Although it sounds immoral, but all patients did sign a contract that absolves the doctor out of anything.

What is the likelihood that the court would enforce such a contract? There are several high profile cases that the patient did receive compensation. But it doesn't help if only around 3% of patients got justice.

There's no such contract that absolves the doctor. If a doctor fails to provide fully informed consent, the consent forms are meaningless.

A patient cannot provide informed consent unless he or she is fully informed. What fully informed patient would have LASIK?

If patients were a fraction informed... they wouldn't have LASIK.

To the best of my knowledge all LASIK surgeons fail to provide fully informed consent.

I think the entire industry is on thin ice due to CONSENT issues, and that all surgeons performing LASIK presently are knowingly doing harm to patients.

Legally, it usually comes down to "standard of care".

Richard F. Callaway, MD (OSN 4/15/2006):



True story... a LASIK 'expert witness' said under oath that it is not a violation of standard of care to perform the wrong procedure on both eyes of a patient.

http://www.bcmlawyers.com/blog/wp-conte ... -depo3.pdf

If what you are saying is correct, then you could sue your doctor for millions. Did you try that?

Well, you have the standard of care issue, and the informed consent issue.
You can sue for breaches in either - or both.

I knew I would have a rough time going after my doctor on standard of care because all the other butchers are doing the same thing to patients and they all lie for each other.

I think more attorneys and patients should go after the informed consent issue. LASIK surgeons are aware of the problems with LASIK - they write about them in their own journals and discuss them at meetings, but they don't fully inform patients about LASIK complications... or they wouldn't make money. This is a huge issue.

Not sure what the statute of limitations would be... guess it may start when you realized you didn't receive informed consent. That would mean the clock is still ticking on most surgeries performed in the US.

If there's any justice, there will ultimately be a movement toward holding surgeons and the industry accountable for butchering millions of eyes.

We need to start holding the industry accountable in ways where we can make use of expertise of outside experts... LASIK surgeons will always lie for each other regarding standard of care, but informed consent documents must be permanent record... and doctors from other fields and medical ethicists can provide expert testimony as to whether patients received informed proper informed consent - there is no way out for surgeons and the industry.

Surgeons must have signed consent documents - that's the requirement. If a complication and your risk of winding up with that complication is not clearly explained informed consent document and stated in a way that all would be clear to a reasonalble person, then the surgeon has failed to provide fully informed consent. That's malpractice.

so you didn't sue and even if you did sue, you aren't sure who would win?

Instead of speculating on forum, why don't you try that and tell us what works and what doesn't work.

Lawsuits are almost always a risk. The good guy doesn't always win.

What worked for patients who were injured early on failed later as surgeons cirlced their wagons to lie for each other, and published garbage studies concluding that pupil size doesn't matter.

Suddenly lawsuits that were winnable for millions were lost - among patients with similar permanent damage to their vision.

To win a lawsuit now you need to be able to document that the surgeon deviated from the standard of care. Best cases are pre-existing signs of keratoconus in ectasia cases. Pupil size is a hard issue to win because surgeons and the industry have their own 'experts' citing their own junk science.

I think informed consent issues will be the emerging trend because they'll be subject to evaluation outside the industry. We need some 3rd party oversight.