Volume 13, Number 2
August 2004
The Glaucoma Service Foundation’s motto,
appearing at the bottom of the first page of Searchlight on Glaucoma,
reads “Meeting the Challenge of Glaucoma Through Education
and Research.” Glaucoma patients enjoy safer and more effective
methods of diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma today because of
the research done over the years, especially the last decade.
The allure of possibly finding a “cure” is irresistible
to both researchers and those who support that research. Indeed,
the importance of research cannot be overestimated.
Yet, because research is so much in the spotlight, there is a
danger that the crucial role education plays in decreasing the
number of individuals who go blind from glaucoma may remain under-appreciated
and under-supported. With this in mind, for this issue I asked
Dr. George Spaeth to comment about the education of glaucoma patients
and Dr. Richard Wilson to answer questions about educating the
general public about glaucoma.
Ken Parker, PhD
George Spaeth, MD
The more people know about their health the better. For example,
if patients with glaucoma do not clearly understand why it is
crucial to their health to take eye drops as prescribed, they
may fail to do so, allowing their glaucoma to progress. Or, if
they do not understand the side effects associated with drops,
they may unnecessarily suffer from problems caused by the drops,
when other drops just as effective but without the unwanted side
effects could be used.
Educating glaucoma patients about these two points might seem
simple. But if it truly were, there undoubtedly would be fewer
complaints from doctors that their patients were not being “compliant,”
and from patients that their doctors “didn’t tell
me about” possibleside effects of a prescribed glaucoma
medication.
As with any communication, patient education is a two-way street.
It can be easy if the doctor is eager and has the time to explain
what her examination of the patient has revealed and what she
believes should be done — and the patient is enthusiastic
to learn more by asking the doctor questions and seeking further
information from books, pamphlets, and the internet.
Alas, however, this scenario is rare in the real world. The doctor
often has little time or energy to provide details of what is,
especially in the case of glaucoma, a very complex matter. It
is easier and more efficient to take a paternalistic stance, without
troubling to try to figure out how best to provide essential details
to this unique person about her unique situation. And the patient
often is all too willing to turn over responsibility for her health
to the doctor without trying to really understand what the doctor
is trying to communicate and what it means to her. It is just
easier that way for both doctor and patient. Easier but not likely
to result in a healthy patient.
Glaucoma Service staff member Dr. L. Jay Katz
(left) discusses his research projects with Dr. William Steinmann,
Director of the Glaucoma Research Center. Most of the doctors
on the Glaucoma Service not only see patients and perform surgery,
but also teach and serve as principal investigators on a variety
of glaucoma research projects.
Photo by Ken Parker, PhD
The Cornerstone of Patient Education
This all-too-typical yet unsatisfactory relationship between doctor
and patient results, I believe, from the failure of both the physician
and patient to recognize that the patient is ultimately responsible
for his own health. From this perspective, it becomes the doctor’s
responsibility, first and foremost, to help the patient learn
how to take care of himself. Indeed, the original meaning of the
word “doctor” is “teacher.”
Knowledge confers power. Knowing how to take
care of one’s self empowers one to take care of oneself.
Knowing about disease and how to avoid it helps make it possible
to avoid disease. Who we are, what we become, how healthy or how
sick we are, all these thing are the consequence of the inter-working
of “nature,” “nurture,” “luck,”
and “destiny.” By “nature” I mean our
basic biology, which relates to our basic genetic make-up. “Nurture”
can be divided into two different categories, external nurture
and internal nurture. External nurture includes all those things
that happen to us that we cannot control, such as the nature of
the family into which we are born, our communities, our socioeconomic
status, events such as war, famine, and plague, and the healthcare
system of which we are a part. By internal nurture I basically
mean lifestyle — everything over which we have a reasonable
amount of control, and, to some extent, that includes our health
care. Finally, it seems that “luck” or “destiny”
also play a role in our lives, though just how or why has been
debated passionately for thousands of years.
What is clear, however, is that of all these factors the only
one over which we have any control is our lifestyle, the accumulation
of the choices we make. That includes, for patients, the physicians
we see and how we choose to follow or ignore the advice of those
physicians. For doctors, as teachers, it includes not only learning
about the particular manifestation of disease in an individual
patient, but also choosing to be sensitive to the character of
each unique patient so that they can begin to teach individual
patients how to care for themselves. That includes, for patients,
the physicians we see and how we choose to follow or ignore the
advice of those physicians. For doctors, as teachers, it includes
not only learning about the particular manifestation of disease
in an individual patient, but also choosing to be sensitive to
the character of each unique patient so that they can begin to
teach individual patients how to care for themselves.
