PilotLg2.txt


Subject:  Legal Conditions for a preventive effort with
	  engineer-scientists at Embry-Riddle


     In order to conduct a nearsightedness prevention effort it is4
necessary to establish that the person has legal ownership and
control of your own visual future.

     I was asked to sketch out the legal requirements for a
PREVENTIVE effort at a four-year aeronautical engineering college,
where the individual retains personal responsibility for his
long-term visual welfare.


		 THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP

     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.

     Some people assume that they have totally transferred legal
control over your eyes to an optometrist by entering his office.
But this is only assumption and is not justified by more complete
ethical standards.

     What I expect from a professional in the field of health-care
is a discussion of alternatives, or the "second-opinion", when the
alternative is feasible.  This must be an active process where the
person is adequately informed of an alternative, with a judgment
of the long-term consequences to him -- of his decision.

     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 a 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
professional future, or for any other reason, then I would
transfer legal control to the optometrist, and accept the
long-term effects and consequences of using a minus lens on my
eyes.

     If all health-care people broached this type of discussion of
your legal ownership of your own eyes, a better working
relationship could be developed between pilots, engineers,
scientists and optometrists.

     The concept of legal ownership and personal responsibility is
broken by conduct of the traditional use of the minus-lens as a
quick-fix.  I believe that relationship should be altered with a
more complete discussion of alternatives as described by Dr.
Steve Leung on www.chinamyopia.org.

     With intelligent pilots -- legal responsibility would remain
with the individual himself.  There would be no implicit transfer
of control at all.  The pilot would be mature enough to understand
his responsibility in asserting that he wished to retain control
over the long-term refractive status of his own eyes.

     If I were entering a four-year college, and I truly valued my
distant vision, I would have no problem signing a contract of this
nature as part of a scientific-engineering study.

     This would be the basis for a "legal ownership agreement" and
responsibility -- leading to a signed-statement with the students
who would enter into this type of normal vision maintenance study
and effort.

     The pilots would have a large degree of responsibility for
both the collection of the data, as well as a primary judgment of
the meaning of the results of their engineering work.


     Otis Brown

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves: and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
them.

                                 Thomas Jefferson


     This is a legal discussion about when a "doctor" is
involved, and when your own judgment is involved.

     This is a review of the use of herbal solutions, but
the concept can apply to your obtaining plus lenses
under your control.

Reference from:

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#protect