This doesn't take away from those who had positive outcomes but the goals should be to reduce negative, preventable ones and help patients make informed choices. The one that Abbott used for the Symfony didn't show ANY halos/rings which to me indicates they are hiding these issues or grossly incompetent or both. While technology has generally improved quality of life for many, those who have been harmed as a result of this dynamic may not be as positive as those who haven't.Įd, I already suggested improvements somewhere if you read it, like better use of vision simulators to show patients what they can expect from the different IOL options for one thing. There are also questionable financial incentives for doctors who act as consultants for these companies as well as the many doctors who promote their products in their businesses and hospitals, not to mention the regulatory bodies who are too cozy with those they oversee. Often times these companies figure it is cheaper to settle the lawsuits and minimize negative publicity than to do the right thing. It is often only when the regulating bodies force a recall and/or the issues get publicized that companies acknowledge the issues while still trying to deny liability. This happens all too often with medical devices but also cars and many other products/services. While the majority may want to do no harm, I believe the main problem is that when companies invest millions in R&D to bring products to the market, there is a tendency to ignore/hide/downplay potentially negative issues which also could cost them millions in sales. Hence each patient must try as much as possible to research the risks and rewards of a surgery before it takes place then, make a choice, hoping for the best based upon the information available. Courts may provide some compensation after a bad outcome, but it never really makes up for the lost time, money, hassle, and possibly debilitating result. Whichever system a patient happens to be in, it is incumbent upon the patient to do his homework regarding both the surgeon and the proposed product before surgery. Perhaps the Swiss and Norwegians have struck an optimal balance with competitive private insurance as well as an efficient safety net and excellent patient education. That said, health-care systems vary widely around the world, with pros and cons associated with the more socialist Canadian/British systems as well as the more capitalist US/Singapore systems. I read the article about "CBC medical devices" in the Canadian "The Star " it seemed to be a reasonable overview of a potential problem in Canada. Perhaps if you clarify things a bit we can try and offer other suggestions. But if vision is good in one eye - do think with a lens exchange or lasik enhancement as a201 suggested would improve things for eye that didn't turn out as well (went back to read your past threads). Seems you are very angry (and maybe justified). We are so fortunate to live in times we do. I recall my mother in-laws cataract surgery and her sight afterwards wasn't great. Nothing is a guarantee but for the majority of people advances in medical devices do prolong life and quality of life. Did you find anything specific? I do think USA and Canada have more controls than many places - why we don't have access to many premium lenses that Europe and Asia have and ones we have are much slower to market - like Symfony.
It is broad too - mentioning many countries not just UsA and canada. Clicked on link to search a particular device but was unable to find anything specific to Symfony lenses. Logan found the article - discusses many medical devices implanted (pacemakers, hip replacement among other things).
0 kommentar(er)
