I made the print!!

[Dotanne]

Here is a link to an article about my dry eye that was written in a student newspaper by my son's girlfriend who is doing a journalism course.

http://www.tewahanui.info/news/070601_lasereye.shtml

I thought she did a good job. It will be read by many students in Auckland.
I hope I have put this link in the right way so you can access it.
Cheers all
Dot

[brd888]

Hi Dotanne,
Interesting article (link worked okay). Dr Gray seems on the ball - pity about the other chap. Interesting how he said some people get Dry eye without surgery (me).
Bruce

[Natalie06]

Allowing Lasik surgeons to determine what risk factors that they share or don't share with their patients is a lot like asking a fox to design the hen house.

[dianat]

This is great, Dot!

[Rebecca Petris]

WOW! Great job!

I am sure that article must be making a great impact - particularly with the glaring inconsistencies that the interviews with the two surgeons brought out:


[Dr. Gray] says some patients are more susceptible to dry eye following Lasik, including older people, females, those taking certain medications such as birth control pills and anti-depressants, and those undergoing hormone replacement therapy.

Simpson says she was not warned of her increased risk, which existed because of her age, gender and post-menopausal state.

Dr Gray says he definitely warns patients of these risks in pre-surgery consultations.

His colleague, Dr Peter Ring, performed Simpson’s surgery.

He says if she came to him for Lasik today with the same pre-existing circumstances, he would still not give her specific warning for chronic dry eye risk because he believes her results to be unique.


Your surgeon's colleague clearly states you're in a higher risk group - yet your surgeon still maintains that he would NOT warn someone like you even today.

Your surgeon's colleague also states that ~5% of patients can be expected to have a longer term dry eye problem - yet your surgeon maintains that your results are "unique".

That ought to give pause to anyone reading the article that values their eye health.

[prattstar]

Great job Dot.

Clearly the two colleagues don't spend a lot of time comparing notes??

Regards

Ian

[Silverlady]

Dot,
This really raised some questions for me. My daughter-in-law had the lasik surgery a couple of years ago, but she was only 28 and no existing problems to begin with. My son has been considering it, he is now 36. I've sent him this link. With our family history (autoimmune illnesses), I seriously don't think he should do it. This should give him more to think about. Thanks for posting it.

Billye

[Dotanne]

Thanks for all the interesting comments. Ange (the author) has mild dry eye from contacts so has some understanding of what dry eye is. I am so pleased she did such a good article.
Apparently this paper has quite a wide circulation including the Prime Minister!!!!
I have been in touch with Dr Gray and he has arranged for me to see a Prof McGhee from Auckland University Opthalmology Dept. Appointment tomorrow morning so that will be interesting. He is a tear specialist. Maybe I will at last know if there is any other cause for my dry eye apart from Lasik!!!
All my Lasik Dr could offer me was cauterisation at first (I refused and had plugs instead) and Omega 3 later, which I was already taking thanks to this bulletin board! Just says I am his worst case ever!!! :D :D
I am so grateful to have found this site a couple of years ago. Rebecca and co helped me climb out of a ghastly situation. God bless you all.
Cheers
Dot

[brd888]

All my Lasik Dr could offer me was cauterisation at first (I refused and had plugs instead) Dot

Hey that really sucks. Cauterisation is a permanent treatment for those whom plugs are troublesome. Why on earth would he offer this first?

[Caroline]

