'Denise Phillips, 46, from Worcester, had been with electrician Paul Dance, 62, who had no history of depression or previous self-harm, for more than 18 years and they had a 16-year-old son together. Paul hated wearing glasses and paid £6,990 to have new lenses surgically put into his eyes in January, but was left distraught after learning that a deterioration in his vision would require a second operation.'
"Denise explained: 'He left that meeting distraught because he didn't know what to do and feared he might go blind. He had lost hope, felt abandoned and couldn't face life anymore.'
She added: 'I have to make this public because he asked me to. I feel that if one person reads it and decides not to risk going through what Paul did, his death will not have been in vain.'
Denise has been supported by Sasha Rodoy, who runs the My Beautiful Eyes Foundation and acts as a patient-advocate for those who have concerns over refractive eye surgery..'
David Reid, Senior Coroner for Worcestershire, will conduct the inquest on December 2 at Stourport-on-Severn.
A spokesperson for the company [OPTEGRA]said: 'We are extremely saddened by Mr Dance's death and offer our sincere condolences to the family.
'As the inquest is ongoing, it is not appropriate for us to comment at this time and, as required, we will support the coroner with any procedures or requests he has.’"
To anyone who might not understand just how serious the risks of unregulated refractive eye surgery are, please be in no doubt that his lens exchange operations at Optegra Eye Hospital were entirely to blame for Paul Dance's suicide 🖤
'An electrician took his own life after corrective eye surgery apparently left him with dry eyes and blurred vision.
Paul Dance, 62, had wanted to avoid wearing glasses, his partner said, and he died at Worcestershire Royal Hospital, where he worked, on 4 July.
Following his death, his family wanted to make others aware of the risks from eye surgery.
Optegra, the company that performed the surgery, said it offered its condolences to the family.
However, it said it would not be commenting until the inquest concludes.
Mr Dance left four suicide notes. They all focused on anxiety about his eyes being the reason for taking his life.
Denise Phillips, a district nurse, said her partner of more than 18 years had been extremely laid back in life but hated wearing glasses.
He paid £6,990 to have new lenses put into his eyes, thinking that it would transform his life, she said.
Following the surgery in January, Mr Dance reported seeing haloes and that he could not distinguish them from street lights, she said.
Before his death on 4 July, he began to obsess about his eyes, Ms Phillips said, and had become worried about driving at night and being able to do his job.
"I hope that we can make people aware of this," she said.
"I just want people to be aware of the dangers so that Paul's life is not in vain.
Campaigner Sasha Rodoy said she was aware of many people who had suffered problems following eye surgery and is campaigning for further regulation of the industry.
"This surgery is not cosmetic," she said.[Sasha said much more, but BBC News editors chopped it!]
'BBC Scotland has learned that a major high street chain of opticians is reopening for non-urgent, elective treatments apparently in breach of Scottish government guidelines… However the Scottish government told the programme: "We cannot comment on the specific claims because we are not aware of the full details however, opticians should not be undertaking non-urgent procedures at this time.”’ (Link in previous post)
Why didn’t the Scottish government tell BBC Scotland News, ‘We will look into this’?
Hmmm... let me think why that might be
With David Moulsdale publicly schmoozing with Scotland’s First Minister perhaps the government didn’t want to embarrass Nicola Sturgeon - OE having taken the opportunity to associate her (and legendary racing driver Sir Jackie Stewart) closely with his corrupt organisation.
The moral and financial wrongness of this partnership cannot easily be ignored, with so many thousands of Optical Express damaged patients forced to turn to the NHS for aftercare - at enormous cost to all four UK nations, often for life!
It is outrageous that the Scottish government have entered into this alliance.
A little history: With the help of some of his wealthy and influential buddies, including Sir Tom Hunter and Lord Jack McConnell, I was told that David Moulsdale was chasing a knighthood when OERML arrived on the scene in 2012, and one of the ways people do that is to publicly support as many high profile charities as possible - and funnel a lot more money to ‘helpful’ parties!
(I understand that OERML trashed his chance of a knighthood.)
Jaw dropping hypocrisy with Moulsdale’s previous involvement in the RNIB: 'From 2001 - 2004 he was the Chairman of the Royal National Institute of the Blind'
Coincidentally, one of their many thousands of damaged (lens exchange) patients contacted me yesterday and told me that he'd just spoken with 'Simon' at the Optical Express Birmingham store.
