A paradigm shift in eye banking: how new models are challenging the status quo by Moshirfar et al
Mark J Mannis Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis Eye Center, Sacramento, CA, USA I read, with interest, the article by Moshirfar et al1 examining the shift in eye banking models that is occurring in our country. While the...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/f62a11fda6e04809ae0b34f22873beec |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Mark J Mannis Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis Eye Center, Sacramento, CA, USA I read, with interest, the article by Moshirfar et al1 examining the shift in eye banking models that is occurring in our country. While the authors maintain that their purpose is to provide a fact-based, non-biased exposition of the current issues, they fall regrettably short of this goal. Of the 11 paragraphs in this paper, 6 are dedicated to outlining the advantages and contributions of the SightLife/CorneaGen, while the criticisms of this new paradigm are skimmed over with ere lip service to the critics. If the authors had truly desired to provide a balanced picture, they would have written a paper that more fully outlines the bjections to and concerns over the mixing of non-profit and for-profit organizations.2There is no mention of the World Health Organization Principles of Transplantation or the Barcelona Principles for Eye Banking, which have been endorsed by every major eye bank organization in the world including the EBAA, neither of which support a “for profit” model.In eye banking, change is both inevitable and critical. There is no doubt that the industry has the wherewithal to facilitate true progress. However, we need to be clear about the role of for-profit institutions and their role in providing the gift of sight. Moshirfar et al do not provide us with a balanced picture, a most unfortunate analysis, clearly not free of bias. View the original paper by Moshirfar et al and colleagues |
|---|