Thank you for this. I am sorry to hear you were not told your true risks, its appalling. The article sums up LASIK dry eye quite well, especially the " increased risk" factor. I too was at an "increased risk" of dry eye post LASIK because I could not wear contact lenses without severe dry eye problems. In 2004 I warned my surgeon I thought i had dry eye and queried if this could put me at risk of getting the so called "dry eye" mentioned in small print on the consent form and he just told me dry eye with contacts did not mean I had dry eye and told me I was okay to have surgery as he had looked at my eyes under flourestent stain and they did not look dry. I now have had dry eyes for 3.5 years post surgery. Schmir result of 2mm. Also I suffer with bad sinusitus pain in dry atmospheres and lost a job over this where i worked in an air conditioned office. I now work in a small office that I humidify and I am considered disabled. I am only 33 years old. I wear wrap around glasses and use eye drops when I really have to (they make my eyes burn more with frequent use as I have no natural tears to dilute chemicals). I have been told by other surgeons that my surgeon was neglegant and that he should have cautioned me against LASIK surgery. I argued that I should have been told I was at higher risk of dry eye because I already had dry eyes. It is not enough surgeons tell people they have 5% risk of ongoing dry eye (although i I was not even told this, i was told there have been a "few" reported cases of people having ongoing dry eye but usually everyone's eyes get back to normal). People like me who have existing dry eye (or borderline dry eye) before surgery have pretty much 100% chance of getting post LASIK dry eye! Because we are the 5%!!! It is not enough the surgeons say dry eye tests results vary too much against people's symptoms. It is still an indication and it should be done in conjunction with asking people many questions about their history, especially if they go for LASIK because of contact lense intollerance. Its clearly a copout by the LASIK industry because they do not want to put off potential money making candidates. I worry about the future, if things are bad for me now when I reach the menopause I have been told that it will get worse. None of my friends, work colleagues or family understand just how bad dry eye/ dry sinus is and think I should just get on with it. So now i suffer in silence when all i want is understanding so i won't be subjected to torturious over heated rooms or air condtioning in friend's cars. I believe that many people who have had LASIK in their 20s or 30s and have not developed dry eye may well do so when their eyes become naturally dryer (upto 60% between age 20 to 60!) as they are dryer to start with than they would have been. It is the reason I think LASIK should be banned.
I am really grateful for sites like these, they are so useful and the support is invaluable. Thank you very much.

[Natalie06]

This is one of the most eloquent posts I have ever read about Lasik and dry eye. I know exactly what you are going through and I pray that you (and I and everyone) find some relief. And that somehow, we can get the FDA, the AMA and out own states to pay attention to this.

Natalie
Lasik induced severe dry eye 7/14/06

I just realized that you are in the UK. Prattstar (one of our members) was featured in an article in the UK about Lasik and dry eye. I can't put my hands on it yet but when I do I'll post it for you. The Royal Academy of Ohthalmology (I think that's the right name) stated in the article that they were instituting a formal retraining of Lasik surgeons due to the rise of post Lasik complications like dry eye.

[Caroline]

Thank you! I've just joined here and its great to have a reply. Sorry to hear of your suffering.

This site is great, I had LASIK three and a half years ago and to find a site like this offering good advice and support is reassuring. About a year after having LASIK i was at my worst with schmir of 0 mm in both eyes but now i have made some changes and managed to reduced the symptoms (largely insisting on being moved to a smaller office at work in which i could humidify the air (large offices you can't humidify with a standard humidifier). I have to keep humidity above 45% and temperature below 22C for my eyes not too burn and I also wear normal glasses indoors which are non prescription, that makes a big difference). My schmir is now 2 and 3 mm. I still have bad days like today with sudden onset of intense irritation and feeling I want to pull my eye out but its shorter lived than before.

If you come across that article would be interested in reading it. Thanks.

Hope you are having a good week.

[Natalie06]

I just sent you a private message with the text of the article. I wasn't 100% sure if due to copywrite laws if I could post it and I don't want Rebecca to get in trouble so...If you want to research it on-line it's from the Scotland Sunday Post.

I'd like your permission to use your post in a potential article I am writing and/or send it to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. I have been saving some of the best and most compelling quotes so people know just how serious this is and how badly improper Lasik procedures can affect someone's quality of life. And your post says it so well. The lies and promises, the deliberate downplaying of side effects and the taking risks with people's eyes.

I am so glad you've at least gotten some relief. I am still at the Zero Schirmer point and I can't change my job or office. But I keep hoping that things will improve. I know exactly what you mean about the temp/humidity...I can now predict the weather based on how my eyes are feeling.

Today was so much better than last week that I am giddy. I know it won't last but I try and enjoy every "good" day as much as possible.

Hang in there. I am so sorry you had to join "the club" but hope that coming here helps you as much as it has helped me.

Natalie

[prattstar]

Caroline

I remember that someone placed a copy of the article here on the BB, I will hunt around for it and post a link if I can find it.

The Sunday Post only keeps articles on their website for 1 week until the next paper is published.

It was a well written article by a very concerned reporter.

Regards

Prattstar

Found it. You can follow this link. http://www.dryeyezone.com/talk/showthread.php?t=3433 not the most flattering picture of myself but had it certainly had an impact.

Cheers

Ian (Prattstar)

[Caroline]

Hi Natalie!
Thanks for your email, I have sent you a private one concerning my article. I am glad you are having a good week. The last couple of days have been better for me, I think because the air is colder perhaps. Anyway WELL DONE for finding the strength to collate articles to submit to the academy of Opthalmology, what a great idea!!!
Thanks for the welcome and hope to have lots of correspondence with you in the future.



