HB1055 Infant Eye Care Bill Needs Your Help

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by lanesharon, Mar 20, 2005.

  1. lanesharon

    lanesharon Guest

    Please give me just a minute of your time. I do not want to intrude on
    your Newsgroup. I, and another Grandma, have been working very hard
    for the last several years to get the Florida legislature to pass the
    Infant Eye Care Bill (HB1055). The Bill mandates an infant eye dilation
    exam before babies leave the hospital; and at the 6-8 week and 6-9
    month well-baby exams. It is a simple test that would cost 10¢ and
    take 10 seconds of the doctors time to accomplish.

    We have been fighting for 4 years to get this bill instituted against
    what we believe to be the legislative influence of lobbyists with a lot
    more money and resources than we have. Comprehensive details about the
    bill may be found here:
    http://www.kidsplea.org/joey.html

    I need the your help to spread the word about this very important
    legislation. Could you pass this on to others and let them know about
    it? Would you consider filling out the Contact Legislators form on
    that website? MOST importantly, we need people in the state of Florida
    who would be willing to print out a hand full of our Flyers and paste
    them on bulletin boards and public places. I am hoping that you will
    help, because we need it ASAP.

    Thank you for allowing me to interrupt your newsgroup.

    Take Care, Sharon Lane
     
    lanesharon, Mar 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The overwhelmingly vast majority of infant eyes are perfectly healthy.
    Dilating an infants eyes not just once but twice is likely to be
    traumatic and create more behavioural problems than can ever be
    warranted for the truelly tiny (but unfortunate) number of problems
    that might be identified (for which there are limited options for
    treatment)

    In any case your costings are wildly inaccurate.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. lanesharon

    lanesharon Guest

    I find your comments surprising. The eye specialists at Bascom and
    Palmer have projected these costs and time frames. And there are a
    number of resources on the web that suggest infant eye exams, including
    the American Academy of Pediatrics, for exactly the same reason we are
    requesting this bill.

    The dilation drops can be administered by a nurse or assistant. The
    cost of the drops are less than 10 cents to the doctor. The exam
    requires that a doctor turn out the lights and look with the
    ophthalmoscope to the back of the infant's eye. Ten seconds. With
    that, the doctor can tell a number of irregularities that might cause
    blindness and can detect the dreaded, and sometimes fatal, eye cancer -
    retinoblastoma.

    I have several supporting documents, that I will gladly share with
    anyone who send me a mailing address, supporting our facts. Maybe you
    would like to produce some of your own to support what you claim.

    Take Care, Sharon
     
    lanesharon, Mar 20, 2005
    #3
  4. I wish you good luck in dealing anything legal or political in the state of
    Fla.
     
    Harvey R. Stone, Mar 20, 2005
    #4
  5. lanesharon

    Dr Judy Guest

    Retinoblastoma is a disease that needs to be detected, but I also think your
    cost estimate is wrong.
    I won't argue with the folks at Bascon Palmer if they said ten cents covers
    the whole cost at their facility, maybe they have a huge endowment that
    subsidizes infant exams.

    However, in my office 10 cents would barely cover the cost of the drops ($12
    a bottle, maybe I would get 120 pairs of eyes done with one bottle, but I
    doubt it). There is also the cost of the examining room, the nurse's
    salary, the doctor's salary, the room that mom and baby sit in while
    waiting for the drops to take effect, the paper and pens to record the
    visit, soap and water for nurse and doctor to wash their hands, cost of
    ophthalmoscope, the electricity to run it, yearly cleaning and maintenance
    of it, replacement bulbs, etc, etc, etc.

    In a real office, the doctor will not spend 10 seconds with the baby. The
    doctor will review the chart, wash hands, examine the baby, talk to mom
    (even just saying "Everything is fine" takes longer than 10 seconds), and
    make chart notes. At least 10 minutes.

    In Ontario, where I practice and where health care, including eye care is
    covered by Government insurance, there are programs in place to examine all
    premature infants a number of times during their year of life, looking for a
    retinal problem that a high percentage of them may develop. A team of
    neonatal retinal specialists has been assembled and each specialist spends a
    few weeks every year travelling the province to examine the identified
    children. I can assure you that the cost of this is many, many, many times
    10 cents per child exam.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 20, 2005
    #5
  6. I think your bill is an error, and if I lived in your state i would
    lobby against it. I was diagnosed with glaucoma when I wa s in high
    school, and the eye doctors gave me really powerful eye medicines that
    gave me cysts on my pupils and made me sleepy all the time.

