Symfony Lawsuits?

Logan found the article - discusses many medical devices implanted (pacemakers, hip replacement among other things). Clicked on link to search a particular device but was unable to find anything specific to Symfony lenses. It is broad too - mentioning many countries not just UsA and canada. 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.

I am not sure what you are getting at. Nothing is a guarantee but for the majority of people advances in medical devices do prolong life and quality of life. I recall my mother in-laws cataract surgery and her sight afterwards wasn't great. We are so fortunate to live in times we do.

Seems you are very angry (and maybe justified). 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).

Perhaps if you clarify things a bit we can try and offer other suggestions.

Logan just to add something. I suffered a major financial loss with a property I purchased over 15 years ago. Did choose the court route but after paying for repairs and my lawyer got a fraction of costs back. Should have eaten the expense or done just small claims court. One doesn't usually find justice in the legal system. Just saying.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Nothing's perfect. 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.

Well said Ed - echos my thoughts too Having experienced the legal system myself it may not always be best choice.

One must always take the time to look into things and base decisions weighing pros and cons. Sometimes it doesn't work put anyways but you can be sure it works out better than not doing any research.

Thanks .

Thanks, Sue.

I am extremely grateful for the excellent outcome I've had with Symfony toric lenses; at the same time, I feel bad for anyone who has not had a good outcome.

For me eye surgery technology and procedure is about as complex as trying to match Magnus Carlsen in chess; hence I would not presume to be too judgmental about anyone's opinion on eye surgery because she or he quite likely knows more about the subject than I do.

Nevertheless my impression is that the vast majority of doctors and medical supply companies around the world want to do their very best to improve the lives of patients. (Getting rich in the process may well be a secondary benefit for many).

For bad actors the legal system may be an option. But litigation against the medical profession, unless there is clear cut evidence of extreme gross negligence, is likely to be akin to putting your local side up against Bayern München and expecting to win.

Too funny - like the analogy. Do agree most in the medical profession want to do no harm. I sometimes think the rush to market is also due to patient/client demand. Products no matter what are not as sturdy or lasting. Had to recently buy a new fridge to replace 20+ year one I had. To my surprise new ones life span won't be half of that if old one - says sales rep!

I too feel bad for those who don't have a good outcome.

Hi Sue:

Planned obsolescence of stuff is, unfortunately, a product of the modern industrial age.

Would you agree, however, that lives have generally improved post-WW II thanks to better medical technology and training?

Have a good evening.

Cheers,

Ed

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. This happens all too often with medical devices but also cars and many other products/services. 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. Often times these companies figure it is cheaper to settle the lawsuits and minimize negative publicity than to do the right 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. 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.

Yes sadly that does occur. Although there should have been more forthcoming info on the night time glare/halos/concentric circles from doctors to patients (some obviously do better than others) by and large it is a good option for many. Patient selection is key. Not everyone can or want to compromise night time vision. Maybe one day there will be better lenses. There are those I know who aren't happy with monofocal lenses too.

Yes that seems to be the modern way although not sure how that bodes for the land fills. Wish people considered the future more than they do. Try and do my part and repair things before chucking and replacing. Definitely advances in medicine have improved the quality of lives. And medical training are looking for individuals who ate more well rounded. Here marks aren't the only criteria used to get into med school. One needs a well rounded resume of volunteer activities etc.

Good points.

But again, nothing's perfect.

Some doctors and corporations are indeed greedy and corrupt.

But wouldn't you agree that good doctors and good corporations have significantly improved the quality of life for the vast majority of people they have dealt with since WW II?

For bad actors there's always a legal remedy provided that you have excellent evidence and good attorneys.

Yes, I said that technology has in general improved quality of life for many but the downside is that know problems that were suppressed sometimes only come to light after it harms people. It is hard to hold these bad actors accountable and often times they settle with the plaintiffs with nondisclosure agreements and so more people end up getting harmed if the problems are not addressed.

The system is more good than bad, but it is not perfect and can always be improved.

The issue per this thread is that some people have had bad experiences with their surgeon and/or their lenses.

