 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate BPH / September 2004Laserscope's Convenient Omission
One of the marketing ploys of Laserscope is to leave out relevant and pertinent information. Regarding the bladder, years of BPH may cause it to lose contractility.....like a balloon that is repeatedly over inflated loses its "bounce" and ability to empty its contents quickly. Urgency and frequency may very well NOT be corrected with PVP because of prior bladder damage. If there is a discussion of this on Laserscope's site, I'd like to know where it is! What Laserscope should mention is that the bladder may be damaged from years of stress related to BPH and may, or may not return to normal contractility. But, of course, they don't. Doing so could dissuade potential customers! I've mentioned this several times on this site and as new readers and contributors join in the discussion I would feel remiss not to caution them about the hyped up marketing that characterizes Laserscope's irresponsible commitment to the bottom line.....THEIR PROFITS! There is no ethical place for the MARKETING of medical procedures, primarily because there are, at best, minimal ethics involved. Recently they upgraded their site to include a more realistic evaluation of a patient's recovery issues. But that was after months of criticism and implied legal action against their self-serving misinformation campaigns. It is unfortunate that we as patients have to stand beside a medical corporation and essentially whip it into compliance with the reality and consequences of surgical procedures...even if that reality only applies to a "significant minority." That "significant minority" now numbers in the hundreds or thousands, and will continue to grow as PVP becomes more and more the "gold standard" in prostate reduction surgery. Marcus > One of the marketing ploys of Laserscope is to leave out relevant and > pertinent information. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of stress related to BPH and may, or may not return to normal contractility. > But, of course, they don't. Doing so could dissuade potential customers! This is true of any of the surgical procedures and is not peculiar to PVP. Your seem to imply that it is some peculiar failing of PVP. I would not be looking for a treatise on BPH from Lasersope... just how their treatment differs from the others. And, in this respect there is no difference nor do they claim any. I hardly find that misleading. There is also a very real possibility that you could die from the anasthesia... should they mention that also? > I've mentioned this several times on this site and as new readers and > contributors join in the discussion I would feel remiss not to caution them > about the hyped up marketing that characterizes Laserscope's irresponsible > commitment to the bottom line.....THEIR PROFITS! There is no ethical place > for the MARKETING of medical procedures, Get real. The doctor business is a business, not some altruistic endeavor despite all their carefuly constructed PR hype. BPH is just a means for Urologists to buy bigger mansions, cars, and yachts. Do you think medical costs are skyrocketing because the quality of the care is skyrocketing? The system runs on greed. If Laserscope's greed results in a better treatment being adopted for BPH than the current butchery, then I figure we have moved the yardsticks. The relevant issue is "compared to what?" Buy all indications PVP is the least worst choice of a bunch of bad choices. You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that he talks at all :-)  SignatureNelson Nelson.... Interesting defense of the Free Market gone amuck. I imagine you've read a good bit of Ayn Rand. But even in a laissez-faire, capital economy there are regulations to protect consumers and patients. Apparently this ethical paradigm has yet to reach the Internet. Laserscope's marketing strategy is just another example of the greed that you and I speak of. I don't believe there should be medical marketing on the Net. But if there must be, then it damn well better be honest and comprehensive. If these companies are going to essentially advertise surgical procedures then they should, by law, be required to address the complete range of possible consequences and results. As I've mentioned several times on this NG, my recovery and expectations from PVP surgery would have caused me a lot less stress and anxiety had Laserscope the decency to be more upfront about the "significant minority" of patients who don't experience the quick recovery they ballyhoo away about in their promotions. This is not to say that the surgery has no value or shouldn't be done. It is simply a critique of their self-serving marketing strategy. Must we litigate to bring elementary ethics into the brave new world of medical promos? Apparently so! Marcus > > One of the marketing ploys of Laserscope is to leave out relevant and > > pertinent information. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that > he talks at all :-) Yes, Marcus, let's discuss your recovery in the same breath that you criticise Laserscope's ommissions. Perhaps, then, if you want to discuss your own experience, you can in the interest of the fairness you so roundly criticise Laserscope for, include your own rather unique medical situation which may well have controbuted to your own difficulties. Why do you so conveniently omit that when it is certainly relevent? Mel > Nelson.... > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >> You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that >> he talks at all :-) My particular medical situation is only relevant in as much it falls within the category of the "significant minority" of patients who will not experience a speedy recovery. If you've been following this NG I think you know that there are several men who have not experienced the quick trouble-free recovery touted by Laserscope. Some may not have associated medical problems, some may not. As far as patients who do have potentially complicating issues....it is all the more reason for Laserscope and its surgeons to be more forthcoming in their advertising and cover their own bases. Apparently their lawyers know how difficult it is to sue over these matters and are not concerned. Perhaps they should be. Marcus > Yes, Marcus, let's discuss your recovery in the same breath that you > criticise Laserscope's ommissions. