Royal College of Ophthalmologists | RCOphth

  • Jane

Replied by Jane on topic Email from Kathy Evans

Posted 14 Aug 2015 19:19 #81
I wrote to Kathy Evans complaining about Sasha being removed from the Working group and she insulted me with this patronising reply!

Last Edit:15 Aug 2015 08:21 by Jane
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 14 Aug 2015 18:09 #82
My first waking thought this morning was the content of this post, and how best to word it.

My raison d’être is My Beautiful Eyes, and I admit that I've become a very boring person since my eyes were irreparably damaged (and continue to get worse). Friends know better than to ask me how I am, instead they ask, “how is your campaign going?”.

I’m permanently angry, and will stay that way until all those I hold responsible for allowing this scandalous tragedy to continue work with me to stop it!

More than anyone - except the businessmen responsible - I know the scale of the problems, and understand the catastrophic effect these have on people’s lives. As well as destroying our health - not just of our eyes, these problems wreck relationships, livelihoods, quality of life, and so much more.

The organisations I previously believed were in place to protect the well being of patients are the very ones who allow this to continue, including the General Medical Council (GMC), the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth), Care Quality Commission (CQC), and others.

Not forgetting of course our very own government!

I have seen copies of countless complaints made to all of the above, and read many of their replies, which generally shrug off any responsibility and repeat the same mantra, “We are not a regulatory body..."

The GMC dismiss complaints of negligence against surgeons, even against those already successfully sued by damaged patients, the majority with a significant number of further claims against them in process.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read this paragraph in letters from the GMC: "I understand that you may be unhappy with this outcome but I hope that after reading the wording of the decision, that you will understand how we have reached this conclusion.

And this is the best yet, written by an ‘expert’ employed by the GMC to investigate complaints made by one patient (currently in litigation) against two OE surgeons:

The expert’s report on the second surgeon contained his similar opinion.

This of course begs the question, when exactly does care 'below the standard’ become ‘serious’?

In my opinion, if the GMC and the RCOphth got off their fences, constructed by their fee paying members (and those with vested interests), and listened to people like me, instead of acquiescing to the surgeons who pay their wages, much would change for the better.

When the Irish College of Ophthalmologists published new guidelines in February, I immediately sent them to Kathy Evans (RCOphth Chief Exec) after she told me that she didn't know about this:

Perhaps why the RCOphth then decided to revise their own guidelines and formed the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group:

This is of course the Working Group I was appointed to as lay representative in May this year, but then removed in June following a complaint from David Moulsdale.

Fence? Paid for!

The Irish College Guidelines are fairly comprehensive, and certainly a starting point for the RCOphth Working Group.

In the section on advertising for example, "Advertisements should not offer discount linked to a deadline date for booking appointments for surgery, or other date linked incentives.”

There's a start!

"The guidelines from the Irish College of Ophthalmologists are voluntary, but the college says members who do not adhere to them will be refused membership."

Simples :kiss:
Last Edit:14 Aug 2015 23:25 by admin
  • Craig aka Fed Up
  • Craig aka Fed Up's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Thank you received: 0

Replied by Craig aka Fed Up on topic The Royal College of Useless Sh*t (RCUS)

Posted 08 Aug 2015 20:26 #83
I feel I must post this in regard to letters that have been sent by Stephen Hannan and David Moulsdale to MPs and The Royal College Of Useless Sh*t (like the GMC).

I quote:
"We also suspect that she is responsible for many of the postings under different Pseudonyms on each of these sites in an effort to stimulate interest."

In writing this letter, amongst other things, Optical Express (namely David Moulsdale) were trying to discredit Sasha in order to try and stop Bad Eye Day and have her removed from the RCOphth Working Group.

Well guess what Hannan, I would try doing your home work next time, as one of the posts was mine, as were many more and not Sasha’s. So your dirty under handed tactics to hide the truth has failed. I too, along with fellow victims your company have butchered, will write to the MPs and The College to confirm your LIES and set the record straight.

Don't worry Mr McDumb, not long now and you will not have this pressure put on you from your Mein Fuhrer.

It's not hard to sign on the DOLE - because that's where you are going :)
Last Edit:09 Aug 2015 09:01 by Craig aka Fed Up
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Bernie Chang

Posted 03 Aug 2015 00:00 #84
Bernie Chang is RCOphth Vice President & Chair of Professional Standards (see 16 July post).

On Tuesday 28 July, and again on 31 July, I emailed Bernie with two questions concerning the composition of the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group.

I will publish Bernie's response when I receive it.

Incidentally, Bernie also works for Optegra, owned by Moonray Healthcare, the biomedical investment arm of Fidelity International, who (I'm told) pay close attention to my activities.

Optegra sell ‘Clarivu’ (cataract surgery) promoted by Ruth Langsford.

NB: Like Optical Express, Optegra were implanting the controversial MPlus X lens, now under investigation by the MHRA.

Earlier this year I attended a Clarivu sales promotion in Buckinghamshire and upset Ruth's highly paid sales pitch.

