Sunday, November 6, 2011

Feedback 1

Addressing reader concerns:
Comments are welcome. Anyone who feels that their thoughts shouldn’t be pubic for any reason are free to privately e-mail me. E-mail links are common on my kozzi.us page.
Light sensitivity is a standard complication of diabetes. I have found no internet mention that the dilated light tests are a probable cause. A good part of the blog’s intention is to get my crazy theories out there. I don’t think they’re all that crazy. They need to be out there to be considered. We live in a country where healthcare is a capitalist venture. Doctors will run every test they can get paid for, as often as they can get paid for them. From my experience they are not forthcoming in volunteering potential risks or side effects. More scarey, some doctors will deny the risks and side effects even when asked. My GP is big on that. He often just brushes off specific concerns as me being a difficult patient rather than discussing the my concerns.
I understand that doctors do not want to discourage anyone from having treatment they need, but too many will give more treatment than needed if there’s a buck to be made. I am a strong believer that patients need to be fully informed to enable the best decisions. Whether it’s minor light sensitivity or something major, such as Cialis and Viagra causing a massive stroke or hemorrhage in the eye, the patient should be told of the risks so he can make his own decision. Patients should not have to independently research things . Doctors should not rely on pharmacists to prevent drug interactions.
I have always believed that, and the experiences that conveyed on this site show the importance of patient knowledge and dire consequences of their ignorance.
Shame on doctors who do not cover every detail of these risks. Relying on the patient to ask is not appropriate. If a patient has never heard of something cannot ask about it.
The same reader was unsure of my statements about the "retina weld" as a benefit of PRP surgery. Not every site I have researched to fact check lists it. More than one did. Instead of calling the benefit a "weld" I’ll qualify it that it can retain the retina’s contact to the back of the eye. There is NO benefit of PRP surgery that even approximates re-attachment of a retina that has begun to separate.
I do aim for accuracy, especially when trying to make complicated terms and procedures more understandable than many doctors would prefer.
Tomorrow, back to my procedures in January 2010. It should be as entertaining as watching a blind guy walk into a ladies’ room because his roommate can’t tell the difference between "first door on the right" and "first door on the left."
Yes, that happened today. My apologies to the women in there when I left the stall. They weren’t there when I went in.
And I think I left the seat up.

No comments:

Post a Comment