    Dilating an infants eyes could seriously damage them and for what
    possible point? I think someone is takingn you for a ride. If that
    legislation was passed who profits? The eye industry. They gets
    millions of babies health insurnaces paying for a useless test. Better
    you give those millions to the people who are fighting the guneai worm
    over in Africa.
     
    dobey the elf, Mar 20, 2005
    #6
  7. lanesharon

    Dr Judy Guest

    Perhaps if you had had proper eye examinations at a younger age your
    glaucoma would have been discovered sooner. Glaucoma drops do not cause
    cysts or sleepiness.
    Dilating an infant's eye will cause no damage. The purpose is to discover
    eye diseases like glaucoma, cataract and retinablastoma (eye cancer) which
    can be treated at an early age and thus prevent blindnes or death.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 20, 2005
    #7
  8. lanesharon

    sam ende Guest

    Dr Judy wrote:

    possibly they would also catch conditions such as amblyopia earlier and
    treat. the treatment is usually simple, ie wearing an eye patch and/or
    glasses.

    sammi
     
    sam ende, Mar 20, 2005
    #8
  9. What if it causes subtle behavioural changes related to having
    intensely irritating eye drops put into a struggling baby which results
    in the child becoming effectively traumatised by these events and
    repeated 2 more times during a critical stage in the child development
    process ***and**** where a parent or family is unskilled in resolving
    the subsequent said disruption to their lifes.

    Where are the studies on what were once normal babies who have been so
    treated to justify what seems like assualt upon the person for very
    very limited benefit?

    Maybe eye drops are now wonderfully unnoticable?

    I found it horrific to have eye drops put into my eyes by my mother
    prior to hospital examinations - god knows what effect that had on our
    relationship. I screamed and struggled and she put them in for my
    benefit!

    When i was last dropped in the 1980's it was a distressing time for me
    to get home. No mention was made of the need to bring sunglasses or
    perhaps have a friend to accompany me so i get travel thru london to
    get home. By the next day the effects were wearing off. Meanwhile i
    had to walk like a blind man holding railings to guide me in a straight
    line as i was overwhelmed with brightness and intensely watering eyes
    in the daylight

    If you believe that eye problems are mainly genetic then you can
    justify this kind of indifference to the feelings of another human
    being in the aid of 'progress'

    Its just bullshit!

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 20, 2005
    #9
  10. lanesharon

    sam ende Guest

    good vision is important;
    http://www.vision-care.co.nz/who.html

    sammi
     
    sam ende, Mar 21, 2005
    #10
  11. My son had neurological esotropia at birth. It is only correctable
    through surgery and the surgery must be performed before or around 6
    months of age or vision will start to deterioriate in one eye.

    He had his eyes dilated at 4 months of age to check his vision for
    additional abnormalities (none were found). He had surgery performed at
    6 months of age, and a spotty week & 1/2 of eye drops after that.

    He will be going in today at 11 1/2 months old for another eye exam
    w/dilation to check how his vision has settled.

    I can gladly say my son has not exactly been traumatised by these
    events. The surgery was not so nice, but he went through it like a champ
    and was up and playing that evening like nothing had happened.
     
    Shena Delian O'Brien, Mar 21, 2005
    #11
  12.  
    R. Steve Walz, Mar 21, 2005
    #12
  13. lanesharon

    sam ende Guest

    Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:

    that's cool, i hope the tests show that his eye is okay :)
    jonathans has had a couple of minor operations, one hernia and one on
    his hand, neither which have traumatised him as far as i can tell.

    sammi
     
    sam ende, Mar 21, 2005
    #13
  14. lanesharon

    RM Guest

    snip more inane blah blah

    unfortunately steve, you are correct. This Andrew guy is an insane crank
    who thinks every physical problem that a person has is somehow related to
    psychological trauma.

    This group has suddenly attracted a lot of such low-lifes.
     
    RM, Mar 21, 2005
    #14
  15. the point is Dr. Judy, is that it was a MISDIAGNOSIS!! They told me I
    would be blind by the time I was 35 and I'm almost 42 now and have no
    problems. The science was not advanced enough in the 80s to know that
    people with deepset eyes have higher intraocular pressure.

    There are elements of your bill that are a bunch of junk. The eye
    doctor can't look at the optic nerve without using a light that is so
    bright it leaves after images.

    I have had over ten photographic shots of my optic nerve in my life
    witht he special camera and the set up. The light flash is so bright
    you have an afterimage for a good 15-20 minutes. And that is as an
    adult, god knows what it would do to a kids eye cells.

    So your stats of 10 cents is just junk. That test costs at least $150
    per person.

    And you know why Dr. Judy they keep taking shots of my optic nerves?
    Because they thought I had glaucoma and they were waiting to see damage
    occur to my optic nerves. But guess what? There never was any damage
    because... get this.. I don't have glaucoma. The powerful medicines
    they gave me in college to control what they now know was a natural eye
    pressure -- those very powerful medicines that gave me cysts on my
    pupils, damaged the inner layers of my eye membranes and changed the
    chemical consistency of my tears which have led to these later
    chelazions. Those very medicines were NOT NEEDED. They were based on a
    faulty diagnosis.

