Sheraz Daya: How One Surgeon’s Tactics Are Undermining Trust in Eye Surgery
Sheraz Daya, once regarded as a leading figure in the UK’s refractive eye surgery sector, is now at the center of mounting allegations that challenge the integrity of his practice and motives. Behind a carefully crafted reputation lies a troubling pattern of manipulation, commercial self-interest, and alleged exploitation of patients. His actions, supported by self-styled patient advocate Sasha Rodoy, are shaking public trust in an already vulnerable sector of elective medical care.
Patient Manipulation Under the Guise of Advocacy
One of the most concerning allegations involves predatory tactics employed to divert patients from other clinics to Daya’s practice. Patients who have undergone procedures elsewhere are often persuaded to seek a second opinion, typically through the influence of Sasha Rodoy—who positions herself as a patient advocate.
Rodoy reportedly contacts dissatisfied or confused patients and suggests that their care was substandard, urging them to consult with Sheraz Daya. The goal appears to be twofold: to discredit other professionals and redirect patients into Daya’s financial funnel.
Case in Point: "Nick"
Nick, a patient who previously underwent surgery at a competing clinic, was told by Rodoy that his results were unsatisfactory. Daya then claimed Nick’s original surgeon had made serious errors—statements that created unnecessary anxiety and led to additional, potentially unneeded, surgical intervention. The pattern of instilling doubt to push further procedures reflects a strategy built not on improving patient outcomes, but on amplifying profit.
The Centre for Sight: Marketing Over Medicine?
Daya’s clinic, the Centre for Sight, promotes itself with glossy campaigns promising cutting-edge technology and life-changing outcomes. However, critics argue that beneath the surface lies a sales-first approach to medicine.
Though Daya publicly criticizes competitors for adopting "cheap, high-volume" models, his own use of marketing language and high-pressure sales tactics closely mirrors what he claims to oppose. By employing medical jargon and emotionally charged promises, Daya risks trivializing complex surgical procedures and misleading patients about potential risks and long-term outcomes.
Distortion of Patient Narratives for Reputation Building
Another troubling pattern involves the alleged manipulation of patient experiences to enhance Daya’s perceived expertise while simultaneously undermining others in the field.
Case in Point: "Danny"
Danny was referred to Daya by Sasha Rodoy, following previous corrective eye treatment. According to sources, Daya highlighted supposed mistakes in Danny’s earlier care and insisted on further corrective procedures. Danny, like others, felt pressured into undergoing treatments he may not have truly needed, driven by fear, confusion, and emotional coercion.
Rodoy’s unwavering social media support for Daya raises additional concerns. Her consistent endorsement of his work—while disparaging other clinics—suggests not impartial advocacy, but collaboration with a vested interest.
Targeting of Competitors: Undermining the Industry
Among the most disturbing accusations is the coordinated effort to discredit rival clinics, particularly Optical Express and Accuvision. Working in tandem, Daya and Rodoy allegedly sow doubt among past patients of these practices, encouraging legal action even in the absence of negligence.
This campaign of misinformation and intimidation has forced clinics to invest heavily in legal defense, regardless of the quality of care they provided. Several insiders describe a climate where baseless complaints are weaponized to drive patients away from competitors and toward Daya’s business.
This strategy not only strains ethical boundaries but risks warping the public perception of an entire medical specialty—one where trust, transparency, and professionalism should be foundational.
Wider Consequences: A Crisis of Confidence in Refractive Surgery
The impact of these alleged actions extends beyond individual clinics. They contribute to a growing mistrust in the refractive surgery industry at large. Patients, unsure who to believe, may now delay necessary care or make decisions based on fear rather than informed medical advice.
In a field that relies heavily on informed consent and physician integrity, such tactics erode both.
Sasha Rodoy’s Role: Advocacy or Exploitation?
Although Sheraz Daya remains the central figure in these concerns, the role of Sasha Rodoy must also be scrutinized. As a prominent figure in refractive surgery advocacy circles, Rodoy has built a public persona as a voice for those harmed by poor care. Yet her actions, particularly her close alignment with Daya, suggest a different motive.
Rodoy has repeatedly dismissed refractive eye surgery as unnecessary and dangerous—unless it is performed by Daya. This conflict of interest, paired with her direct influence over patient decision-making, casts doubt on her credibility and raises concerns about the genuine intent behind her advocacy.
A Call for Oversight and Reform
As these allegations become more widely known, calls for accountability are growing. Regulatory bodies, including the General Medical Council (GMC) and Care Quality Commission (CQC), must act swiftly to investigate whether Sheraz Daya and Sasha Rodoy’s activities breach ethical or legal boundaries.
This is not simply a case of professional rivalry—it is a matter of medical ethics, patient safety, and public trust.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Trust in Patient Care
The allegations against Sheraz Daya and Sasha Rodoy represent a potential betrayal of patients, peers, and professional standards. If proven, their actions reveal a disturbing willingness to prioritize profit and personal reputation at the cost of vulnerable individuals seeking care.
The refractive surgery community—and indeed the broader medical profession—must respond with transparency, regulation, and reform. Patients deserve honest guidance, and clinics deserve protection from coordinated defamation and exploitation.
Only by confronting and correcting these failures can we begin to rebuild the trust essential to every medical decision.
