"SUPERVISION" AND DECEPTIVE LABELLING AND ADVERTISING

One cannot turn on the radio in New York City - even the classical music station – without hearing a distasteful lie about the ‘magnificent feat' of a laser surgeon, clinic or hospital. One cannot read a Sunday New York Times, without receiving a supplement full of grocery store coupons together with a disgusting coupon offering LASIK for $299.00. One cannot pick up a lay magazine without reading an article about LASIK and "super vision" propaganda.

It is hard to believe and accept that such advertising occurs in the field of medicine. It is sad that there is such widespread dissemination of false and misleading claims. Quackery should have disappeared centuries ago! The senior attorney at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, Matt Daynard, was quoted in the March 17, 2003 issue of the magazine Business Week as describing LASIK advertising as "making unsupported claims and improper comparisons…People were going into this with their eyes wide shut."

One would think that, if those who indulged in deceiving gullible patients could not become ethical, at least increasing distrust and lawsuits would have taught them to discontinue those practices and their chase after the "fast buck". Unfortunately, some will never learn and will continue to hurt our noble profession. In the Business Week article, "Why settle for 20/20? A new diagnostic tool and laser surgery promise eagle vision", writer Adam Aston tells the lay public that the ophthalmologist's "benchmark" is now "eagle vision". The terms "super-vision" and "crystal clarity" are used to describe the "unparalleled results of wavefront-guided techniques". The concluding statement of the article – "In the meantime, wavefront-guided LASIK offers the best chance for squinters to see like eagles – is evidence of how high the lay public's expectations have been raised.

We should be proud of our technological achievements, but who will believe us if and when we achieve results with laser vision correction that are truly consistently superior to those provided by glasses and contact lenses? After the initial claims of "eagle vision" and super vision" a few years ago, it was thought that those fallacies would disappear forever. How many times will overly aggressive marketing campaigns exaggerate scientific accomplishments and cause patient disappointment and disillusionment?

There are much smarter ways to honestly excite the public about our advances while protecting our patients' precious eyes. We must maintain our scientific integrity and professional dignity. Let's start by abandoning the label "super vision"