TOPIC: GENERAL CHAT - Open to all

I was not suitable because of intolerance to contact lenses and prismatic correction. When I had 2nd consultation I was told that they didn't understand why i had been deemed unsuitable because I was suitable.
I notice now - because I have my notes, that they have written no intolerance to contact lenses and no prismatic correction, my prescription was +5.50 +6.50
I need these lenses exchanged because I have really bad ghosting and glaring headaches and sore eyes.
I have multifocal lenses and have been told if it is changed to monofocal it will help

A few eye surgery patients from Glasgow have been in touch with me, they all have problems not one person that I have spoke to has had plain simple great vision eyes what we are suppose to have, my doctor told me that the only time you let anything get done to your eyes is for medical reasons only, wish I would have spoke to her beforehand as I wouldn't be in this terrible position.

David Teenan clearly must be referring to the patient demographic that fall within the quoted "99% of patients achieve 20/20 vision"; under 40years of age within a specific most common prescription range i.e. with a high chance of success....and it must be satisfying for his patients and himself......out with this range is much more of a challenge!

David Teenan ruined my eyes and I can never have any more surgery to fix them!
This made me so angry.

A consent form is not worth a damn if there has been negligence. Negligence does not mean just at the surgical procedure but also pre and postop. So non-identification of pre-existing conditions that lead to an adverse outcome can be considered negligent.

Corporations are one thing in terms of "contract" but health care is provided by people and contracts really do not matter - you have not signed a contract to be harmed. Suggest in addition to OE, you name and go after each and every individual involved in your care - name them all and get them all to defend themselves. A great way to get them to may more attention in the future. They all have indemnity insurance and will have to let their insurers get involved.

I would like to say well done to Sasha for adding a forum to this great looking newly designed web site.

Reply to John.
Thank you for your sympathies John. Unfortunately it is not simple to sue OE even though it should be. They have a firm of solicitors who are evidently complicit. A patient approaches OE in good faith and trusts that they are in the hands of competent, qualified and trustworthy staff. NOT TRUE. The sales procedure is designed in such a way that by the time a patient realises that something has gone wrong it is too late. A Consent Form has been signed which totally and completely absolves OE from any responsibility whatsoever. Worse still, OE DON'T CARE.
I am in the middle of litigation. My solicitor is STILL waiting for a response to my Letter of Claim that was sent to HARPER MACLEOD in May 2012. Harper Macleod refuse to respond to letters, emails and phone calls. They are deliberately stalling. Why? Because they evidently knew that the branch where I had surgery was apparently a part of Optical Expree Southern Ltd which changed its name in October and then immediately went into administration.
It would appear that I was under the total misapprehension that I had agreed a Contract with Optical Express.....but no I had entered into an agreement with 123Leeds Ltd who unfortunately no longer exist.
So, many of thousands of pounds later I have the additional challenge of establishing that my Contract is with OE who continues to trade at the branch where I had my surgery with surprise surprise Optical Express over its door.
So they continue to take on patients even though they are in administration and the law allows this to happen. Imagine the folk who are unknowingly committing themselves to surgery at this branch, the Trafford Centre Manchester, handing over money, even having surgery with the distinct possibilty that the branch may not be there next week?
How can this be allowed to continue?
I shall make it a lifelong commitment to expose this Company wherever, whenever and however I can, because they have destined me to a lifetime of indescribable pain and misery.

I have recently come across this forum and I am disgusted at the way in which Optical Express have ruined so many people's lives through laser eye surgery. It beggars belief that they are getting away with this. I myself do not have the greatest eyesight but after reading these forums, I would never dream of having any type of surgery and would also never recommend Optical Express to anyone considering eye surgery as I have heard far too many horror stories. I totally sympathise with all you folk experiencing the adverse effects of surgery. Eyes are very precious and certainly not something to be messed around with.

SHAME ON YOU OPTICAL EXPRESS!!

I would advise anyone whose lives have been ruined by Optical Express to seek legal advice and sue this company.

I would like to commend Sasha for all her efforts in publishing this site, not dependent on advertising revenue for it's upkeep, so that people can speak honestly without censorship.

The government announced last week that the cosmetic surgery industry is going to be subjected to strict controls and regulation. Free consultations are to be banned, cooloing off periods enforced, and unqualified salespeople not allowed to "hard sell" treatments.
The laser/refractive eye surgery industry must be subjected to the same strict controls as a matter of urgency, and it is a scandal of epic proportions that it has been allowed to operate with no proper regulation whatsoever.
The government are aware of the scale of the problem, and many more people will have their most precious sense ruined by an industry which is driven by the ruthless pursuit of business profit regardless of the suffering it inflicts until action is taken.

All too often these companies twist the truth to lure consumers into their trap... Surely the government should & could do more to prevent this across the board???

OE are just one of many corporates exploiting slack marketing regulations.