She had both eyes done at once which I was a bit wary of in case they messed both up and she went blind.
If you go bargain, just do one at a time, you can still see out of the other one if they cook it.
It's not voodoo.
They assess your acuity, map the surface of the eyes, and then feed that data into a computer that runs the laser. The real skill of the opthalmologist in the enterprise is in knowing if you are a candidate for a procedure and where you might fall out in terms of outcome given your unique numbers.
It's so simple, even a caveman can do it.
Before I did mine, I managed to dredge up the data submitted to the FDA used to get these machines approved. The data showed that untoward incidents were almost negligible compared to any other surgery I am aware, and the success rates (no need for glasses) were in the high 90%'s.
Successful outcomes diminished with increasing poor vision. Still, even with really bad vision, success rates were in the 80%'s. I mean, there is really good predictive success.
Here is the bottom line: It's a classic risk/benefit calculation. If you are motivated to lose your eye glasses/contacts because they are a nuisance, you embrace lasik to the degree you view the alternative as a nuisance.
For example, I'm outside doing golf or coaching baseball 75% of the year, several times each week. It was a PITA switching glasses as light conditions changed and keeping the glasses clean. In golf, it was bothersome to play in any kind of rainy/misty condition. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I now LOOK like a suave CEO in the various expensive brands of non-prescription sunglasses that I now own, whereas I LOOKED more like this guy before lasik.
People, these alternatives are NOT difficult to choose among