Hearing What We Want to Hear
A common problem in patient education is that both doctors and
patients tend to hear what they want to hear. The patient may
tell the doctor that she’s experiencing what she thinks
might be the side effects of her glaucoma medication. But because
the doctor is pleased that the drops are doing a great job of
lowering the patient’s pressure, he may minimize the patient’s
complaint and not take it as seriously as he should.
The doctor may stress the importance of taking medications exactly
as prescribed. The patient, however, finding it difficult to take
two or three different medications a different number of times
each day, may begin to believe the doctor was overstating the
necessity of following this regimen exactly. He may begin skipping
some doses, thinking it’s not so bad.
All of us to some extent use what we hear or read to reinforce
our own habits and beliefs, rather than using that information
as a way to evaluate realistically our beliefs and habits. It
is often difficult to admit to ourselves that the way we act and
what we believe may be “wrong,” that is, in this regard
not conducive to patients’ effectively caring for themselves
or to doctors’ helping their patients be healthy. In order
to change one’s beliefs one first has to admit at least
a certain level of ignorance, and one must have a sincere interest
in filling in the gap or correcting something one thought one
knew to be correct. On the other hand, once we believe we have
considered all the issues clearly, it is important to have enough
confidence that our beliefs and assumptions and habits are appropriate
that we are able to act on them.
“A common problem in patient
education is that both doctors and patients tend to hear what
they want to hear.”
The False Promise of “Health Education”
One might think that, for patients, developing that confidence
has been made easier these days by the wide availability of “health
information.” We hear and see commentaries on health-related
matters constantly. We tend to forget that most “health
education” is based on a desire to sell products. We are
told that omega-3 fish oil is good for us, but we may fail to
note that the advice comes from a company that sells omega-3 fish
oil. The pharmaceutical companies are frequently singled out as
offenders in this regard, but the concern applies to all of those
who stand to benefit from a product or a service, and that includes
doctors. Virtually every advertisement placed by a physician has
as its intent increasing the physician’s revenues. True
patient education is rarely the real purpose. By contrast, the
doctor who is focused on genuine patient education will provide
the best information she has and help patients learn how to evaluate
all health information critically, so they can stand to benefit
from it rather than be exploited by it.
Some Thoughts for Glaucoma Patients
Here are a few specific thoughts that might be of help to people
who have glaucoma who want to take care of themselves as well
as they can:
• Glaucoma comes in many forms, styles, and intensities.
The best care is the care that is appropriately customized. Patients
should not compare the care they are getting with that given to
others. What
they need to know is that the care they are getting is the right
care for them. For example, some people with early glaucoma need
to have surgery within a few hours, whereas other people with
early glaucoma need no treatment at all. That is, it is not that
their glaucoma is early that is the critical point, but rather
what is going to happen to them if they do not have treatment.
The right questions to ask the doctor
then is not “What is my intraocular pressure?” but
“How am I doing?”
• The primary angle-closure glaucomas are strongly familial.
If you have an angleclosure glaucoma and you care for the other
members of your family, you want to make sure that they are checked
by somebody who is competent to diagnose angle-closure glaucoma.
• The results of a particular type of diagnostic test, such
as a visual field, are only as valuable as the skill of the person
interpreting the results. For example, even though there is no
abnormality found in the visual field, a person can be getting
worse, and even though a visual field can have apparently gotten
a lot worse, the person may not be getting worse.
• The side effects of eye drops can be insidious and extremely
serious. These side effects can be limited by decreasing the amount
of drug that gets into the blood stream, and one way to achieve
that is to push a tissue into the little pocket between the nose
and the eye right after the drops are used, so the drop does not
run down into the nose and get absorbed.
The side effects of drops include fatigue, dry mouth, backache,
slow heartbeat, fast heartbeat, low blood pressure, elevated blood
pressure, loss of sexual desire, and diarrhea.
• Only five percent of those who have intraocular pressure
above normal limits will ever develop glaucoma damage, even if
they are never treated.
• Those who have had successful glaucoma surgery in the
past are at risk for developing infections inside their eyes,
and, if they develop “pink eye,” they need to let
their ophthalmologist know immediately.
