Should accommodating intraocular lenses be used for purposes other than cataract surgery? For cataract patients there is clearly a decision to be made between Standard and Accommodating IOL's. But what if you do not have cataracts? What if you simply wish to get rid of your glasses? USAEyes.com is reporting that "Crystalens is commonly used in cataract patients, but may also be appropriate for patients considering RLE. "

RLE stands for Refractive Lens Exchange. This, much like cataract surgery, involves surgically removing the eye's natural lens and replacing it with an artificial lens (either standard or accommodating). The difference being, unlike with cataract surgery, the reason for the operation is purely for refractive reasons (i.e. to get rid of glasses). But is this ethical?

On the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) website they quote Dr. James J. Salz as saying "Regardless of the extent of the patient consent she signed, there is not a chance I could defend in court performing intraocular surgery simply to get rid of a $10 pair of reading glasses."

So what is going on? It seems obvious that the various medical device companies stand to profit a great deal more if their accommodating lens is not restricted to cataract patients but rather is used for all people who wear glasses. But is this ethical? Is the surgical removal of a healthy (if not perfect) lens appropriate simply to avoid wearing glasses? Opinions vary. Judging by the number of eye surgeons that wear glasses themselves however, the answer seems to be clear.