Prattstar,

Many thanks for forwarding your newspaper article. I didn't even know the UK were aware/ concerned there was an issue with laser surgery. I am very sorry to hear about your situation with your eyes and losing your job. Are you working at the moment or can you receive disability benefits? I don't know what options I would have if i lose my job in the UK, which i came very close to doing. I had to fight disability rights to be able to stay and work in humidified conditions otherwise i would have to had to give up work and become unemployable i guess.

Regarding the article, it is hopeful they acknowlegde it but also the bureaucracy maddens me with all their "pilot schemes". How long will it take for them to just simply enforce that LASIK consultations warn people the most common side affect of LASIK is Dry Eye Syndrome and that if patients have had any dry eye issues they are at a greater risk of developing this. Also enforced should be all consultations are tape recorded to make sure (large money making) surgeons clearly warn their patients of the very real risks rather than down play them. From the article it said LASIK companies say they explain the side affects and screen for dry eye. This clearly is not working and from my own experience I know why; first of all people are sometimes just told there is a small risk (between 1 and 5%) of getting dry eye. This is abuse of statistics and misleading; most surgeons do not emphasise you could have up to 100% risk of dry eye if you have existing borderline/ mild dry eyes. Secondly, current screening for current dry eye is useless. It just involves looking at fluorescent stain under miscroscope. I know it is useless because i have recently been to the eye hospital (years after LASIK) and they tell me my eyes look ok under fluorscent staining even though i have severe dry eye problems and a schmir of 2mm. Staining alone only shows current dry spots on the eyes. When I went to my pre surgery consultation it was before work, mid morning and on a April rainy day. Why would i have had dry spots on the eyes? If he had looked at them on a hot summers day after a long day of looking at a computer screen in an air conditioned office I expect he would have seen many dry eye spots. Even if I showed no dry eye spots pre surgery that does not mean I do not have "borderline" dry eye and therefore Schmir test and Tear break up time tests are a must. The current system of testing for dry eyes is not through enough and it maddens me that the LASIK industry trys to suggest that they have the power to "screen" for it in this article when at the same time I have asked la eading LASIK surgeon why none of them record dry eye test results in consultation notes and have been told that is because test results vary too much from symptoms. Therefore it has been admitted to me that they can not tell from dry eye testing whether or not someone will experience dry eye problems.

Sorry to rant on but just felt so strongly from this article. It is good it is being recognised and with more feedback of our own experiences perhaps they will understand a bit better why the current system is letting too many victims fall through the net.

I too find the morning the most difficult with dry eye. Most mornings it is really difficult to open the eyes for longer than a split second for the first few minutes. I wear a mask over night (like the sort you get on a plane) which I find makes a difference in helping to keep in the moisture. I do not rub my eyes when I wake up as I do not think this can do much good when eyes are so dry. I just warm eyes with the palms of my hands for a few minutes and blink a lot. I am surprised that soft eyelids can scratch the eyes when very dry, this is worrying. Have your scratched eyes healed now?

Best wishes and hope you are finding relief from your symptoms.
Caroline

[prattstar]

Caroline

I totally agree with you on the lack of screening process.

There are a few of us on this board that live in the UK that have laser induced dry eye.

Fortunately after 2 years of almost hell, things are starting to improve. I work as a consultant so have been very lucky that I can do some of my work on the end of a phone at home and I tend to work the hours that suit. I am extremely fortunate that I have had this flexibility otherwise, I would be in extreme financial difficulty.

Disability is not an option for me given my employment status.

Fortunately I had some money saved prior to my surgery that has managed to scrape me through. This is why I always advise people to have a backup plan when they are contemplating this surgery as there is no guarantee that you will get the outcome you desire.

As far as your morning dryness goes, I went through a stage where I had a steripod - non preserved saline solution (you can get them on prescription), I used to keep it by the bed and crack it open before I open my eyes and pour it over them. I found that this really helped with the morning dryness.

Take care and I hope things settle for you soon.

Warm regards

Ian

[Caroline]

Ian,

Thank you for that, I will ask my doctor about the saline solution (it sounds better than eye drops that contain all sorts). I am glad to hear you can still work and that things have improved for you.