• Cortisone products in any form — skin creams, nasal
spray, pills, eye drops — can make the intraocular pressure
go up in susceptible individuals.
• Aging is not an adequate explanation for a decrease in
vision.
• Patients who bring lists with them that
describe what has happened to them since the last visit, what
is troubling them about their eyes, and questions that they want
answered are likely to preserve their vision better than those
who do not bring such lists.
• Those who are honest with their physicians and articulate
in explaining their symptoms and concerns get better care than
those who are not honest and articulate.
• Those who really learn to listen to their own bodies give
themselves an increased chance to live longer, be healthier, and
be happier.
• A good habit is to make sure that your physician learns
something new and important about you at every visit, and that
you learn something new and important about yourself and your
doctor at every visit. Doing your part to expand the mutual learning
taking place at each visit is one of the most important things
you can do to take care of yourself, to preserve and enhance your
health.
Knowledge is power, and that includes self knowledge. Those who
know the most and also know how to utilize the information positively
are those who are most likely to be truly healthy.
Research Fellow Dr. João
Lopes (left), from the University of São Paulo, Brazil,
works with Dr. Spaeth. Dr. Lopes brings to his work at Wills a
strong background in glaucoma research, especially in projects
concerning quality of life in glaucoma patients and new imaging
technologies. He was an active participant in the Blindness Prevention
League at his university in Brazil.
Photo by Ken Parker, PhD
Finding the Right Treatment
On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, Dr. Elliot Werner, glaucoma specialist
at Wills, discussed “Finding the Right Treatment”
with patients on the Foundation’s website chat room (www.willsglaucoma.org).
P: Dr. Werner, is it true that no two glaucoma patients are alike?
Dr. Elliot Werner: Not only are no two patients alike, but even
the same patient is different at different times.
Moderator: So finding the right treatment can sometimes be difficult?
Dr. Elliot Werner: The “right treatment” is the one
that preserves the patient’s vision as long as he or she
lives. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to determine that in
advance.
P: Does age play a role in determining a patient’s treatment?
Dr. Elliot Werner: Age is important in deciding how aggressively
to treat. A very old patient who is likely to die before going
blind is a very different treatment problem than a younger patient
who has many years of potential lifespan.
P: Are drops usually the first course of action?
Dr. Elliot Werner: In North America, most doctors still use drops
as first-line treatment for most chronic glaucomas, although more
of us are moving on to laser trabeculoplasty much earlier now
in open-angle glaucoma.
P: Is there a risk for young patients that using eye drops for
a long time will damage the eye, which would make surgery more
difficult in later years?
Dr. Elliot Werner: There is some evidence that the long-term use
of drops causes inflammation of the conjunctiva, which reduces
the chance of success of filtering surgery (trabeculectomy). I
still believe, however, that the risk of surgery is greater than
the risk of drops, if the glaucoma can be controlled with one
or two medications.
P: When would you recommend using laser first, instead of going
directly to a trabeculectomy?
Dr. Elliot Werner: I now offer the patient the option of laser
or drops as first-line treatment. I try to explain the advantages
and drawbacks of each and let the patient decide. In my experience,
about 80% of patients opt to try drops first. People still seem
to fear procedures more than medicines.
P: At what point is treatment indicated?
Dr. Elliot Werner: Treatment is indicated in any patient who has
evidence of optic nerve damage or a high risk of developing future
damage.
P: If laser surgery didn’t work and the patient didn’t
want to use eye drops, would you advise cutting surgery? Would
it be a bad idea to go directly to a trabeculectomy?
Dr. Elliot Werner: If the patient truly had progressive glaucoma,
I would offer the patient filtering surgery. If the patient rejected
that, I would advise him or her of a significant risk of irreversible
blindness. But we have to respect each person’s autonomy.
P: Do you have suggestions for finding the right treatment?
Dr. Elliot Werner: Get your visual field and optic nerves examined
at frequent intervals, and ask the doctor to compare the results
with previous tests to be sure you are stable. If there are signs
of deterioration, the treatment should be augmented.
P: Can someone who has an intraocular pressure of around 14 mm
Hg get glaucoma? If so, why?
Dr. Elliot Werner: Yes. That is normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).
“WHY?” All of us glaucoma docs scream that question
to the heavens daily.
