In the Oct. 24 edition of the Campus Times, I broke my routine of administration, construction and budget articles and covered an extremely unfortunate, yet important issue.
This article, “Prof. Lising’s wife blinded by botched LASIK,” explains how Lissa Lising, the wife of Assistant Professor of Speech and Debate Ian Lising, has been rendered blind in her right eye due to complications from her LASIK corrective vision surgery last December.
Lising and her husband are currently involved in litigation with the responsible parties related to the past medical procedure.
I realized the magnitude of this topic once dozens of e-mails began flowing in from empathizing recipients of similar surgeries who are suffering through malpractice suits, to anti-LASIK organizations that are thirsty for additional proof of its apparent danger for this reason and from many others who wanted to share their stories.
Due to the heavy interest in this shocking, legal issue, it would be best to dig deeper into Lising’s experience and to clarify a few facts that can otherwise imply misleading information.
Lising says the problem she encountered is directly related to the doctor’s failure to properly prepare the machine that makes the incision into the eye.
In her case, the machine itself was not to blame, but, instead, she feels the doctor is the source of the Lisings’ fury, since the doctor did not carefully prepare the machine prior to Lising’s encounter.
She said she signed a patient consent form that warned of the possibility of a malfunctioning machine, but this, Lising feels, is different from doctor negligence while operating the machine.
This doctor’s oversight led to the cutting of five layers in Lising’s right eye instead of merely cutting a flap in the cornea.
An important facet about Lising’s experience is that despite the proper research and awareness of procedures in a seemingly routine surgery, problems still occurred.
Even after a doctor and the practice check out, patients are entitled to have the doctor explain what to expect as the procedure is being conducted.
Lising said she was consciously lying down, awaiting the machinery to approach her and did not receive such an advisory and was therefore surprised when her doctor unexplainably placed an eyelid speculum to prevent blinking over her right eye without prior warning.
This lack of explanation caused Lising to hunch her shoulders, to which the doctor yelled at her to stop tensing up and proceeded to push her shoulders down. At this point, the doctor turned the machine on, despite Lising not knowing what to expect.
When a credible doctor is alerted that a patient is uncomfortable, it would be reasonable to expect an operating room “time out” to discuss what is happening with the patient and to clarify that both are comfortable to proceed.
Lising thinks that she did not have such a doctor and, instead, the machine was promptly turned on and performed severe damage to Lising’s eye due to the poor preparation of the machine.
On top of Lising’s emotional and physical distress of the blinding experience, she said she is further appalled by the doctor’s insistence that her vision would return in six months without additional surgery, when, in reality, the vision in her eye has not returned.
Lising visited four more doctors for assistance with her vision, and was shocked to learn that the damage was far more extensive than the doctor had said. More than 10 months after the procedure, Lising remains legally blind in her right eye and is awaiting a cornea transplant from a matching donor.
After the blatant negligence of this one doctor, Lising and her husband Ian are both left with skepticism about all doctors.
Lising insists that she is not attacking the industry of practice, but she encourages potential patients to get to know their doctors and not to be afraid to ask questions about their legal history.
She also would recommend that patients inquire about the exact procedures the doctor is performing at the time of operation.
Lising’s story is an unfortunate reminder to everyone that lives can be permanently altered because of a careless doctor. Even though a doctor and a clinic may have a great medical record, such as the one Lising chose, it is important to be hesitant because dangers can still result – so proceed with caution.
Lesley Michaels can be reached at lesley.michaels@laverne.edu.
