Would you consent to having a photograph taken of your retina?

I'd need to know way more about why the doctor wanted to do this before I decided. What "diagnostic purposes"? If it was something the doctor thought I needed, then I would do it--although then I don't know why my insurance wouldn't cover it. If it was not medically necessary, I would say no, in part because of the money and in part because I don't believe in having unnecessary medical procedures done. If it were for a study, then they wouldn't be charging me; but I would probably do it if it were for a study, even if I didn't need it--like if they needed pictures of healthy retinas as a control.

"Diagnostic purposes". Right.

I would ask why it was necessary.

No.

Eye doc automatically does this as part of the standard eye exam. And no extra cost.

I'd probably need a stronger explanation of why it's important (beyond "diagnostic purposes"), but I'd probably say "yes". Mostly, because my eyes are really important to me and I $20 seems worth it if it improves my diagnosis/treatment. But, if it's some sort of scam to steal my eye print so they can break into that top secret government lab where I work, then I guess I'd say "no".

I wouldn't pay an additional $20 for a test I didn't think I needed. If they could convince me it was necessary, I would have it done.

I got it done..I'm pretty sure they take the picture anyway..and it's only $20. I'd rather pay that instead of finding something wrong.
But I specifically remember them asking when I was last there..(June 19, 2009).

Well, first I would have to know (and believe) what the diagnostic purpose was. (Are they trying to make a quick buck? Seems professionally unethical)

I already have.

They really offer this and give this reason. My vision insurance did not cover it and it was a flat $20.00 fee.

I initially declined because I immediately thought to myself: I do not want photos of my retinas in the system.

When I was back in the office two days later to pick up my glasses, I had time to sit in the chairs and peruse the privacy policy. Apparently, if the government wants pictures of my retinas... the doc will give them up.

Yes and have had it done. It is used as a comparison on future visits to see if there has been any change. Many eye diseases can be slowed or corrected if caught in the early stages.

I get it done free of charge

So...

Why?

> When I was back in the office two days later to
> pick up my glasses, I had time to sit in the chairs
> and peruse the privacy policy. Apparently, if
> the government wants pictures of my retinas...
> the doc will give them up.

It's started...

When I bought my new laptop, it gave me the option to activate the finger print reader as an increased security feature. I was going to do it, out of curiousity, but then the program asked me to scan all of my fingers as opposed to just my right index. I totally freaked out and disabled the feature.

Yep. I would have done the same thing; it would have freaked me out also.

Like they always say.... the laws have not caught up to the technology. Until I know my privacy is secure, I'm not giving it up.

My index finger is the only one 'they' have. I had to give it up to my local grocery store for check cashing.

Is this photo for a qualified iridologist to diagnose any issues in the body? Hell yes! That's awesome.
Is the photo of the retina for their own purposes, Hell No! That is private and personal business.

. >Apparently, if
> the government wants pictures of my retinas...
> the doc will give them up.

that's an invasion of privacy!!

I'm sure you can probably thank the Bush administration. Not sure tho.

I'm scared, honestly. There are cameras everywhere and everything is on file. What I'm typing to you right now is going on file somewhere, somehow.

I know. Sucks.

I always joke, you can't get away with murder anymore.

Ha. True.

I can completely understand your objections on the grounds of privacy, but in your case if they say they want pictures of your retinas for diagnostic purposes, I would believe them. Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of blindness, and is much easier to pick up at a treatable stage if you photograph the retina than during a normal eye examination (when even skilled opticians/eye doctors are going to miss a lot of cases). In the UK, people with diabetes (like my brother) get free eye tests on the NHS, including annual retinal screening. It's crappy that you have to pay extra, and that there is such a big privacy issue, but I wouldn't take any risks with your eyesight.

(On a sidenote, I tried using an ophthalmoscope to look in someone's eyes for the first time the other day. I saw a pink blob with a couple of blink-and-you'll-miss-em red lines. Apparently it takes a huge amount of practise to be able to see anything at all, and really getting your eye in - no pun intended - takes years.)

*shrugs* I guess and FWIW I thought the question said "Rectum" instead of "Retina:...............Dont ask me why...

I admit, there's something to having it closely monitored. I have to think about what I would do if they found more damage though...... are they going to prescribe me meds or try to make me wear glasses all the time? Because I know from experience, I wouldn't follow their instructions anyway.

There is already damage.... 'cupping', he calls it. Apparently, it's early stage glaucoma. His evil little machine told on me when I subconsciously cheated on the peripheral vision test.

I get the dilation, have air blown in, have several machines to sit in and answer questions about and push buttons.... and then he looks in my eyes. He REALLY gets up in there. He has this swaying motion when he's looking in the eye - swaying down and up to the right, and swaying down and up to the left.... I've never had a doctor look so deep and thoroughly. Sometimes, I can see the reflection of the little blood vessels (don't even try to explain how that works lol).... very gross and cool.

> I admit, there's something to having it closely monitored. I have
> to think about what I would do if they found more damage though......
> are they going to prescribe me meds or try to make me wear glasses
> all the time? Because I know from experience, I wouldn't follow their
> instructions anyway.

AFAIK, it's not really something you can correct with glasses - I think it's usually laser treatment, but I haven't had a huge amount of teaching on ophthalmology.

> There is already damage.... 'cupping', he calls it. Apparently, it's
> early stage glaucoma. His evil little machine told on me when I subconsciously
> cheated on the peripheral vision test.

You can't fool The Machines!

I don't really understand the relationship between diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma - they are different things, but I believe diabetic retinopathy can cause glaucoma, which is why they'll be so keen to test you for it. My books don't really go into much detail on eyes - far too much of a specialist subject! It's probably well worth getting your ophthalmologist to explain exactly why he wants to do the extra test - maybe he can convince you that it will be worthwhile!

> I get the dilation, have air blown in, have several machines to sit
> in and answer questions about and push buttons.... and then he looks
> in my eyes. He REALLY gets up in there. He has this swaying motion
> when he's looking in the eye - swaying down and up to the right, and
> swaying down and up to the left.... I've never had a doctor look so
> deep and thoroughly.

I've come very close to having attacks of the giggles whilst seeing my optician. When she zooms in towards me and gets right into my personal space, I really have to control myself. I bet that any confused patients think they're coming in for a kiss!

I probably I would not consent to this, unless they could explain to me very well exactly what these diagnostic purposes were.