P: What is the best way to treat NTG? Will it make my father’s
vision get worse fast — within several years?
Dr. Elliot Werner: A large NTG study was recently completed. About
half of the NTG patients could be adequately treated with medications.
The rest required surgery, so there is no best way to treat. It
depends on the individual patient’s response to the different
treatments we have available.
P: Isn’t it true that you can’t tell about progression
just because a visual field printout looks“darker”?
Couldn’t that just be the quality of the printout? My doctor
says the only really important things are the numbers (on the
printout). The graphic just points to where to look.
Dr. Elliot Werner: Determining progression from a visual field
test is notoriously difficult. A lot of active research is trying
to develop computer programs that will do that. It usually requires
graphing and statistical analysis of the numbers. You are right:
just the area of darkness is not a reliable indicator.
P: Somewhere in your “Chat Highlight” archives I
noticed one of your colleagues advised weight loss. What does
weight have to do ith glaucoma?
Dr. Elliot Werner: There is no direct relationship between weight
and glaucoma that has been shown, but obesity is often associated
with a variety of circulatory and other health problems, such
as diabetes and high blood pressure that can make treating glaucoma
more difficult. P: It must be frustrating for you (and other doctors)
when a patient does not seem to be responding to treatment and
it becomes ifficult to find the “right” treatment.
Dr. Elliot Werner: Yes, it’s the most frustrating thing
in the world, especially since filtering surgery has at best about
an 80% success rate. That means there are a significant number
of patients who do not respond to any treatment. It’s horrible.
Sleepless nights over that one.
P: Since the treatment protocol for most glaucoma doctors is
about the same, would you say that the patient-doctor relationship
is the single most important factor in treatment? Has anything
changed in the training of specialists to close the gap of glaucoma
as a disease versus glaucoma as it affects the patient as a person?
I mean in treatment of the whole person? Dr. Elliot Werner: That’s
a tough one. The problem you define is really a cultural one.
Most glaucoma docs are oriented to saving vision, not, unfortunately,
to making people feel better.
Medical student Kevin Warrian
works on a study among glaucoma patients of the effect of a person’s
personality on his/her selfreported quality of life. Mr. Warrian
is a firstyear medical student at the University of Manitoba who
plans to use his participation in this clinical science research
project to fulfill the research requirement for obtaining a Bachelor
of Science degree (B.Sc.Med.) in Ophthalmology. He plans to be
in residence at Wills Eye Hospital for the rest of the summer
and next summer to carry out this project.
Photo by Ken Parker, PhD
Saving People from Unnecessary Blindness
from Glaucoma:
An Interview with Dr. Richard Wilson
Ken Parker: As you are well
aware, a report giving the most recent figures regarding the prevalence
of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States* concludes
that: “Owing to the rapidly aging population, the number
of persons with open-angle glaucoma will increase by 50%, from
2.22 million today to 3.36 million in 2020.” Furthermore,
the report recalls that “studies consistently find that
about half of those with glaucoma are unaware they have the disease.”
That seems to mean that, because vision loss from glaucoma usually
can be minimized if treated early, as many as one million individuals
are in danger of losing sight unnecessarily from glaucoma today,
and that if the situation remains the same, 1.5 million will be
in 2020.
“Owing to the rapidly aging
population, the number of persons with open-angle glaucoma will
increase by 50%, from 2.22 million today to 3.36 million in 2020.”
Why are so many people unaware that they
have glaucoma?
Dr. Richard Wilson: Unfortunately, the most common
variety of glaucoma, primary open-angle glaucoma, has no symptoms
until the late stages of the disease. Individuals usually know
little about the disease. Those who have some knowledge may feel
if they can see their hands off to the side of their face, they
cannot have glaucoma. Unless people are alerted by a family history
of glaucoma and seek regular eye examinations, or the need for
glasses, an eye injury, or an infection brings them to the eye
doctor, the glaucoma they may have usually goes unnoticed until
the majority of the optic nerve fibers have already been lost.
Ken Parker: What are the obstacles that make
it difficult to find these people?
Dr. Richard Wilson: Many of those at highest
risk — the elderly, African Americans, older Hispanics and
those with a family history of glaucoma — do not have regular
eye examinations. Even with eye exams, the early stages of the
disease are difficult to diagnose unless there is an elevated
intraocular pressure. When screening for glaucoma, as many as
half of the individuals with definite glaucoma will have intraocular
pressure readings in the normal range on that first exam. Early
diagnosis often requires a detailed examination of the optic nerves,
a skill in which not all eye doctors are skilled.
