Laser: good candidate or not?

Hi everybody
HAPPY EASTER!!

A friend of mine has been visited by an ophtalmologist who recommended
the laser for him. We are unsure if it was Lasik or Lasek.
He is sph -2.75 cyl -0.50 both eyes

This puzzled me, because my friend:
1) has pupils which dilate a lot: I was able to read 8mm diameter when
we were in high darkness (but there was enough light for me to see the
millimeters scale)
2) has dry eyes, confirmed by the doctor. He cannot wear Acuvue Advance
contact lenses but imho that's because he is probably allergic to the
solutions, however the "dry eyes" thing was confirmed by the doctor.

When I read about the lasers, 5 years ago or so, I think that each of
these 2 things alone would make him a "not good" candidate for laser
operation. I don't know if I either remember incorrectly, I am mistaken
or maybe the lasers improved a lot lately.

What do you think?
Are such pupils size and dry eyes parameters for exclusion or not?

Thanks for your opinion

 

Well, there is another newsgroup somewhere that is dedicated
specifically to discussion of LASIK (how disgusting), you would get
better answers there.

In my opinion (and Bates) NO ONE should have to be a candidate for
Laser Surgery. Glasses are bad, contacts are worse, and laser is at
the very top of the rotten things.

 

Oops, sorry for having posted to the wrong newsgroup.
I reposted there
Thanks for your help

 

No prob.

 

No way, there are way too many risks, even on top of the fact a
"successful operation" means causing permanent damage to the front of
your eye (sclera).

I'd probably rather get attacked the giant Japanese hornet, which
means my eyes would melt...

My advice? Don't do it!

 

Yes, Dr. Zetsu to the rescue!

 

You know, you seem to have a deep grudge against 'fiction'.

Your grudge might be a little unwarranted. Fiction is the cure of many
ailments! Whenever I have flu or influenza, I read a storybook and it
makes me get better! (Along with imagining a black dot)

 

But why? This group isn't just science. It's also medicine.
Why should I restrict my posts to a fiction newsgroup when I know from
direct experience that the rest method WILL CURE YOUR VISION PROBLEMS?
You mean to tell me that I should keep my mouth shut when I know
something that could potentially cure all your patients? Isn't that
unethical!

Why should they have to wait for trials to be done first?