ad info




CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 U.S.
 LOCAL
 POLITICS
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 SPACE
* HEALTH
 AIDS
 Aging
 Alternative
 Cancer
 Children
 Diet & Fitness
 Men
 Women
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 ARTS & STYLE
 NATURE
 IN-DEPTH
 ANALYSIS
 myCNN

 Headline News brief
 news quiz
 daily almanac

  MULTIMEDIA:
 video
 video archive
 audio
 multimedia showcase
 more services

  E-MAIL:
Subscribe to one of our news e-mail lists.
Enter your address:
Or:
Get a free e-mail account

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

  CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 AsiaNow
 En Español
 Em Português
 Svenska
 Norge
 Danmark
 Italian

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 TIME INC. SITES:
 CNN NETWORKS:
Networks image
 more networks
 transcripts

 SITE INFO:
 help
 contents
 search
 ad info
 jobs

 WEB SERVICES:

  health > ethics mattersAIDSAlternative MedicineCancerDiet & FitnessHeartMenSeniorsWomen

Ethics Matters

Turning a Blind Eye?



by Jeffrey P. Kahn, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Director, Center for Bioethics
University of Minnesota

I have terrible eyesight. I'm extremely nearsighted ("minus" numbers in the double digits) with a touch of astigmatism thrown in. Luckily, I was born in the 20th century, where with benefit of eyeglasses, or better yet, contact lenses, I have perfectly "normal" vision. And now with the help of refractive surgery, I can have my eyes permanently fixed by a procedure to flatten out their misshapen lenses.

What would this do for me? I could see the alarm clock at night without putting on glasses and wouldn't have to worry about that grit that lodges between my eye and the contact lens when the wind kicks up. But more seriously, corrective eye surgery might keep my eyes from tiring as early late at night, and would certainly enhance my ability to swim and do other things that are limited by worrying about losing contact lenses or don't lend themselves to eyeglasses.

Achieving this newfound normalcy doesn't come free or cheap, however. The price will probably come down as more ophthalmologists gain expertise and the specialized equipment becomes more widely available, but now it costs thousands of dollars for any of the available vision-correcting procedures, and so far insurance companies do not cover the cost.

Center
for Bioethics

What's your opinion?
Optional benefits carry required risks

One reason payers are reluctant to cover such procedures is to control costs by making a distinction between necessary and optional treatment. But even if individuals can afford their cost, these procedures carry some risks -- infection, failure to improve vision, even permanent damage to the eyes can all result, albeit at very low probability. How much risk is too much to accept for what might be considered optional treatment?

Living in an era of enhancement

Sometimes medicine can cure, treat or prevent illness and disease, and other times it can enhance our abilities -- all with some risk. We need to decide what counts as curing disease or disability and what amounts to enhancing function that lies somewhere in the normal. Then we must decide whether to treat curative technologies differently from those that enhance, say by limiting access or by requiring individuals to bear their cost. Our public policy has largely been to allow new technologies onto the market so long as their risk is acceptably low and they work, and then let insurance companies and individuals decide how to pay for them. This basic approach is already being tested by lifestyle-enhancing drugs and technologies that grow hair, improve mood and sex life, or repair poor vision.

Are breakthroughs like these what we need to be healthy and function better, or are they just another form of cosmetic surgery? Do they offer important improvement, or enhancements that we didn't know we needed and whose risks we didn't have to bear until they became available? How far should such enhancements be taken: Why not use the same surgery to give people better than normal vision, or implants for more acute hearing or to make taste buds more sensitive? There are no easy answers, but we are beginning to appreciate that half the challenge of medical advancement is developing new techniques and approaches, and the other half is knowing when to use them.



With new refractive surgery, poor eyesight can be fixed permanently. However, it is expensive, carries some risk and offers benefits many consider optional. Are breakthroughs like these what we need to be healthy and function better, or are they just another form of cosmetic surgery? How far should such enhancements be taken? Why not use the same surgery to give people better than normal vision, or implants for more acute hearing or to make taste buds more sensitive?

Post your opinion here.



Visit the
"Ethics Matters" Archive
where you'll find other columns from Jeffrey Kahn
on a wide range of bioethics topics.


"Ethics Matters" is a biweekly feature from the
Center for Bioethics and CNN Interactive.


LATEST HEALTH STORIES:
China SARS numbers pass 5,000
Report: Form of HIV in humans by 1940
Fewer infections for back-sleeping babies
Pneumonia vaccine may help heart, too
 LATEST HEADLINES:
SEARCH CNN.com
Enter keyword(s)   go    help

Back to the top   © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.