Ken Parker: How might these obstacles be overcome?
Dr. Richard Wilson: Education about the risks
of glaucoma, the nature of the disease, and the absolute necessity
of periodic eye examinations are the most important measures we
can take. Screening the general population for glaucoma is a worthwhile
educational tool, but concentrating on screening the people who
I mentioned before are most at risk, those with a family history
of glaucoma, the elderly, African Americans, and older Hispanics,
has the most potential for actually reducing blindness from glaucoma.
In addition, we need to develop more sensitive testing that will
correctly identify individuals with early glaucoma but weed out
those with suspicious optic nerves that in fact are normal. New
visual field tests like the Frequency Doubling Technology perimeter
and the Short Wavelength Automated Perimeter are a strong step
in that direction.
Ken Parker: What, once we find these people,
are the obstacles standing in the way of getting them the treatment
that could save their sight?
Dr. Richard Wilson: As I mentioned before, there
is a lack of understanding about the serious nature of their disease
and the need for consistent, conscientious therapy if the disease
process is to be halted. The lack of understanding coupled with
a strong sense of denial results in only 41% of those who have
been screened positively for possible glaucoma pursuing glaucoma
care even when all the expenses involved in doing so are covered.
For many, however, the costs of medication are high and constitute
another barrier to consistent therapy.
Ken Parker: What is the Glaucoma Service Foundation
doing about this problem? What more, given sufficient funding,
could the Foundation be doing?
Dr. Richard Wilson: By using
the internet we have leveraged the Glaucoma Service Foundation’s
newsletter, Searchlight on Glaucoma, and its monthly inhouse support
group meetings and now send the Searchlight to 1300 e-mail subscribers,
and archive it on our website (www.willsglaucoma.org). Also, we
hold a physician-led patient support chatroom every Wednesday
night and a patient-led chat support group at least one other
time each week. An average of over 20 chatters join us each week
from around the world, with typically two new chatters a week.
People have connected from, among other places, Canada, Korea,
Brazil, the Virgin Islands, the UK, Germany, Portugal, and New
Zealand. The chatroom has made it possible to personalize the
Foundation’s educational mission to an unprecedented degree.
From the numerous folks who have taken the time to write us in
detail about how we have helped them, we know that we have undoubtedly
helped a great many people across the globe. And thanks to the
superb ability and effort of volunteer Norma Devine, summaries
of all these chats, “chat highlights,” on virtually
every topic relevant to glaucoma are readily available to site
visitors and easily searchable. Around 800 people visit our site
everyday, transferring about 64 MB of material per day from one
of the most extensive databases for glaucoma patients in the world.
“Only 41% of those who have
been screened positively for possible glaucoma pursue glaucoma
care even when all the expenses involved in doing so are covered.”
The internet has also enabled the Foundation to develop a virtual
glaucoma research group that stretches from Philadelphia to Hawaii
and around the world. With increasingly sophisticated software,
we should all be able to work together with our widely dispersed
ex-residents and ex-fellows in a concerted attempt to solve some
of the serious problems concerning glaucoma that still plague
us. Among other things, the use of the internet allows us to access
patients with just-diagnosed and early glaucoma for studies. As
you can imagine, it is difficult to find these patients in a tertiary
medical center such as ours. The information compiled from studies
is analyzed at a central computer server as the study progresses.
We have been conducting screenings over the last four years among
high-risk groups in the inner city. This is done for both educational
and research purposes. We are trying to determine the simplest,
most effective method for screening and the means to motivate
individuals identified as having glaucoma to enter therapy. One
approach is to involve the individual’s primary physician
in the diagnosis and follow-up. Our next goal is to develop methods
of using telemedicine to screen high-risk groups remotely, that
is, having technicians do the testing and physicians interpret
the results after they have been transferred back to Wills over
the internet. Methods to eliminate angle closure glaucoma in the
population, enhance the effectiveness of laser and cutting surgery,
investigate which medications work best in which people, and how
the disease mentally and emotionally affects those who suffer
from it, as well as the genetic underpinings of the disease are
all under investigation with support from the Glaucoma Service
Foundation. Clearly, additional funding will increase the scope
and pace of our efforts.
