In order to conduct a nearsightedness prevention effort, it is necessary to establish the person who has legal ownership and control of your visual future. I was asked to sketch out the legal requirements for a preventive effort at a four-year aeronautical engineering college.
The following would be the basis for a “legal ownership agreement” and responsibility, leading to a signed statement with the Embry-Riddle students who would enter into this type of nearsightedness prevention study. If I were entering a four-year college, and I valued my distance vision, I would have no problem signing a contract of this nature as part of a scientific-engineering study.
My eyes belong to me. I am responsible for my body and my eyes. They are mine. I can delegate some responsibility to a third party but that third party should never assume they own my eyes or have legal control over my eyes.
There is an assumption that I have totally transferred legal control over my eyes to an optometrist by entering his office. But this is only an assumption and is not justified by most ethical standards.
What I expect from a professional in the field of health care is a discussion of alternatives when the alternative is feasible. This must be an active process on the part of the person who will help me and on my part also.
I expect alternatives (even difficult alternatives like prevention with a plus lens) to be discussed, with the issue of effective prevention clearly identified as the second opinion. Since my eyes legally belong to me, it would be up to me to go out and research the true effect that a minus lens has on the refractive status of the natural eye.
If I decided that effective prevention was not in my future, or for any other reason, then I would transfer legal control to the optometrist and accept the long-term effect and consequences of using a minus lens on my eyes constantly.
If all health care professionals broached this type of discussion of your legal ownership of your own eyes, a better working relationship could be developed among pilots, engineers, scientists, and optometrists. Legal responsibility would remain with the individual. There would be no implicit transfer of control at all. The person would be mature enough to understand her responsibility in asserting control over the refractive status of her own eyes.
The concept of legal ownership and personal responsibility is currently broken by the traditional use of the minus lens as a quick fix.