Asking to see someone asap, he was told that he would have to wait up to three weeks for an aftercare appointment - because they are ONLY seeing new patients from Monday!
Of course they are, because Optical Express will be struggling to make money now they have to pay wages, and new patients will be pressured to book surgery and leave hefty deposits, whereas damaged patients are a drain on their resources, wasting valuable sales time.
Meanwhile, people are STILL waiting for their deposits to be refunded for surgery that was cancelled months ago!
(3 of 3)
Thanks to Optician Online for including my comments re Tweedledum's response (on behalf of Optical Express) to BBC Radio 4 Inside Health's exposé
"CALLS FOR CHANGE Sasha Rodoy, founder of the My Beautiful Eyes Foundation and campaigner for government regulation of the refractive eye surgery industry, told Optician it was her who provided Inside Health’s production team with the internal OE documents referred to in the broadcast. She said the claims made on sales incentives and commission were accurate.
‘As refractive eye surgery campaigner since 2012, I’ve talked with many thousands of people damaged by this industry who report the same sales pressure to undergo surgery, be it lens exchange or laser. I have listened to the BBC broadcast a number of times, and with nine years of experience to call on, there is nothing in it that I consider “factually inaccurate” or “fake news”.
‘Sam Begum initially contacted me more than a year ago, and she is one of hundreds I have helped to find legal representation, with claims against OE and their surgeons.
‘Government regulation is desperately needed, as commercially driven eye operations regularly leave people permanently damaged, left to seek aftercare and expensive reparative surgery from the NHS.
‘With respect to Optical Express’ claim of “sensationalising fake news”: what’s happening within the refractive surgery industry needs to be sensationalised to bring this scandal to the attention of the government and public.’"
(2 of 3)
These pages* (stars my own), along with hundreds of Optical Express documents, were delivered to my home in 2015, and I trust that the person responsible knows how grateful I remain to this day
Many of the internal emails and documents indisputably prove patient care is very low on OE's agenda, profit their priority.
So when Tweedles (aka Stephen Hannan) told the Optician journalist Andrew McClean that the BBC Radio 4 report was 'fake news', he was lying!
Because, with respect to optoms and PAs (Patient Advisers) receiving incentives and prizes, this is entirely factual, as is Sam Begum's story, and that from Professor Leela Biant and her father.
I therefore look forward to Tweedles' scriptwriters telling us what they consider at least one of the claimed 'numerous factual inaccuracies' to be - in the event of which, as I said, I look forward to the news that OE will sue the BBC for defamation.
Shockingly, surgeons also receive financial incentives if they pass a target number of ops in one day, which leaves them extremely stressed and tired, and a danger to their patients, especially those treated later in the day.
Another wonderful little birdie with a conscience had previously provided me with a copy of OE's 'Patient Adviser Flow', an internal sales training manual that proved Stephanie Holloway was telling the truth at her trial, won on lack of informed consent alone.**
I have a vast collection of OE internal documents provided by insiders, and these just an amuse bouche...
But laughably, the ones mentioned in the BBC report were courtesy of Optical Express, who accidentally included one of my clients in a lengthy 'Super Saturday' email thread in 2018, about which I posted on this forum at the time.
When he realised that his staff were sending me internal documents, David Moulsdale apparently introduced a crack down on any paperwork being removed from OE premises, including training manuals, and of course computers leave paper trails, so inside hard copy documentation has been sadly sparse for a while.
FAO OE employees: I know that many of you follow my posts, and should by now appreciate that I guarantee confidentiality and NEVER name my sources, though usually anonyomous or using a pseudonym.
**Luckily! As Stephanie's legal representative had neglected to file the paperwork for her negligence claim in time.
And I vividly recall our conversations throughout the week leading up to trial, when Stephanie came so close to dropping her claim because she stood to lose her home if she lost, lack of informed consent a precarious claim at that time.
Therefore, every person in litigation with Optical Express owes so much to Stephanie for taking that leap of faith!
Before commenting on the claims in this article at length, I'll give you time to consider for yourself whether there were ANY 'factual inaccuracies' in the BBC Radio 4 Inside Health report! (Link posted 4 March)
In my opinion there were none whatsoever, but if Optical Express can prove otherwise, then I look forward to the news that they intend to sue the BBC for defamation. (Remember their £21.5 million claim against the Daily Mail!)
And having provided the programme's production team with numerous internal OE documents referred to in the broadcast, evidencing sales incentives and commissions paid to staff, I can assure you these were quoted from accurately - and I will publish later.