Dr. Richard Wilson (right)
speaks with Foundation Board members Tom Henderer (left) and Hy
Lovitz at a retreat for Board members held in the Wills Eye Hospital
auditorium on June 12th.
Photo by Ken Parker, PhD
New Members Strengthen Foundation Board
 Joseph
C. Watson
Mr. Watson is a Senior Vice President-Investments and Wealth Management
Specialist in Legg Mason Wood Walker’s Marlton, New Jersey
office. He has been in the investment industry since 1984, focusing
on financial, retirement, and estate planning. Prior to joining
Legg Mason, Mr. Watson was Senior Vice President-Investments for
Butcher & Singer and Smith Barney. In addition to helping
high-net-worth clients protect and preserve their wealth, he advises
clients on issues such as reducing estate taxes and charitable
giving.
“It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve on the Foundation’s
Board. As a new Board member I hope to make a contribution to
the Foundation’s work to promote research and education
about glaucoma. My personal interest lies in the fact that my
wife is a patient of Dr. George Spaeth. We are very fortunate
to have found such a competent and caring physician.”
 Christopher
Urban
Christopher Urban is Production Services Director and Partner
at Tetra Strategic Communications, a full-service sales promotion,
advertising, and website development agency serving national,
international and regional clients, located in Elkins Park.
Mr. Urban provides Tetra with technical and creative expertise
in digital production, internet marketing and website design.
He has written and designed daily newspapers and advertising supplements,
winning national and international awards for his work with “The
Press of Atlantic City.” A former teacher and the winner
of a national Duracell science grant for inventing the first illuminated
sneaker technology, Mr. Urban explains advanced technological
concepts and integrates them in strategic marketing projects.
Educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is currently
president of the Macintosh Business Users Society of Greater Philadelphia.
“My father Alex, a brilliant and seasoned newsman, served
on the Board for a number of years after meeting Drs. Katz and
Spaeth. As I recall, he was treated at the onset of early stages
of glaucoma. After he died suddenly this past winter, it was suggested
to me that I might continue on his behalf. I enthusiastically
look forward to assisting the Foundation in any way that I can,
both professionally as a partner in an advertising and marketing
agency, and personally as a tribute to my father.”
 George
Strimel
Mr. Strimel is General Manager of Radnor Studio 21, providing
professional direction and training for this community cable operation.
Prior to that he worked in a number of media positions, including
ones in which he planned the new Dubai-based Pan-Arab terrestrial
and satellite news and general broadcast and internet service,
as well as others in which he worked in news development and marketing
of internetbased news broadcast monitoring operations. In Philadelphia,
as President of Lenfest Programming, he created the Suburban Cable
News Channel and produced all regional and national programming.
He was awarded a regional Emmy for his marketing campaign and
received six other Emmy nominations for Mummer’s Parade
productions. He is a member of the Board of Trustees as well as
President of the Friends of the Radnor Memorial Library, Founding
President of the Friends of the Central Branch of the Free Library
of Philadelphia, and a past member of the Pennsylvania Public
Television Network Commission. Mr. Strimel also served as Vice-
President for Programming for WHYY Channel 12 and was Founding
President and General Manager of WVIA public television, Scranton
/ Wilkes-Barre.
“I was diagnosed with glaucoma over 20 years ago. Thanks
to the care I have received I have largely maintained my vision.
I want to use the skills I have gained in 54 years of broadcasting
to help the Foundation spread the word about the risk of glaucoma
and the importance of early treatment to prevent loss of vision.”
 Dr.
Zeff Lazinger
Dr. Lazinger has owned and operated the Lazinger Wellness Center,
Empire Chiropractic Center, and Lazinger Family Associates, LLC,
in Lakewood NJ since 1980. Currently licensed in NJ, FL, and PA,
he was named “Chiropractor of the Year” in 1998 by
the Chiropractic Elite Organization. In addition to service on
the advisory board of three New Jersey banks, Dr. Lazinger has
worked in a number of areas of community service, including prevention
of drug and alcohol abuse. He was also past president of the Monmouth-Ocean
Chiropractic Society, past president of the Freehold Township
Fire Department, and past president of Solomon Schechter Academy.
