The irony with health care is this: People get sick/illnesses. Need drs. Need
medications. Drs. & pharmaceutical companies need patients, need sick patients
specifically, otherwise they do not make money. Notice all of the commercials
to "self" diagose yourself for certain pills?
I was dx Oct of 03. I have had my A1C in the 5 range for all of my 3 month
check ups except the first 2 of 8.9 & 6.5. I was told to see a eye dr. once
a year. Dr. is happy to see me. After 3rd year of no diabetic eye complications,
he says this to me today: I do not want to see you anymore. You are too healthy
for me. You can just see your regular opthamologist from now on. Prior to seeing
me the patient in the next room needs cataract surgery & he is in his 60's
or 70's. Dr. says it's his pleasure to help him.
So one one hand we need drs., we need meds, we need scientists to discover
cures for illnesses. But if all diabetics took control and had their blood
sugars in check, then the health care system wouldn't be over saturated with
patients.
anyways, my 2 cents while my eyes un-dialate!!
Trinity
W. Baker - 12 Dec 2006 23:13 GMT
: The irony with health care is this: People get sick/illnesses. Need drs. Need
: medications. Drs. & pharmaceutical companies need patients, need sick patients
: specifically, otherwise they do not make money. Notice all of the commercials
: to "self" diagose yourself for certain pills?
: I was dx Oct of 03. I have had my A1C in the 5 range for all of my 3 month
: check ups except the first 2 of 8.9 & 6.5. I was told to see a eye dr. once
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: me the patient in the next room needs cataract surgery & he is in his 60's
: or 70's. Dr. says it's his pleasure to help him.
: So one one hand we need drs., we need meds, we need scientists to discover
: cures for illnesses. But if all diabetics took control and had their blood
: sugars in check, then the health care system wouldn't be over saturated with
: patients.
: anyways, my 2 cents while my eyes un-dialate!!
: Trinity
What kidn of doctor were you seeing an retinologist? In general, a
regular opthamologist who does do the fully dilated exam is just fine for
the initioal diagnosis. If there is a problem, then I recommend
retinologist who will consider al the kinds of retinal and maular problems
that can be the cause of your particular problem.
Wendy
trinity - 12 Dec 2006 23:29 GMT
>What kidn of doctor were you seeing an retinologist? In general, a
>regular opthamologist who does do the fully dilated exam is just fine for
>the initioal diagnosis. If there is a problem, then I recommend
>retinologist who will consider al the kinds of retinal and maular problems
>that can be the cause of your particular problem.
>
>Wendy
Hi Wendy,
He is an Eye Physician & Surgeon MD, FRCSC. Referred to by my GP when diagnosed.
This is fine with me, cuz if I want new glasses, this guy did not do the eye
exam for glasses, so I end up seeing 2 eye docs.
Trinity
trinity - 12 Dec 2006 23:30 GMT
>What kidn of doctor were you seeing an retinologist? In general, a
>regular opthamologist who does do the fully dilated exam is just fine for
>the initioal diagnosis. If there is a problem, then I recommend
>retinologist who will consider al the kinds of retinal and maular problems
>that can be the cause of your particular problem.
>
>Wendy
Hi Wendy,
He is an Eye Physician & Surgeon MD, FRCSC. Referred to by my GP when diagnosed.
This is fine with me, cuz if I want new glasses, this guy did not do the eye
exam for glasses, so I end up seeing 2 eye docs.
Trinity
Jeff - 12 Dec 2006 23:59 GMT
<...>
> So one one hand we need drs., we need meds, we need scientists to discover
> cures for illnesses. But if all diabetics took control and had their blood
> sugars in check, then the health care system wouldn't be over saturated
> with
> patients.
That's true for all people (not just diabetics). But the health-care system
doesn't have too many patients, it has too many illnesses.
Jeff
> anyways, my 2 cents while my eyes un-dialate!!
> Trinity
Alexander Arnakis - 13 Dec 2006 05:26 GMT
>I was dx Oct of 03. I have had my A1C in the 5 range for all of my 3 month
>check ups except the first 2 of 8.9 & 6.5. I was told to see a eye dr. once
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>me the patient in the next room needs cataract surgery & he is in his 60's
>or 70's. Dr. says it's his pleasure to help him.
Keep in mind that diabetic retinopathy is typically a complication of
*long-standing* diabetes. Three years after diagnosis of diabetes is
generally too soon for retinopathy to make its appearance. My
retinopathy showed up after more than 20 years of diabetes.
This is probably the one most common diabetic complication. The good
news is that, if caught early, laser treatment is very effective in
stopping its progression. My eyes have been stable, retinopathy-wise,
for 20 years. My next eye problem is slowly-developing cataracts,
which, although not a direct complication of diabetes, often happen to
diabetics at earlier ages than the general population. Again, there's
good news in that cataract surgery (lens implant) has got to the point
that it's almost routine.
I see from your other post that your "regular ophthalmologist" is
apparently really just an optometrist. Optometrists may be good at
prescribing glasses, but they're not the ones to go to for diabetic
eye conditions. As for ophthalmologists (that is, M.D.'s as opposed to
D.O.'s), there are really two tiers. The first tier are general
ophthalmic surgeons, such as the one you saw, who treat the *front* of
the eye (for example, by doing cataract surgery), and act as
"gatekeepers" for further specialists. The second tier are the
specialists, particularly experts on the retina and vitreous (*back*
of the eye). If you have retinopathy, macular degeneration, etc., a
retina specialist is the one to see.
Don't believe what the doctor told you about not seeing you any more.
A generally accepted standard of care for all diabetics is a
dilated-eye exam at least every couple of years. The longer you've had
diabetes, the more important this becomes. This is because
retinopathy, in its early stages, doesn't have any visible symptoms,
yet the early stages are when treatment is most effective. Don't take
chances with your eyes.
Nicky - 13 Dec 2006 13:08 GMT
> After 3rd year of no diabetic eye complications,
> he says this to me today: I do not want to see you anymore. You are too
> healthy
> for me. You can just see your regular opthamologist from now on.
Very cool :D Don't skip checks, though, will you!
Nicky.

