Well, she's 18.5 yr old with a stable vision correction, and the eye doctor that did my regular RK in 1995 and my wife's RK in 1996 (PRK was too expensive) thought it was a good choice for her active lifestyle.  He's one of the nation's top laser vision correction providers. 
 
He said his incidence of needing to do a touch up at the 1 year mark post PRK was lower than with LASIK.  And while the recovery period was longer than with Lasik, in her case he felt that the long term outlook was better for her because of her active lifestyle and other factors.  She has allergies (although she's been on allergy shots for a year now), and also has mild dry eye syndrome (runs in the family).  This was making it more difficult to continue using contact lenses. The incidence of dry eye becoming worse are higher with Lasik than PRK, and having only a 3 diopter correction helps too. 
 
They still include a free touch-up procedure if she's not 20:20 or better one year after the procedure.  She's been waiting for 3 years to able to get this done, and the last year or two of wearing contacts was hell for her. She does a lot of sports and has been hit in the eye enough times to know that she was at higher risk for dislodging the flap later.  And in the end it was her choice which to do.  The physician assistant in the office was also pretty adamant that she'd only let her own daughter to get PRK, which pushed my daughter that way.