For those who have expressed concerns only their side of the story has been presented.

Many people on this thread have expressed gratitude to both their surgeon as well as the company which produced their lenses -- which in some instances is the same company which produced the lenses other people don't like.

So what is your solution? Stop legal settlements? End non-disclosure agreements?

Create a perfect legal system which will separate frivolous from valid litigation?

Please tell us exactly how you intend to improve the current system.

Many thanks.

Ed, 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. 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. 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. There are all sorts of reforms that could be implemented in healthcare and elsewhere but you see from the current state of politics, special interests and government how hard that is to anything. If I had a magic want I would eliminate NDAs because those just typically hide the problems but there will always be those plaintiffs who settle because it is easier and less risky than going to court--they get their compensation but the same thing may happen to someone else which seems rather selfish to me, regardless of how they justify it. Maybe I would wish away frivolous lawsuits too while I am at to balance things out but I think this thread is now moving away from the intended purpose of this site.

Knowing absolutely whether or not Abbot could develop a system which could detect halos/rings for all patients is way above my pay grade. My best guess is that the technology is constantly evolving and improving towards that end, but waiting for that halcyon day to occur would be making the perfect the enemy of the good. Politics is definitely a blood/contact sport these days. I really wish that an economy of scale could be used by insurance companies and the US government to purchase drugs 'in bulk' so that needed, expensive drugs such as prasugral could be offered to patients at the same prices that people in other countries obtain them. But, as you say, with politicians, lobbysists, and tribes that despise each other, that won't happen anytime soon. With great respect, if NDAs were eliminated in the US then a whole class of people might not receive compensation, especially for physician malpractice. To go up against a doctor's insurance company in court a plaintiff might need a legal war chest of at least $1 million. Yet, as you point, out NDAs can mask harmful practices. Can't see a perfect solution for that dilemma. Most doctors in the US pay for very high malpractice insurance because litigation is hideously expensive and settlements can be crushing. The initial post in this thread was about suing surgeons who use Symfony lenses as well as the manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson. Hence this discussion is completely consistent with the thread that post inspired.

Hi John,

I agree, it would be great if Johnson & Johnson (who bought Abbott) would create a new simulator which includes the night time artifacts. I expect it would be difficult to predict how intense these would be for one patient vs. another.

There is another factor in the process of adapting new medical devices - experience gained by the surgeon. The manufacturers have seminars for surgeons and send out their sales people. The degree of caution in adaptation varies by surgeon.

I had 2 different surgeons for my cataract surgeries. The first had been using mainly Crystalens but switched to mainly Symfony a few months prior to my surgery. His assistant told me that "no one is using Crystalens anymore", due to the "Z-syndrome" where the haptics can bend in the eye and be nearly impossible to repair with good results. She also said they stopped using Restor IOLs because "too many patients were unhappy with them". So in this case, it seems that experience outweighed the promises of manufacturers.

Unfortunately, i think he still had a learning curve on the Symfony issues. He also wasn't on board with my mini-monovision choices, so I only had my standard IOL surgery with him. The results turned out to be excellent.

The 2nd surgeon I went to had a great deal of experience with Symfony. Tho he turned out to be my 2nd surgeon, I went to him for my very first consultation. I'd had no idea how much more research I needed to do before making a decision! He didn't mention the Symfony night time artifacts at that time. When I finally went back to him for a 2nd consult nearly 9 months later, he was very upfront about the night time artifacts and the trade offs. He also suggested a cheaper lens option which he thought might be good for me.

At 6 weeks post-op, I can't make any final judgment on the Symfony in my RE yet. There was a minor complication that required him to put in a stitch to keep fluid from leaking after surgery, which seems to have slowed down the healing process a little.

My LE with standard IOL is STILL healing/changing/improving, so I expect my RE will take plenty of time to do the same. My sister said hers were still healing for a year and then suddenly things got better!

But I'm extremely grateful that both of my surgeons were very skilled and did seem to have my best interests at heart. I had a consult with a 3rd surgeon in the interim and I'm SO glad I didn't go with his "it usually takes 3 surgeries to get it right" approach!