Treatment for glaucoma is similar to the treatment given in other areas of medicine, requiring thoughtful evaluation of the patient followed by an appropriate care plan. Research in glaucoma, however, has expanded the basic understanding of the nature of the disorder, creating situations and additional legal risks to confront the physician. Several major studies performed over the past 20 years have better identified the risk factors associated with both the presence and the progression of glaucoma. They also have increased those concerns that a physician must address to protect the patient’s vision and avoid legal liability. Situations now exist that were not imagined in the past. Established duties such as informed consent and standard of care continue to be applicable to glaucoma, but recently updated standards and expectations have been established for glaucoma as they have been for medicine in general. The more important ones are addressed here.
KeywordsOptic Nerve Intraocular Pressure High Myopia Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous pro-gression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with thera-peutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:487-497.Google Scholar
- 3.Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:701-713, 829-830.Google Scholar
- 5.Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara, 600 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Cir. App.-Hous [1 Dist.] 1980), 28.Google Scholar
- 6.Restatement (Second) of Torts 282 (1965).Google Scholar
- 7.Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514,519, 2d 981.Google Scholar
- 8.Preston v. Hubbell, 87 Cal App.2d 53, 196 P.2d 113 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1948), 98.Google Scholar
- 9.Kennedy v. Parrott, 243 N.C. 355, 90 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1956), 99.Google Scholar
- 10.Weil v. Seltzer, 873 F.2d 1453, 277. U.S. App. D.C. 196 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 161, 166.Google Scholar
- 11.Shorter v. Drury, 103 Wash.2d 645 P.2d 116 (Wash. 1985), 167.Google Scholar
- 12.Payton v. Weaver, 131 Cal.App.3d 38, 182 Cal Rptr. 225 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1982), 21, 24.Google Scholar
- 13.Lee PP. Medico-legal issues in glaucoma. In: Epstein DL, ed. Chandler and Grants Glaucoma. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:648-654.Google Scholar
- 14.Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), 115, 284.Google Scholar
- 15.Kernke v. Menninger Clinic, Inc., 172 F.Supp.2d 1347 (D. Kan. 2001), 282.Google Scholar