By common law, I believe this case precedent applies to all 50 states because common law (which is not a tort) is the same everywhere.

Under common law (See Ketchup v. Howard, 2000 WL 174538, Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2000;

Do Doctors understand patients' rights to informed consent?  One Doctor emailed me:

"In all of the surgeries I have been involved with, from my time in general surgery to now, consent forms have not listed each individual problem that can occur. If mention is made of the effect of the problem, then there is informed consent. Argument of this point would best be left to the lawyers.” 

Patients are Not adequately provided informed consent about the risks or about known problems. 

Would you risk your eyesite, and physical and mental health for life to save $60 on a blade?  Would you provide informed consent to taking unnecessary risks by reusing a blade- especially given that the surgery is already highly risky (see and

The FDA working group met and requested a full copy of that survey article below that indicates that 21% of Doctors admitted they reuse microkeratome blades for LASIK.

Is there a limit to how many patients a blade can be reused on?  How many patients was each blade used on in the clinical trials?  The FDA has Not even responded to these questions yet.  How long does it take to answer simple questions like these?

Most respondents (78.7%) changed the microkeratome blade between patients while 49% in Europe and 36.4% in Oceania preferred to change the microkeratome blade between eyes. These preferences were similar to those in the 2003 survey. The microkeratome blade was changed after 2 or more patients by 11 .l% of Asian respondents and 55.0% of Latin American respondents, which was similar to the pattern in the 2003 survey (17.5% and 50.0%, respectively).

After talking with numerous patients, I am very confident that if the treatment zone is smaller than your pupils, then the larger your pupils the less satisfied you will be with LASIK.

One last thing- measuring pupil size accurately is very time consuming because it requires an expensive machine and a minimum of 20 minutes in TOTAL darkness before taking the measurement.  I have talked with numerous patients whose pupils were mismeasured.  Mismeasuring pupil size and Not providing a wide enough treatment zone has become the standard of care for LASIK. 

Surgical Technique:

Ninety-seven percent of respondents would treat a pupil larger than the ablated area in patients with low myopia (<-6.0 diopters [Dl), and 70.1% would treat a pupil larger than the ablated area in patients with high myopia (> -6.0 D).
Knowingly Not informing patients is unethical AND illegal in all 50 states.
By common law, I believe this case precedent applies to all 50 states because common law (which is not a tort) is the same everywhere. 

>This past fall, the Georgia Court of Appeals handed down a decision that appears to have dramatically changed the law of informed consent in Georgia. See Ketchup v. Howard, 2000 WL 174538 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2000). The court announced a "common law" doctrine of informed consent that requires medical professionals to inform patients of all known material risks of any proposed treatment or procedure, and to inform patients of available treatment alternatives. In the process, the court undid twenty-five years of legal precedent.

>In 1988, the General Assembly enacted a doctrine of informed consent. See O.C.G.A. § 31-9-6.1. This Act requires that six specific categories of information be disclosed by medical care providers to their patients. However, the statute only requires detailed disclosure of the risks and alternatives before a patient undergoes certain specified surgical or diagnostic procedures, namely, the following: a surgical procedure under general, spinal, or major regional anesthesia; a diagnostic amniocentesis; or any diagnostic procedure that involves the intravenous or intraductal injection of a contrast material.

>The court's decision moves Georgia's established doctrine from an objective rule to a more obscure subjective standard. Now, a "medical professional" (which is left undefined by the court) must disclose "all material risks generally recognized and accepted by reasonably prudent physicians which, if disclosed to a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position, could reasonably be expected to cause that person to decline the proposed treatment or procedure." Patients must also be informed of available alternatives to the proposed procedure or treatment. As a result, while expert testimony would be required to establish that a particular risk was either known or should have been known, it will likely be up to a jury to decide whether an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the patient's position would have rejected a proposed treatment or procedure.

The only way I know to have liberty from LASIK is to never have LASIK.   

lib·er·ty   Audio pronunciation of "liberty" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties

    1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
    2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
    3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
  1. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
  2. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
    1. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
    2. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
    3. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
  3. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
at liberty
  1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.
  2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.