURIES, yet they lied saying "there are no known long term injuries" to having LASIK.
Then our idiotic American FDA approved it, they got duped...Even Dr. Morris Waxler who approved it admits that it was a "GRAVE MISTAKE," and for the past 3 years has been trying to get the FDA to retract the FDA APPROVAL and then that would be the catalyst for sending out a LASIK PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY...etc...
,
www.LifeAfterLasik.com

Has anyone who underwent lasik ops ever been told prior to surgery that these flaps never heal/integrate back with the corneal tissue?

I wasn't told this, and it would certainly have influenced my decision as to whether to proceed with surgery if I had known that once you have a lasik cornea, you always have one.