The ability to graft a donor cornea into the eye of a patient previously suffering a corneal degradation of some manner has been a major step forward in reducing blindness.
The avascular nature of corneas makes them eminently suited to transplantation, as the risk of host rejection is greatly reduced. As a young keen refractionist many years ago, I occasionally was asked to do some of the post-operative refractions for Colin Kirkness’ cornea clinic (anyone remember him?).
At that time, it was not unheard of to find corneal cylinder in the double figures after penetrating keratoplasty, and the stenopeic slit was often the best way to confirm refraction. No matter how significant the post-operative refractive error, all patients were overjoyed at being able to see again and I remember thinking that this would persuade even the most ardent anti-transplant sceptic to reconsider the merits of organ donation.
I notice this week that Jeremy Hunt is consulting ahead of a proposal to adopt an organ strategy in England already established in Wales, whereby it is assumed someone’s organs are available for donor purposes after death unless specified otherwise.
Some have argued that donor rates in Wales have dropped since this system was introduced, but I fear this is more to do with a somewhat conceited approach to patient education. Health beliefs have slowed the uptake of vaccinations in the past and good education should prevent a ‘don’t tell me what to do’ response.
My wife knows my body is going to medical students when I die, and I hope she has memories (good or bad) of me if I outlive her. What is done with any useless inanimate tissue afterwards, whether placed in a firework à la Hunter S Thompson, used as powder like Keith Richard’s dad, or laughed at by medical trainees is of no consequence to me. If any useful tissues can be reused, then I would be very proud indeed.