Surgery of choice

I was appalled by certain television programmes proclaiming miracles through elective surgery. What I cannot understand is the difference between the advertising of a toothbrush and such advertising, according to the canons of the Broadcasting Authority. While normal advertising cannot exceed a certain duration per hour of transmission, when it comes to subtle advertising, which may have an impact on one's health or well-being, there seem to be no rules.

Personally I had to go through eye surgery out of necessity. I would never dream of playing with a procedure to remove glasses, whether long distance or reading. Even indispensable eye surgery can have its side effects, let alone optional fiddling with such a delicate organ. What I do not accept is that the "consumer" is not warned about the potential dangers. Such information should come on the same medium that is extolling the benefits of removing your glasses.

Food and Drug Administration

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advises people about such matters. If a "consumer" wants to take the risks, then it is his informed choice. But ignorance is no bliss.

To avoid any allegation that I am treading on terrain in which I have no competence, there is only one way to inform. What follows comes from the FDA Website:

"Most patients are very pleased with the results of their refractive surgery. However, like any other medical procedure, there are risks involved. That's why it is important for you to understand the limitations and possible complications of refractive surgery.

"Before undergoing a refractive procedure, you should carefully weigh the risks and benefits based on your own personal value system, and try to avoid being influenced by friends that have had the procedure or doctors encouraging you to do so.

"Some patients lose vision. Some patients lose lines of vision on the vision chart that cannot be corrected with glasses, contact lenses, or surgery as a result of treatment.

"Some patients develop debilitating visual symptoms. Some patients develop glare, halos, and/or double vision that can seriously affect nighttime vision. Even with good vision on the vision chart, some patients do not see as well in situations of low contrast, such as at night or in fog, after treatment as compared to before treatment.

You may be under-treated or over-treated. Only a certain percentage of patients achieve 20/20 vision without glasses or contacts. You may require additional treatment, but additional treatment may not be possible. You may still need glasses or contact lenses after surgery. This may be true even if you only required a very weak prescription before surgery. If you used reading glasses before surgery, you may still need reading glasses after surgery.

"Some patients may develop severe dry eye syndrome. As a result of surgery, your eye may not be able to produce enough tears to keep the eye moist and comfortable. Dry eye not only causes discomfort, but can reduce visual quality due to intermittent blurring and other visual symptoms. This condition may be permanent. Intensive drop therapy and use of plugs or other procedures may be required.

"Results are generally not as good in patients with very large refractive errors of any type. You should discuss your expectations with your doctor and realise that you may still require glasses or contacts after the surgery.

"For some farsighted patients, results may diminish with age. If you are farsighted, the level of improved vision you experience after surgery may decrease with age. This can occur if your manifest refraction (a vision exam with lenses before dilating drops) is very different from your cycloplegic refraction (a vision exam with lenses after dilating drops).

"Long-term data are not available. LASIK is a relatively new technology. The first laser was approved for LASIK eye surgery in 1998. Therefore, the long-term safety and effectiveness of LASIK surgery is not known."

I add nothing more. But is the Broadcasting Authority and the health authorities as alert as the FDA? Do Maltese consumers deserve correct information?