He is a charter member of the Statue of Liberty Foundation, World
War II Memorial, a member of the President’s Freedom Corps,
and the President’s Circle of the D-Day Museum. Among the
awards Dr. Lazinger has received are: the Circle of Excellence
Award for Community Service in 2000 from the Monmouth County Chamber
of Commerce, the National Young Leadership award from United Jewish
Appeal, and the Silver Card Award, presented by the N.J. State
PBA for service to the police. He was voted Outstanding Young
Man in America by the U.S. Jaycees.
“I believe in serving the community. Helping to prevent
blindness is a most worthy cause, especially when early detection
is so easy. If I can help raise funds to prevent just one person
from becoming blind my mission would be complete.”
Photo by Ken Parker
Foundation Mourns the Loss of Two Board
Members:
Dr. Herman Goldstine and Mr. Alexander Urban
The Foundation is sad to report the passing this year of Board
members Dr. Herman Goldstine and Mr. Alexander Urban. Both were
glaucoma patients, Dr. Goldstine of Dr. Spaeth and Mr. Urban of
Dr. Katz, and both brought to the Foundation the considerable
wisdom gained in their own distinguished careers.
Dr. Herman Goldstine
Dr. Goldstine was the scientist in 1943 who persuaded the U.S.
military to back the development of the first computer, ENIAC,
built at the University of Pennsylvania’s Moore School.
After leaving the military in 1946, he collaborated with John
von Neumann at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in
designing the second generation of computers, EDVAC. IBM hired
Dr. Goldstine in 1958, and within two years, the company dominated
the computer business. Dr. Goldstine stayed with IBM for 26 years,
serving as, among other things, director of research. In 1985
he was awarded the National Medal of Science for his work in the
invention of the computer.
Dr. Goldstine joined the Foundation Board when, in his retirement,
he was serving as executive officer of the American Philosophical
Society. He put at the Foundation’s disposal the development
officer of the Society, Mr. John Callahan, who established the
Foundation’s Annual Fund in 1998, and later was hired by
the Foundation as a development consultant through the generosity
of Foundation Board member Mr. James Kim.
Commenting on Dr. Goldstine, Dr. Spaeth said: “One knew
one was in the presence of an extraordinary human being when one
was with Dr. Goldstine. He was obviously brilliant and thoughtful.
But he was also amazingly gentle and genuinely humble. He also
had a marvelous sense of humor. When one of our fellows asked
Dr. Goldstine why he had never patented the computer, he answered
that he was not sure that it would ever be of any value. Even
after his Parkinson’s disease became severe he was able
to find humor and even delight in situations where most would
have seen only problems. I recall a dinner party given by Dr.
Goldstine and his wife Ellen in their apartment on Rittenhouse
Square. Of course the conversation was learned and marvelous.
But the defining characteristic of the evening was the laughter
— goodhearted, enthusiastic, and delightful laughter.”
“Dr. Goldstine always had time to discuss research and had
a deep interest in the activities of the Glaucoma Service Foundation.
In fact, it was with the help of John Callahan who came to us
through Dr. Goldstine that transformed the Foundation into a thriving
enterprise. Dr. Goldstine was one of those rare people who make
the world better in two different ways: first, through their brilliant
contributions and second, through their delightful personalities.”
Dr. Herman Goldstine (Courtesy Annie Wescott,
American Philosophical Society)
Mr. Alexander Urban
Mr. Urban was born in Vienna, raised in Eastern Poland, and later
settled in Warsaw. Surviving the Nazi occupation and Stalin’s
communist occupation of Poland, Mr. Urban emigrated to Canada,
where he trained as a concert pianist and vocalist. Working at
the New York Times and the Voice of America in the 1950s, he received
in 1959 the New York Times Publisher’s Award for exceptional
news coverage. Following stints with CBS, NBC, and ABC, he started
in 1965 as a reporter and editor for Women’s Wear Daily.
He moved in 1970 to Vineland, New Jersey, to serve as production
editor of the publication. In 1993 he retired from Women’s
Wear Daily, but returned to work as a copy editor for the Press
of Atlantic City two years later. Mr. Urban joined the Foundation
Board in 1992, contributing his journalistic skills to the development
of Searchlight on Glaucoma and pieces on glaucoma submitted to
national publications. He also made important recommendations
concerning the financial structure of the Foundation.
