The case for adopting sustainability goals in ophthalmology

Are Physicians Obligated to Recommend a Plant-Based Diet? A Response to Maximilian Storz

Maximilian Storz argues that physicians have an ethical obligation to recommend a plant-based diet to patients because such a diet: relieves certain chronic conditions, outperforms the Western diet (e.g. a diet containing animal products, among other things), and is ecologically sustainable. Contrary to these claims, I argue that a plant-based diet alone may not relieve chronic conditions, but potentially does so in combination with other lifestyle factors. With respect to the environment, I illuminate the landscape by discussing agricultural factors consistent across animal and plant farming such as energy and water. I conclude that physicians ought to recommend a diet that follows the science; such a diet as I have claimed is exclusionary: it excludes processed foods, especially added sugars. Lifestylfe factors also deserve to be discussed in the medical encounter as their incorporation may lead to even better health outcomes.

Addressing the environmental sustainability of eye health-care delivery: a scoping review

The demand for eye care-the most common medical speciality in some countries-is increasing globally due to both demographic change and the development of eye health-care services in low-income and middle-income countries. This expansion of service provision needs to be environmentally sustainable. We conducted a scoping review to establish the nature and extent of the literature describing the environmental costs of delivering eye-care services, identify interventions to diminish the environmental impact of eye care, and identify key sustainability themes that are not yet being addressed. We identified 16 peer-reviewed articles for analysis, all published since 2009. Despite a paucity of research evidence, there is a need for the measurement of environmental impacts associated with eye care to be standardised along with the methodological tools to assess these impacts. The vastly different environmental costs of delivering clinical services with similar clinical outcomes in different regulatory settings is striking; in one example, a phacoemulsification cataract extraction in a UK hospital produced more than 20 times the greenhouse gas emission of the same procedure in an Indian hospital. The environmental costs must be systematically included when evaluating the risks and benefits of new interventions or policies aimed at promoting safety in high-income countries.

Will the plant-based movement redefine physicians' understanding of chronic disease?

The world is experiencing a cataclysmically increasing burden from chronic illnesses. Chronic diseases are on the advance worldwide and treatment strategies to counter this development are dominated by symptom control and polypharmacy. Thus, chronic conditions are often considered irreversible, implying a slow progression of disease that can only be hampered but not stopped. The current plant-based movement is attempting to alter this way of thinking. Applying a nutrition-first approach, the ultimate goal is either disease remission or reversal. Hereby, ethical questions arise as to whether physicians' current understanding of chronic illness is outdated and morally reprehensible. In this case, physicians may need to recommend plant-based diets to every patient suffering from chronic conditions, while determining what other socioecological factors and environmental aspects play a role in the chronic disease process. This article provides insights to aspects of diet and chronic illness and discusses how the plant-based movement could redefine current understanding of chronic disease. The ethical justifications for recommending of a plant-based diet are analyzed. The article concludes that not advocating for plant-based nutrition is unethical and harms the planet and patients alike.