Signature
A1c 10.5/5.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg
Ted Rosenberg - 13 Dec 2006 14:15 GMT
> I was dx Oct of 03. I have had my A1C in the 5 range for all of my 3 month
> check ups except the first 2 of 8.9 & 6.5. I was told to see a eye dr. once
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> anyways, my 2 cents while my eyes un-dialate!!
> Trinity
GREAT !! I also saw the eye surgeon yesterday. After years of
treatment, thousands of laser burns, and a time a few years ago where I
was going every day, had totally lost sight in one eye, AND, was getting
info on the National Federation for the Blind, I had a great visit.
Last time he gave me a 6 month appointment, The time before a three
month, This time, he didn't even have to take retinal photos, and gave
me a ONE YEAR appointment!!.
My eyesight seems to have stabilized at about 40/20. A lot worse than
the 16/20 I used to have, but much better than the visit where he said
that he didn't think he could save my sight at all, but was sure going
to try.
Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in the US
Nicky - 14 Dec 2006 09:01 GMT
> My eyesight seems to have stabilized at about 40/20. A lot worse than the
> 16/20 I used to have, but much better than the visit where he said that he
> didn't think he could save my sight at all, but was sure going to try.
Whew! I'm glad, Ted!
Nicky.

Signature
A1c 10.5/5.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg
bj - 14 Dec 2006 17:31 GMT
>> My eyesight seems to have stabilized at about 40/20. A lot worse than
>> the 16/20 I used to have, but much better than the visit where he said
>> that he didn't think he could save my sight at all, but was sure going to
>> try.
Could you explain the way you've given the numbers or what they mean?
How do they relate to, say, 20/200 that I'm more used to seeing?
Or is this something entirely else??
bj
TigerLily - 14 Dec 2006 18:03 GMT
20/200 is nearsighted if i recall correctly
40/20 is farsighted, then
i'm not sure this is correct, but IIRC it is ;-)
lol
kate

Signature
Join us in the Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet
/server irc.undernet.org --- /join #Diabetic-Talk
More info: http://www.diabetic-talk.org/
http://www.diabetic-talk.org/freeveggies.htm
I have no medical qualifications beyond my own
experience.
Choose your advisers carefully, because experience
can be
an expensive teacher.
> > "Ted Rosenberg" <tedrosenberg@iname.com> wrote in message
news:hsydnZp2kvtTlx3YnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> My eyesight seems to have stabilized at about 40/20. A lot worse than
> >> the 16/20 I used to have, but much better than the visit where he said
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Or is this something entirely else??
> bj