Commenting on Mr. Urban, Dr. Spaeth said: “Alex Urban brought
to his association with the Glaucoma Service Foundation an enthusiastic,
bighearted energy that was both infectious and helpful. He motivated
other members of the Board and the staff. He always had positive,
original suggestions. Mr. Urban was an individual who clearly
believed that problems could be solved if you approached them
with enough energy, enthusiasm, and good sense. The Board meetings
always went better when Mr. Urban was present. Though we miss
Mr. Urban’s largerthan- life presence, we are fortunate
and happy to have his son, Chris, presently on the Board. Chris’s
style is somewhat different, but no less original and no less
committed.”
Mr. Alexander Urban (Courtesy
Christopher Urban)
Your Annual Fund Support is Vital
The Glaucoma Service Foundation helps support many glaucoma-related
programs:
• Internet website —
www.willsglaucoma.org
An average of 800 persons — from the Delaware Valley and
around the world — visit daily for the most comprehensive
information on glaucoma available anywhere. Weekly “chat
sessions” with a Wills glaucoma specialist provide a highly
personal way to learn about all facets of the diagnosis and treatment
of all types of glaucoma.
• Searchlight on Glaucoma reaches over 18,000 individuals
(plus 1,900 individuals to whom it is e-mailed, and all those
who read the archived issues on our website) three times a year
with vital, authoritative information about glaucoma and the Glaucoma
Service at Wills Eye Hospital.
• Education of three clinical fellows each year —
The best learn from the best here on the Glaucoma Service, disseminating
the wisdom of our specialists around the world.
• Patient Support Group Meetings — Glaucoma patients
learn directly about glaucoma from Wills glaucoma specialists
in monthly
meetings, which also provide patients an opportunity to meet and
discuss their experiences with each other. Audiotapes of the meetings
are provided free of charge.
• Screening Program — To help decrease loss of vision
from glaucoma, Glaucoma Service doctors screen individuals in
senior centers and churches in order to find those who may have
glaucoma but are unaware of it and help them find appropriate
treatment.
• Research — The Foundation hired a research director
and helped establish the Glaucoma Research Center at Wills Eye
Hospital. We continue to help fund cuttingedge research through
the Glaucoma Research Center and the Laboratory for Molecular
Ophthalmology at Wills Eye Hospital.
All of these programs are made possible through the generous support
of individuals, foundations, and corporations through our Annual
Fund and program-restricted gifts.
With foundation and corporate giving down, the need for
funds to support these programs is great. Your past generosity
has been essential in creating them. Your
continued generosity will help ensure that they are maintained
and enhanced.
Named Giving Opportunities
We are pleased to announce named giving opportunities available
to those who wish to support a specific Foundation program with
a substantial gift. For example, you may wish to be named as:
• a sponsor of the Searchlight for a gift of $5,000, $10,000,
$15,000, or $20,000
• a sponsor of the Foundation website for a gift of $3,000,
$5,000, or $8,000
Another way to help support the Foundation’s work is to
memorialize a loved one or honor a friend or relative with a gift
to the Foundation. Also, we hope you will keep the Foundation
in mind in your estate planning.
For more information on how you can help, please contact the Foundation
office at 215-928-3283.
Patient Support Group Meetings
Meetings are from 1:30 to 3:00 PM on Sundays in the 8th floor
auditorium of the “new” Wills Eye Hospital, southeast
corner of 9th and Walnut Streets, with the entrance on Walnut
Street, near 9th Street.
September 26th —
Dr. Jeffrey Henderer
A Refresher Course in Glaucoma
For information on future, as yet unscheduled, meetings please
call the Foundation office (215- 928-3190) and ask to be put on
the support group mailing list.
ACADEMY TO HONOR FOUNDATION WEBSITE
CHAT SUPPORT GROUP
The chat support group established on the Foundation website,
www.willsglaucoma.org, in 1998 under the direction of Dr. Richard
Wilson, will be recognized this October at the American Academy
of Ophthalmology (AAO) Annual Meeting as “the premiere virtual
glaucoma chat support group in the world.” Comments Vivian
Werner, administrator of the website and patient of Dr. Wilson:
“We are very honored by this recognition and look forward
to helping people affected by glaucoma worldwide for many years
to come.”
Chat Support Group
www.willsglaucoma.org
Wednesdays, 8:30–9:30 pm
hosted by a Wills glaucoma specialist
Mondays, 8:00–9:30 pm
Saturdays, 10:00-11:00 am
patient and family members only |