All the best
Caroline

[prattstar]

Caroline

The saline solution is great for rinising and flushing. I used to use it first up of a morning to wet my eyes before I opened them (after I removed the tape) so that they at least had a little bit of moisture in them before the scratching started.

It is certainly not a substitute for a good artificial tear. It is mearly a good rinising product.

I used to pop one in the fridge/freezer and pour it over my eyes in the shower for a refreshing rinse.

They can be purchase without prescription but are very expensive. If you can convince your dr that you use 1 a day, you will get about 30 on prescription for the standard prescription charge, rather than about 70p each OTC.

Good luck with it.

Cheers

Ian

[Caroline]

Hi

Thanks for that info. I was going to ask what the Saline solution is called to be able to ask my doctor for it. I guess its just called "Saline solution" and comes in little vials like eye drops.

I tried making my own saline solution the other night with cooled boiled water and salt. I was using it for my eyes and nose (my nose gets dry and stuffy/ blocked one side- this happens with the dry eye, not sure if the dry eye causes it or if the other way round). It gave probably as much relief as an eye drop which for me lasts about 20 minutes at best. I'd rather use saline solution if it works just as well long term because I find that eye drops leave a residue in my eyes, espically if I use them in the night. I wake up with crusty eyes and eyes are more itchy ( i think it creates a blepharitus like reaction in me). I doubt saline would do this. Also i don't like the fact most eye drops contain some sort of acid in them to keep them sterile.

Hope you are doing ok
Caroline

[prattstar]

Caroline

In the UK we have two versions of non preserved saline solution that I am aware of, 1 is a proprietory brand called Steripods and the other is in a little packet. The packet is next to useless as you have no control over it.

The Steripods are about 25mls of non preserved saline solution in a harder plastic vial that you simply snap the top off and pour it on your eyes.

The steripod are designed for eye rinses (foreign body) and wound care.

The come in a box of about 20 but can be purchased separately OTC at a good pharmacy.

Ask your DR for 30 vials (1 x day for 30 days (as your prescription will only cover 30 days). My GP didn't have a problem with this amount (they are quite expensive though at 70p each OTC so your GP may question it simply due to the cost £21.00 OTC but your standard prescription charge will apply).

Simply ask your GP for Steripods (non preserved saline solution) X 30, they should know exactly what it is or otherwise they shouldn't be in the business.

I think you are taking huge risk making attempting to make your own, normal tap water contains all sorts of "rubbish". If you don't want a full prescription supply, grab a couple from your pharmacy again, ask for Steripod - Non preserved noraml saline solution - should cost you no more than £1.50 for 2.

As I said previously, they are not a substitute for a good lubricating eye drop, their purpose is for rinising.

As I am rennovating my house at the moment I have loads of dust from sanding etc so I find they are good to rinse my eyes at the end of the day to get rid of the "crap".

If you have any further questions on it, please PM me as I am a little concerned that we may have redirected this post a little but I am more than happy to help.

cheers

Ian

[Rory]

I have to say that i was astonished by the lasik surgeons here and in europe and asia. I have had very dry eyes since i was 20 and not from lasik. However 4 out of 5 lasik surgeons who i have consulted over the past 5 years were happy to perform the procedure on me. I have schirmers of 1 and 2mm!!! Only one of the surgeons refused me and said that i most certainly should not have lasik

I believe it is purely the fact that eye Drs throughout the world are ignorant of dry eye and certainly do not understand the massive affect that is has on people's lives.

I do not believe that Lasik should be banned..but the risk of dry eye AND a clear explanation of what real dry eye really means should be made clear to all prospective patients. As most of you know by now, dry eye is considered a minor ailment to those who have never experienced it.....and i believe that this attitude is shared by the majority of eye surgeons today

[YGB]

I have to say that i was astonished by the lasik surgeons here and in europe and asia. I have had very dry eyes since i was 20 and not from lasik. However 4 out of 5 lasik surgeons who i have consulted over the past 5 years were happy to perform the procedure on me. I have schirmers of 1 and 2mm!!! Only one of the surgeons refused me and said that i most certainly should not have lasik


I do not believe that Lasik should be banned..but the risk of dry eye AND a clear explanation of what real dry eye really means should be made clear to all prospective patients.

Hi Rory - you bring up an interesting paradox in your post. You state that 4 out of 5 LASIK MD's were willing to do LASIK on you despite you very low schirmer score and pre-existing dry eye. You then state that you do not believe LASIK should be banned.

