www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15596885Cosmetic surgery is well established, and the existence of coloured contact lenses does suggest that there will be a market for a technique which changes eye colour permanently if it can be done safely. At one level this is no different from other operations which have become accepted and I suppose one can say good luck to the man and his enterprise. I am personally opposed to the whole idea of cosmetic surgery except in cases where there is deformity which is causing real physical or psychological harm: in short, unless there is medical reason for intervention. That is a matter for debate and persuasion, however: nobody forces me or anyone to participate, arguably: and the wider harm is difficult to demonstrate, though I believe it exists.
Having said that there are a number of features of this particular report which are disturbing: it may be that the journalist is hostile to the project, but the inclusion of some of those facts is perfectly legitimate, assuming they have been properly verified.
The gentleman at the centre of this was originally an "entertainment lawyer". Presumably that is someone who is involved in contract law within the entertainment industry, though I am not certain of that. Apparently he gave that up to study biology, and he was presumably very good at it, since he is described as "Doctor" which implies he got a Ph.D. But a Ph.D in biology is not a medical qualification, and the report does not say he studied medicine. Yet his company is called Stroma Medical: trading on the ambiguity of the term "doctor" possibly? I am not persuaded that cosmetic medicine is medicine at all: "cosmetic" serves the same function in the phrase as "decoy" does in the phrase "decoy duck".
That is a general point. More important in this specific case ( and possibly more widely too, though I do not know) is the fact that the technique is tested in Mexico. The good Dr is charmingly open about the fact that this is because the regulatory regime there is much looser and less effective than it is in richer states, and in particular in his native USA. I don't know about you, but I think that the regulations imposed by rich states are there for a reason: that poorer countries do not have the laws nor the enforcement to ensure their own citizens are as well protected is no justification for bypassing the rules, no matter that it is legal to do so. I would think that a true doctor would be prevented from undertaking this because of the old fashioned requirement "first, do no harm": but then he is not a doctor. In truth cosmetic surgery has probably been pioneered by at least some people who
are medical doctors: and they presumably have some weasely way of getting round that contradiction: but whatever that narrative is it cannot apply in this case.
The "volunteers" for testing the technique are all said to be
very short-sighted. They have been offered replacement lenses in return for participation so it seems that looser regulation actually means no protection from unfair contract or coercion: because I do not think that such bribes are legal in this country for that very reason. Depending on the severity of the short sightedness, and its effects on the person's life and work prospects, this cannot be said to be a truly free choice, arguably.
The article goes on to say that the technique has been tested on 17 people: and that there are plans to raise the money to test it on another 3. That is not a total of 20,000; or 2000; it really does say 20. That is fairly chilling in itself. Moreoever, they are all
very short sighted. Since some experts have said that changing eye colour can result in double vision or other problems is it really sensible to rely on reports from the partially sighted about what the effects actually are? Given that it is combined with replacement of the lens, which is known to improve vision, might it not be that a definite improvement for them might yet constitute a deterioration for those who do not start out short sighted and so do not get the offsetting improvement, if that is what is happening? Perhaps I can rely on the fact that the tests are properly designed and overseen: apparently by a board of opthalmologist experts. It would be nice to know how they are selected and who pays them.
15 safety tests are run, before and after the work is done: and the article says that they are repeated three months later. There is no evidence of any injury so far. Three whole months, eh? Well that does it for me: not.
Once the further 3 volunteers have been found and undergone the procedure; and tested after three months for signs of injury; all being well the good doctor intends to launch the technique by manufacturing hundreds of his lasers and sending them "overseas". We are not told where to; nor whether this will be a franchise arrangement; nor how those who buy the lasers will be trained in their use; not what monitoring or reporting of outcomes will be in place. Presumably they will be subject to the regulatory regime in whichever country the facility using them is located. But it is stated that the the launch in the US is not likely to come in under 3 years because of the longer time it takes to get regulatory approval there. I think it is fairly safe to say that the intention is to get that approval by collecting data from states with laxer regimes: and so the third world is really being used like laboratory mice. But since it is probably expensive that can't be right: the rich the world over are protected. It couldn't possibly be that it will be offered to poor people on the same terms as it was offered to mexicans, could it? The initial phase could not conceivably be seen as part of the investment phase with the pay off coming when rich countries approve it, I am sure.
The other really depressing thing is best expressed in the words of Bob Marley
QUOTE
Until the colour of man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes/ there is a war
But we can always level down
