you only have yourself to blame though
if i'd gone blind or lost the ability to drive at night etc, i'd have had to blame myself for having the surgery too. my eyes worked fine before it, they just needed glasses - which i found unattractive.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:12, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

This^
Glasses and contacts were a pain in the eye
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:17, Reply)

I like my glasses.
I hated contact lenses, although I do miss being able to wear normal sunglasses instead of heavy prescription ones.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:18, Reply)

^This is the single most boring thing I have ever said on B3ta. And i've said some boring shit before.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:36, Reply)

If it turned out that happened, due to a faulty part of (say) the eye-drops you use afterwards or the lazer.... then you wouldn't take legal action against that element that went wrong?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:22, Reply)

i couldn't now
there's a 3 year limit on personal injury claims.

it would depend what it was. i suppose it wasn't really a fair analogy. if they fucked my eyes totally, yes i'd have sued - although other people tried that and got zero compensation - but if i had just had to suffer a deterioration in the quality of my life, such as dry eyes or no night driving, both of which are well-documented side effects, i think i'd have had to take it on the chin.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

The 3 year thing isn't really the point.
In this case it's not the surgen fucking your eyes, it's a product that he used fucking your eyes... a product that is designed, sold and used to not fuck your eyes. I don't think people are understanding, it's not an ordanary/documented risk that "your implants my contain non-medical grade blah bah".

I can't see the difference between this and someone buy a fridge from dixons that turns out it has a manufacturing fault that can cause house fires.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 15:54, Reply)

No, it's not at all.
Although, if you want to use that analogy, it would be like someone buying a fridge from dixons that a friend of a friend in France reckons might cause house fires despite there never being one single case of a house fire being actually caused by that fridge. So, out of interest, do you think you should be able to take your fridge back after you've had it for 8 years because some bloke said he heard it might cause a fire?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 16:02, Reply)

Oh no, not at all, I'm basing everything I'm saying on them being unsafe, I've said that right from the start.
I'm not arguing weather they're safe or not, I don't have a clue....I'm arguing as to if they are unsafe, that the women who have had it done should have sympathy and shouldn't foot the bill themselves.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 16:16, Reply)

The point is what you wish them to be unsafe relative to?
I mean, nothing is abitrarily "safe". In this case, for whatever reason, every patient has chosen to have something foreign placed in their body, which has an inherent risk.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 16:38, Reply)

Racist
They haven't all got AIDS, you know.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 16:54, Reply)