During the visit, Dr. k. Patrick an optometrist specializing with pediatrics, was going over protocol before completing the last part of the exam. At this point she explained and I will include the excerpt from patient review summary: " Asked mother to call the office if the patient is having trouble wearing the rx full time by ~2 weeks for temporary cycloplegic drops to encourage pt to wear the prescription. This was the point at which the pt's mother stated she would not do drops at home if he needed them as she considers that to be "torture to children" even if he was having trouble adapting to the prescription. I stressed the importance of the pt wearing the spectacles full time for best chance at reversing the amblyopia (permanent vision loss) and for ocular protection of the left eye."
There are a few things wrong with this statement that makes it falsifying documentation. I know it's 2 years later and I'm still waiting on a call and resolution for this. But back to the gist: when told the above my response and I quote (pulling it from follow up email dated the same date as this summary) "why would I want to do this, it seems torturous to a child, and can't that negatively effect his eyesight for long term use?" She then went on about how it would be negligible for me not to do this. I followed with "there are other ways to promote a child to wear glasses that doesn't involve removing more of their already limited vision. I will see someone else. You're done with Jay today. Do not touch him again. I want you to leave and I plan to report this." I have dug into it and here is the ethical consideration to the impact of eyesight for children with using those dilation drops: " Non-maleficence: This principle requires healthcare providers to do no harm. Using cycloplegic drops in patients without a clear clinical indication to simply "encourage" compliance with spectacle wear could be considered a violation of this principle due to the potential side effects and discomfort." " Beneficence: This principle obliges healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients. While cycloplegia can be beneficial for accurate diagnosis and treatment, using it solely for compliance purposes raises questions about whether it truly aligns with the patient's best interests given the potential drawbacks." And lastly " Using cycloplegic drops solely to "encourage" spectacle wear is generally not ethically justifiable due to the potential harm, infringement on patient autonomy, and the availability of more appropriate methods to promote compliance. Cycloplegia is a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool that should be reserved for cases where there's a clear clinical indication, and its use should always involve a thorough discussion of risks and benefits with the patient or their guardians."
In the entire visit no clear reason other than keep the glasses on was given. I as a mother do not trust her with my child. If you see her I suggest you go elsewhere. read more