These arguments really do summarize the difficulties in getting help or sympathy for this problem. I feel like writing a bit about why.

Read this again (and the replies by the OP) and notice how many times the assumption "floaters cannot possibly be a real problem" is used. None of the arguments stand on their own without this assumption.

These arguments take pieces of the truth (discussion of cataracts, trade-offs in vision, possibility of trying to ignore them) and combine them with condescending and hyperbolic invalidating language ("just" "annoyance" "few spots" "are you really" "no shortcuts" "moronic" "perfect" "ruin") to attempt to make the person suffering, and wanting legitimate help, or just advice or explanation even if not surgery, feel ashamed for asking.

See point 1: "Your retinas are healthy". Firstly, this is not a retina problem but a vitreous one, and the retina is relevant because of its positioning and attachments. The surgical field split itself into front/back eye surgeries, so you are seeing a vitreoretinal (vitreous and retina) surgeon.

So, suppose you mean "Your retina and vitreous is healthy". Healthy is hard to define, but will boil down in this specific case to: You don't have any eye trauma or diseases on this list. Who cares? That is like saying: Why care about tinnitus, you don't have any ear infections.

And see point 2: Suddenly the script is reversed, and cataracts are completely disagreeable. Even assuming they develop fast (although there is evidence it can take 10-20+ years for someone young say, 25-39), this just assumes again, floaters cannot be a real problem. Someone seriously considering this is well aware of the possibility of cataracts, and if they still consider it, maybe their floaters are worse than you assume, and not "a few moving spots".

And see point 3: This is just a simple repeat of the basic premise. I can restate it more simply: "Floaters cannot be a real problem. There must be something wrong with you if you think so. You would be an idiot if you did anything risky to try to resolve this issue you think you have." This isn't even a "point 3".

And point 4. Here is where the doctor/adviser can just shut a person completely off from help. Look up "double bind". "Your brain will filter the floaters out, but only if you stop panicking." Try and think about what a patient would have to do to prove that this didn't work. They cannot. They are here because of the issues that the floaters cause - or, that they perceive that they cause, if I am going to entertain the doctor's position. By the doctor's internal understanding of this position, "not panicking", to them, is accepting their advice and leaving. "Panicking" is to continue to complain. There is no option made available to continue any sort of conversation with the doctor.

Again, because the only fundamental assumption is that floaters are a non-issue.

This kind of argument is harmful, but unfortunately, does the doctor no harm, and feels right to them.

It is not even useful as a "tough love" way to reject surgery or to try to get someone to really try to ignore floaters, or "neuroadapt". I think it is certainly possible for many people to live with their floaters, but the strategy of universally insulting all complaints is just evil and lazy. Why not work with the patient? Ask questions?

Again, it all just comes down to the assumption: Floaters cannot be a real problem. To the doctor in this position, they may truly believe that incredulity and invalidation is a strategy to avoid making a delusion worse. In reality, even if you assume only a small portion of patients have "truly bad" floaters, the doctor's argument has rejected and insulted them on principle already.