My thought is that if LASIK MD's as a collective group cannot establish standards of care that protect the patient population as a collective group, then aside from pure financial reasons, why should it be an accepted elective procedure?

[Caroline]

I couldn't agree more. 1 in 20 get this from LASIK, at least! Thats 50,000 a year if there are a million ops. The pain and suffering of the minority outways the joy of not wearing glasses for the majority. Most large money making companies/ surgeons only care about money. Pressure needs to be put on organisations that are responsible for protecting the public and them made aware how disabling and painful the condition is. I can't believe this has be allowed to happen to me. I accepted a very tiny risk of dry eye, like 1 in 5000 chance, the same chance of loss of corneal flap (as the warning was written next to that in the small print). But i would not have acccepted 1 in 20 chance, no way. Everyone is saying the same thing, that they were not told their true risks or how problematic dry eye actually is. My friend who had a good LASIK result and recommended it to me said, after i developed dry eye, that she would still have LASIK done if she knew it would give her dry eyes. She clearly has no idea what dry eye is like, no one wants headaches, burning eyes, feeling like you've been punched in the eyes or have sawdust in your eye on a daily basis. Its my belief that she will likely know just how horrible dry eye is when she ages and her eyes get dryer. We must tell those in power who can do something! The NHS has rejected LASIK because it says it is unsafe. So how can those in power allow the procedure to carry on?

[Rebecca Petris]

We must tell those in power who can do something!
Caroline,
I'd encourage you to contact your MP. When I lived in the UK I lobbied for much stricter regulation of laser eye surgery because of just such problems as these, and testified to a parliamentary panel which was put together to investigate widespread problems such as misleading advertising, inadequate informed consent and poor care of patients with complications.

Google "Regulation of laser eye surgery bill" and you'll learn more about this. Last I heard the bill was on its third reading and then I lost track of it.

[Caroline]

I think its great you did this. Thanks for the idea to contact my MP.

I've had a quick look at the publication on the internet. I find its not easy reading, written in very old fashioned court lengthy type writing, typical court stuff. From a quick glance it looks like they have written a lot about what surgeons should do. This is important, but how do they ensure it? I warned my surgeon I had dry eyes (as couldn't wear contacts) and mentioned my concerns about the consent form mentioning dry eye and he played down the risk, saying that did not mean i had dry eyes and my eyes looked ok. Another surgeon has said he was in the wrong for not cautioning me against LASIK but that its still my surgeons word against mine. My point is that creating all these rules is a start but if they are not adhered to, in respect of warning people of risks and carrying out ALL eyes tests etc, then the surgeons just get away with it. It then comes down to the poor individual battling depression etc to risk huge financial loss to seek justice. Thats why i feel that LASIK surgery should not be allowed full stop. Its too risky and side affects are near impossible to correct.

I appreciate that regulation is vital and this bill has most likely made many surgeons sit up and think, so it is really important and admire you for doing this. I have not read it all so I apologise if I repeat whats in the publication but I would ask my MP to see that if LASIK can not be banned that all consultations and consent forms are standardised across companies to properly inform people of the risks, with actual % figures of risks. Listing the most common to the most rare. This of course may not be exact but people need to have an idea that dry eye is not rare with LASIK, and that you have a real chance of getting it (i've read 28% of patients have dry eye 6 months post LASIK). With respect to dry eye then list of pre surgery dry eye symptoms should be listed, including difficultly with contacts (as I have read dry eye is on the increase as many who hate wearing contacts are going for the surgery) and that the more dry your eyes are pre surgery the more dry post surgery. I did some research and looked at several consent forms on google and out of about 10 only found 1 that warned if you have warn contact lenses for many years then you might not be a good candidate. In addition to this all dry eye test results should be carried out AND recorded. AND all consultations should be recorded and a copy of it given to the patient. This would protect the patient from sly surgeons more interested in money than care.

The fact that with most other surgeries, such as a back operation, patients are given % chance of it going wrong then it makes me wander why LASIK risk figures are not disclosed for all the possible complications. I don't believe its because it has not being going long enough, they have at least 10 years. I doubt they are collecting the data. Obviously if you added up all the risks including poor myopia correction then its just not worth the risk which is what the industry doesn't want people to know. I would also ask my MP that patient satification should be recorded always, upto one year post surgery, and companies should be made to report this back and to authorities. Spot checks should be carried out to make sure LASIK companies are giving truthful figures. There should be a law to say patients can not receive elective surgery without being given actual % risks from previously carried out operations.