But hey, as Ruth told the prospective buyers, that's what I do :kiss:
Last Edit:03 Aug 2015 11:33 by admin
  • Mr Angry

Replied by Mr Angry on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 25 Jul 2015 08:33 #85
Have a look at number 2, 3rd point on this document.
These people are forgetting what their own aims are!

Last Edit:25 Jul 2015 09:16 by Mr Angry
  • HazelJ
  • HazelJ's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 42
  • Thank you received: 4

Replied by HazelJ on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 24 Jul 2015 20:29 #86
How many of the people on the Royal College of Ophthalmologists have had any kind of surgery on their eyes I wonder ? Sasha has and knows first hand how debilitating this surgery is when, as often as not, it goes wrong. There needs to be someone who can explain the problems and the amount of people affected.

Maybe they just don't want to hear, or someone doesn't want them to hear, so by removing her will silence her.

Some hope, in fact we'll all shout a lot louder - :woohoo: :woohoo:
Last Edit:25 Jul 2015 08:23 by HazelJ
  • The Truth Fairy

Replied by The Truth Fairy on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 23 Jul 2015 11:34 #87
The hypocrisy of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists is making me so angry. They need to act in the interests of patients not in the interests of corrupt members.

There are plenty of reasons to include Sasha in the Working Group but only one reason not to include her, and that’s because she is a threat to those members who are corrupt and apparently controlling the College.

What will the College do next I wonder? Because right now they are not looking good and have completely discredited themselves.

Sasha Rodoy, whose integrity shines out from amidst a sea of corruption, should be resinstated without any need for more discussion.
Last Edit:23 Jul 2015 12:26 by The Truth Fairy
  • Anonymous

Replied by Anonymous on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 23 Jul 2015 08:37 #88
I too sent two emails to Royal College, but not once did they address the issues. However, my second letter to Royal College triggered a generic dribble that everyone has seen:

My 1st letter to the president of the college sent on 10th June 2015: president@rcophth.ac.uk

"Dear Sir,

I understand the Royal College is recruiting new Board members and a Dr Teenan has applied to become a board member of the ESCRS. Your college has objectives to ‘maintain proper standards of ophthalmology for the benefit of the public’ and to ‘educate the general public in all matters relating to vision and the health of the human eye’.

As a victim of your college members who have devastated my absolutely perfect eyes for their financial gain, I would like to strongly protest at the mere mention of Dr Tennan being considered for a higher role in the college. One of the most disreputable eye surgery organisations in the UK is Optical Express; it has brought colossal damage to thousands of unsuspecting members of the public through lies and manipulation of truth. Dr Teenan heads this disgraceful organisation and is responsible for the continued suffering of thousands of public like myself. Dr Teenan and his team are in clear breach of their Hippocratic oath 'of doing no harm' with several legal cases already dealt and even more in the pipeline, by electing this person to the board would only bring disrepute to the Royal College.

Furthermore, given that private eye surgery is at least controversial if not immoral, for sole purpose of making financial gains, their presence on the Royal College board that makes rules and regulations for its members, would also be a clear conflict of interest.

In light of all the reasons above, I shall urge you and your colleagues to not consider Dr Teenan as a suitable candidate.

Yours sincerely,

Shabir Ahmed

My 2nd letter sent 15th July to Kathy.Evans@rcophth.ac.uk

"Dear Ms Evans,

Last month your college was electing new members to the college board and I wrote to the presidents protesting about the possibility of Mr Keenan being elected to the Board. I understand that not only was he elected but I was not sent even an acknowledgement.

There is clearly a lack of concern by the College about the general public, its views and communications. This is strange given that all your members are making their livelihood from the general public and their elected government. Perhaps courtesy can be afforded to those care to communicate.

Your sincerely,

Shabir Ahmed

Just like all other OERML complainants, a generic reply received on 20 July:

admin: Shabir's MP is supporting him. Have you contacted yours yet :kiss:

Last Edit:24 Jul 2015 09:50 by Anonymous
  • Caro

Replied by Caro on topic Email the Royal College!

Posted 22 Jul 2015 08:56 #89
It seems that we all got the same generic email from the College. I have responded by telling them that by shrugging off the responsibility onto the GMC won't work.

I am entitled to voice my opinion, and so is everyone who has suffered as a result of this vile industry. We all know what the problems are so please take the opportunity to share your opinion/experiences with the College and respond to the comments in their email!
Last Edit:22 Jul 2015 09:46 by Caro
  • The Truth Fairy

Replied by The Truth Fairy on topic Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Posted 22 Jul 2015 07:25 #90
Pearls of wisdom indeed, Sweetie!
It is about time that these people put themselves in our position and imagine what it is like for us, then they need to grow a conscience and put an end to this shit. Oh no! I said SHIT! I am so sorry. I hope I didn't offend anyone and make their life unbearable?
Last Edit:22 Jul 2015 07:55 by The Truth Fairy
Moderators: admin

OERML & My Beautiful Eyes Foundation rely on your support to expose the horrors of this unregulated industry.

Your help is very much appreciated!