Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 13

A paradigm shift in eye banking: how new models are challenging the status quo by Moshirfar et al

Authors Mannis MJ

Received 16 January 2019

Accepted for publication 5 March 2019

Published 5 April 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 589—590

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S201813

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser



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.2

There 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

A Response to Letter has been published for this article. 

 

Dear editor

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 mere 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 objections to and concerns over the mixing of non-profit and for-profit organizations.2

There 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.

Disclosure

The author reports no conflicts of interest in this communication.

References

1. Moshirfar M, Goldberg JL, Brown TW, et al. A paradigm shift in eye banking: how new models are challenging the status quo. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;13:63–67. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S181534

2. Mannis MJ, Sugar J. Is this the future of eye banking? Cornea. 2018;37(7):811–812. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001616

Creative Commons License © 2019 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.