LASIK Quest (Sydney, Australia)

In trying to avoid LASIK, I've managed to come up with 3 excuses:

• The cost (A$6,500)
• The danger
• Whether it will be a long-term benefit

The Cost
Hey, that's expensive! I've found some places that do it cheaper than The Eye Institute. So why are they expensive?

It so happens that I went to school with a fellow 20 years ago, and he works there are an Opthalmologist. I asked him if most of the cost was due to insurance. His reply was:

The Eye Institute aims to provide a premium service. The price includes things that many of the others charge extra for. The Intralase is another expensive laser that none of the other centres have. The doctors are the leaders in the country. People who have problems with laser procedures elsewhere come to get them fixed.

Insurance always has to be factored in. I don't know how much they pay.

I always tell people that you need to research carefully who you go with. If all goes well then everyone wishes they went to the cheaper place. But if you want the assurance that your eyes are in the safest hands then price is not the underlying determinant.

Hope I don't sound too much like a salesman!!

I must admit that while I first thought they were expensive, I now think that the other places are too cheap -- it's sort of like perfume -- you equate quality with cost.

I agree that my vision is not something for which I should be cheap. Whatever I can do to improve my chances of success are worth it.

The Danger
Playing with sticks is dangerous. Shining lasers into eyes is even more dangerous! And this is just elective surgery!

I've written enough elsewhere about the dangers, but the one thought that remains is whether I'd regret doing LASIK. It's an option, not compulsory -- I don't want to get it wrong. I think everyone is entitled to their personal opinion about whether it is safe, and they shouldn't assume that just because it's getting more common that it is also safe.

There's a statistical principle called The Law of Very Large Numbers. It basically says that while something might have a low probability, it will come true over a very large number of trials. After all, lots of people win Lotto!

Long-Term benefit
When I attended the information session earlier this year, the Dr Lawless explained that he highly encourages people in their 20s to have LASIK since they've got a long life to enjoy it. However, older people will suffer eyesight problems and might not get as much benefit. (I'm paraphrasing from memory.)

However, my investigation on this topic has found that all people would start to need reading glasses from around age 45 -- including people with 'normal' eyesight and those who wear glasses. In my case, I'd either need two pairs of glasses (one for distance, one for reading) or a pair of bifocals.

I had always imagined that this old-age eye change would be beneficial for me. I'm short-sighted, meaning I can only see close (about 20cm in focus) and need glasses for distance. I had always imagined that as I got older, my eye problem would reduce, and possibly disappear when I was old. However, it appears to be the fact that my distance vision would remain just as bad, while my reading vision would worsen.

So, having LASIK means that I could do without glasses for distance, but I'd probably still need glasses for reading. This is no worse than if I kept my glasses, since I'd have to change them when reading.

So, there goes another excuse!

-- Fabbo


Tags: LASIK Laser Eye Surgery