I would appreciate any extra comments from people on this which can be added to help.

[YGB]

Spot checks should be carried out to make sure LASIK companies are giving truthful figures. There should be a law to say patients can not receive elective surgery without being given actual % risks from previously carried out operations.

I totally agree but as I've come to learn, there are no agencies in charge of checking MD's as a group. In the U.S., there is the FDA but they are the food and drug administration and not the food and doctor administration.

In the U.S., we learn to trust MD's in part due to the Hippocratic Oath that MD's take that states "Do No Harm".

I still believe the overwhelming majority of doctors do still believe in doing no harm but with LASIK, greed combined with an informed consent form to protect the MD and an unregulated MD industry creates a recipe for disaster for too many patients.

[Rojzen]

...is that so many LASIK practitioners also hold themselves out as dry eye specialists. . .Sure, it's all about the "anterior segment," but it is so troubling that docs who witness the sometime ravages of ocular surface abnormality still have the stomach for cutting in to that surface. . .I can't think of any other medical specialty in which this paradox exists, but there are probably parallels. . .

[Caroline]

..I think "You gotta believe" has put this well. I think most surgeons do believe in not harming and think of themselves as caring and doing best for their patients. Also I think it is too easy for surgeons to believe what the LASIK industry says of safety because of lack of statistics and clear guidelines on pre surgery dry eye detection. My LASIK company's policy was for the surgeons not to do follow up care on their patients so how would they get to know of all the dry eye cases? Also most of them don't have dry eye and its all too easy for them to think its a minor price to pay for 20:20 vision.
I would believe by now, in addition to surgeon regulation, accurate statistics should be given on surgery outcome. I find it very difficult to accept in this day and age with our technology that post surgery patient satisifaction is not being collected and submitted to a central database/ regulation body. I thought it would have to be the law with a new procedure like this. How can the industry/ government get away with saying 10 years after this surgery has started that its still a new procedure and they can't give actual recorded risk figures. But i guess even this could be misleading as saying your risk of dry eye is 1 in 20 would not be true if you have dryer than average eyes! Your risk would increase much more than this. Also people who hate wearing glasses are vunerable people who may be willing to take such high risks. I don't think i would have taken that risk if i knew there was a (apparently so i've heard) 5 % risk of dry eye as to me that is quite high and knew dry eye was horrible when wearing contacts. I was given the impression the risk was like 1 in 5000 and LASIK hardly made the eyes dryer. I don't know if there is a full proof way of protecting all people from this miserable condition and just know the convenience for the majority is far outwayed by the suffering of a few. I say this when i can see both sides as my vision is pretty good and i have days with very little dry eye. But other days i'm in constant discomfort and have to wear wrap around glasses. Give me my glasses back anyday. Perhaps publicity and word of mouth is a better way to make people realise LASIK isn't safe, and not worth the risk to your happiness, career, family, life etc. Also what with more people being able to use the internet these days they can read what bad outcomes are like (I didn't even know how to use google when i had my eyes done, how i regret that). I just hope people can get an idea on what grand scale this is happening. I don't expect many surgeons tell their patients that 5% of people get torturous dry eye (i.e. 50,000 in every million). I wander how much of the LASIK industry profit goes toward finding a cure for dry eyes? Sorry i've rambled on.....

[m_cncl]

:D Its all about making money to become wealthy. The ophthalmology sector has abandoned what their trade is about - maintain wellness to the eyes. Instead, some have taken the evil route (lasik) to profit from it while the craze(lasik) is still in demand. I do not believe gov't interaction will improve because lasik provides jobs, pays taxes (federal,state,etc), cook the books(give impression everything is well) , and give money to politician for their campaign. The only way to discourage this is by discouraging others not to do it, which I have been doing. Mario

[Caroline]

I agree the government may think that but I was wandering if they realised 100s of thousands of people a year are developing dry eye from LASIK and losing their jobs or being demoted then thats less tax they can take off of their wages. In my case I nearly lost my job until I fought disability rights, now my employer has to make special arrangments for me to work in a humidified small office and I am stuck at my level because it would be very difficult to leave and go for a promotion (who wants to employee someone with this disability). Therefore the government is losing out on a lot of income tax for the rest of my life time (as i would have been on a higher salary by now). Some LASIKed people may be able to claim disability benefits which is more of a burden on the economy. Also if more and more people develop dry eye years after their LASIK as they age then the 5% getting dry eye will rise and goverment will pay an even higher price eventually.