    So. Say you did tormnt all these poor kids by flashing really bright
    lights into their eyes. Say you do it for every kid born. Say you do
    it. Out of those millions, even a small percentage of misdiagnosing of
    lets say 3-6 percent. What is 3 percent of five million?

    One percent of a million is 10,000 so we are talking 30,000 kids that
    will have to spend a lifetime of wasted treatments side effects and
    reduced quality of life issues.

    Your retinoblastomy. It can be detected other ways and the test you
    talk about is not the only test for it. It is a predictive test,
    nothing more and nothing less.

    You are making a bad mistake and all to cover an issue of misplaced
    grief you have never dealt with.

    Its time now to get your facts straight. Kill the bill. Its is a gross
    error.

    Plus we aren't even mentioning all those thousands of kids that grow up
    in a less than entitled environment where their parents would just be
    scraping to get by, with no health insurance and then you tell the
    parent the kid has a degenerative eye disorder? You can cripple
    thousands of households financially from what you are calling "an easy
    ten cent test".
    That is a simplistic view Dr. Judy. It will be at enormous cost to the
    individuals involved.
     
    dobey the elf, Mar 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Its always more helpful if people stick to science.

    Regardless of opinions on my psychiatric state its easy to find a few
    details on use of mydriatics which might alarm a parent which need to
    be addressed if the entire population of infants is to be examined
    using poisionous chemical compounds designed to alter the natural
    function of the eye.

    Poisonous chemical compounds (commonly called a drug) which are used to
    dilate a pupil could be:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ye.ca/drugs.pdf+mydriatics+side+effects&hl=en

    Tropicamide (most popular)

    **********rare reactions - nausea, vomiting, pallor and vasomotor
    collapse************


    Tropicamide + Phenylephrine for best results for examination


    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ye.ca/drugs.pdf+mydriatics+side+effects&hl=en

    ------------------------------------------
    http://www.anesthesiology.org/pt/re...jUHa5foCliCG!297597431!-949856032!9001!-1#P15

    *********Phenylephrine can provoke fatal hemodynamic changes**********

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Palmer EA: How safe are ocular drugs in pediatrics? Ophthalmology 1986;
    93:1038-40

    In comparison with that of adults, the smaller body mass of children
    raises questions of dosage. In addition, manifestations of ocular drug
    toxicity are different in some respects. The ocular drugs causing
    serious adverse ocular or systemic side effects in children include
    glaucoma medications, corticosteroids, phenylephrine, and the
    anticholinergic cycloplegics.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    CYCLOGYL Eye Drops are not recommended for use in infants, small
    children, children with brain damage or spastic paralysis, or in people
    with Down's Syndrome.

    ---------------------------

    Because of either the anticholinergic or hypertensive effects on the
    foetus, use of mydriatics is contraindicated in mothers who are
    breastfeeding.

    ----------------------------------------------


    I could not find anything that said these chemicals are safe.

    Admittedly i know nothing really at all about this subject other than
    my own unpleasant experience of having several separate courses of
    **unknown** eye drops which were intensely unpleasant for me when i was
    a child of 7.

    Andrew Judd B.Sc (Applied Analytical Chemistry)
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 21, 2005
    #16
  17. lanesharon

    Philip W Lee Guest

    Many infants find bright lights distressing, so the application of
    drops to prevent their eyes coping with this is, at best, abusive.

    If ANY person (medically qualified or not) attempted this on any of my
    children at birth, they would find themselves in their own ER.
    Closely followed by the courts as I persue them to the limit of the
    law for assaulting an infant.
    Use of force in making a citizens arrest is perfectly legal in all
    civilized coutries, particularly when done to prevent further assault.
     
    Philip W Lee, Mar 22, 2005
    #17
  18. lanesharon

    Philip W Lee Guest

    I should have added that their chances of EVER working with children
    again after assaulting one would be NIL.
     
    Philip W Lee, Mar 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Mike Tyner wrote:
    This why we dont give aspirin to children who don't have headaches in
    case they might have a headache we don't know about.

    Giving any drug to a child with known dangerous possible side effects
    has to be weighed against what benefits there might be.

    Mike, you are a knowledgeable. I know that.

    Can you let us know which mydriatics might be suitable for use on a new
    born (possibly premature) infant?
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Mar 22, 2005
    #19
  20. ----------------
    Nonsense. It is for a reasonable medical purpose. Virtually everything
    is distressing to an infant. Being born, for instance. However this
    is not pain, this is not abuse.

    --------------------
    You didn't have your children tested for PKU at birth then? Are any of
    them retarded now because of your ignorant shit-mindedness??

    You're unable to grasp the difference between UNJUSTified criminal
    assault like circumcision and a JUSTIFIED medical test to prevent an
    absolute horror that can result without it!! Your interference is
    abuse, you stupid shit! You human feces!!
     
    R. Steve Walz, Mar 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.