marcus

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

nelson

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?


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 :-)

--
Nelson

marcus

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

mb

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

marcus

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

nelson

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]


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.


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.


--
Nelson

marcus

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

mb

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

george

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.

mb

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