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > >> You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that > >> he talks at all :-) You said: My particular medical situation is only relevant in as much it falls within the category of the "significant minority" of patients who will not experience a speedy recovery. That's not true. Your situation is rather unique and may well have contributed to your recovery problems. BTW, I think this group is the best source of information. It is clear that this procedure is the best out there, BY FAR. It is also clear that the results vary a LOT. It would be intersting to compare this to other common surgical procedures (eg: sinus surgery). I bet you will find similar variances. Mel > My particular medical situation is only relevant in as much it falls > within [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] >> >> that >> >> he talks at all :-) [Snip] > As I've mentioned several times on this NG, my recovery and expectations > from PVP surgery would have caused me a lot less stress and anxiety had > Laserscope the decency to be more upfront about the "significant minority" > of patients who don't experience the quick recovery they ballyhoo away about > in their promotions. Sounds to me like you were disappointed and are looking for someone to blame... and Laserscope is an easy target. Who is responsible for _your_ expectations? At a minimum, the Urologist who performed the surgery would seem to be far more accountable than some web page... and he probably made a hell of a lot more from the operation than Laserscope did. Did _he_ know about potential complications? Did _he_ know about residual bladder damage? If not, he should not have operated. If so, he should have informed you. Could it be that you only heard what you wanted to believe? And how about you? Did you research all the possibilities and conflicting opinions? Or did you just seize on Laserscope because that was what you wanted to hear? There is a saying that "it is a poor workman who blames his tools". [Snip] > I don't believe there should be medical marketing on the Net. Have you joined the Luddite Society yet? I, for one, am thankful for medical marketing on the net. For the first time consumers have access to information and some power. Previously we were at the mercy of the condescending, paternalistic, medical cabal for whatever droplets of information they chose to dispense to us. I am frequently better informed than the so called "professionals" who are pressed to spend 10 minutes with me between golf games, paid lunches with drug salesmen, meetings with their accountants and investment counselors, etc. All that information has a downside, of course, in that a lot of it is incomplete and/or conflicting. Anyone who thinks they can go to one web page and get the whole story is probably better off knowing nothing and blindly trusting their doctor. > But if there > must be, then it damn well better be honest and comprehensive. If these > companies are going to essentially advertise surgical procedures then they > should, by law, be required to address the complete range of possible consequences and > results. Ah, yes... that's what we need... more laws, more government, more regulation. Consumers don't buy Laserscopes... doctors and hospitals do... and they are the ones who bear the ultimate responsibility for its application. The fact that anyone can access Laserscope's website doesn't mean they have to provide everyone who visits with a free medical education. I'm sorry your procedure didn't turn out the way you hoped. But if they had put everything you demand on their website, what would you have done differently? Had a TURP? A TUMT? Do nothing? The fact is that any other action you could have taken, including taking no action, could have had even worse consequences. Get over it. Laserscope isn't the problem... the lack of interest in understanding and finding an effective treatment for BPH is the problem. Laserscope is part of the solution. SignatureNelson I must respectfully disagree. Moreover you don't seem to grasp the point. In my case, I don't believe anything was done wrong in terms of the surgery. I'm not trying to blame the procedure or suggest it shouldn't have been done It was the PREPARATION that was amiss and I DO BLAME LASERSCOPE for aiding and abetting an overly optimistic scenario for recovery and not preparing patients more specifically for the possibility the various recovery issues that have been discussed, at length on this NG. People who have pressing medical problems should not have to do extensive research to determine the veracity of claims by their doctors or the corporations that provide the equipment and training. I don't believe our health should be subjected to the same vagaries and market forces as our material-consumer needs and greeds. Apparently you have different ideas. Marcus > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > and finding an effective treatment for BPH is the problem. Laserscope > is part of the solution. Very good Nelson, especially your last line on the talking dog. On a serious note, the fact that BPH does cause residual damage to the bladder only reinforces Patrick's point that PVP should be done early on. Unfortunately, most of us, me included, try years of medications before we make the move to corrective surgery. While we are on wishful thinking the bladder is getting hammered. > > One of the marketing ploys of Laserscope is to leave out relevant and > > pertinent information. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that > he talks at all :-) George: Once again, there is an advantage of waiting: better methods come along and/or current methods get improved. When my BPH started, the appropriate procedure was TURP. So, glad I waited. But, your point is well-taken. If one currently has BPH and is having major retention problems, a scope now may avoid future bladder damage. My PVP doc seems to be rather dismissive of the bladder damage possibility in my case. Mel > Very good Nelson, especially your last line on the talking dog. > On a serious note, the fact that BPH does cause residual damage to the [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that >> he talks at all :-) Mel, The key to bladder damage is retention. If you do not retain on a continual basis, i.e somehow you empty completely albeit slowly, then waiting is okay. But be vigilant, as retention has a way of sneaking up on you without you noticing it. I went from 0 retention to about 100 ml retention to a whopping 440 ml retention in about a year. Take care and be well. Patrick > George: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >> > contractility.....like a balloon that is repeatedly over inflated > >> > loses its "bounce" and ability to empty its contents quickly. Urgency > > and > >> > frequency may very well NOT be corrected with PVP because of prior [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >> You would fault the dog for how well he talks and dismiss the fact that > >> he talks at all :-) Thanks Patrick, for the always kind words and informative posts. Yes, at this point they found no significant retention. I guess maybe that's why he is not concerned about bladder damage Mel > Mel, > The key to bladder damage is retention. If you do not retain on a [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] >> >> that >> >> he talks at all :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.