
David Paton, creator of Flying Eye Hospital, dies at 94
'More eye doctors were needed,' he wrote in his memoir, 'Second Sight: Views from an Eye Doctor's Odyssey' (2011), 'but equally important was the need to beef up the existing doctors' medical education.'
Advertisement
But how?
He considered shipping trunks of equipment — almost the way a circus would — but that presented logistical challenges. He pondered the possibility of using a medical ship like the one that Project Hope, a humanitarian group, sent around the world. That was too slow for him.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Shortly after the first moon landing in 1969, thinking big was becoming a reality,' Paton wrote.
And then a moonshot idea struck him: 'Could an aircraft be the answer? A large enough aircraft could be converted into an operating theater, a teaching classroom and all the necessary facilities.'
All he needed was a plane. He asked the military to donate one, but that was a nonstarter. He approached several universities for the money to buy one, but administrators turned him down, saying the idea wasn't feasible.
Advertisement
'David was willing to take risks that others wouldn't,' Bruce Spivey, founding president of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, said in an interview. 'He was charming. He was inspiring. And he didn't quit.'
Dr. Paton decided to raise funds on his own. In 1973, he founded Project Orbis with a group of wealthy, well-connected society figures such as Texas oilman Leonard F. McCollum and Betsy Trippe Wainwright, the daughter of Pan American World Airways founder Juan Trippe.
In 1980, Trippe helped persuade United Airlines CEO Edward Carlson to donate a DC-8 jet. The U.S. Agency for International Development contributed $1.25 million to convert the plane into a hospital with an operating room, recovery area, and a classroom equipped with televisions, so that local medical workers could watch surgeries.
Surgeons and nurses volunteered their services, agreeing to spend two to four weeks abroad. The first flight, in 1982, was to Panama. The plane then went to Peru, Jordan, Nepal, and beyond. Mother Teresa once visited. So did Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
In 1999, The Sunday Times of London's magazine sent a reporter to Cuba to write about the plane, now known as the Flying Eye Hospital. One of the patients who arrived was a 14-year-old girl named Julia.
'In developed nations, Julia's condition would have been little more than an irritation,' The Sunday Times article said. 'It is almost certain she had uveitis, an inflammation inside the eye, which can be cleared with drops. In Britain, even cats are easily treated.'
Her doctor was Edward Holland, a prominent eye surgeon.
'Holland uses tiny knives to make openings that allow him to get his instruments into the eye, and soon he is pulling at Julia's scar tissue,' The Sunday Times article said. 'As the tissue is pulled away, a dark and liquid pupil, unseen for a decade, is revealed. It is an intimate and moving moment; this is medicine's chamber music. Next, he breaks up and removes the cataract, and implants a lens so that the eye will keep its shape.'
Advertisement
The Cuban ophthalmologists watching in the viewing room applauded.
But after the surgery, Julia still couldn't see.
'And then a minor miracle begins,' the article said. 'As the swelling begins to go down, she makes discoveries about the world around her. Minute by minute she can see something new.'
David Paton was born Aug. 16, 1930, in Baltimore, and grew up in Manhattan. His father, Richard Townley Paton, specialized in corneal transplants and founded the Eye-Bank for Sight Restoration. His mother, Helen (Meserve) Paton, was an interior designer.
In his memoir, Dr. Paton described growing up 'among the fine, intellectually sharp, widely traveled persons of the Establishment.' His father practiced on Park Avenue. His mother threw parties at their home on the Upper East Side.
Dr. Paton attended the Hill School, a boarding school in Pottstown, Pa. There, he met James Baker, a Texan who later became secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush. They were roommates at Princeton University and lifelong best friends.
'David came from a very privileged background, but he was down to earth and just a very likable guy,' Baker said in an interview. 'He had his objectives in life straight. He was a hell of a lot better student than I was.'
Advertisement
After graduating from Princeton in 1952, Dr. Paton earned his medical degree from Johns Hopkins University. He worked in senior positions at the Wilmer Eye Institute and served as chair of the ophthalmology department at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
In 1979, while still trying to procure a plane for Project Orbis, he became the medical director of the King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
'Among my duties,' he wrote in his memoir, 'was providing eye care for many of the princes and princesses of the kingdom — about 5,000 of each, I was told — and it seemed that all of them insisted on being treated exclusively by the doctor in charge, no matter how minor their complaint.'
Dr. Paton's marriages to Jane Sterling Treman and Jane Franke ended in divorce. He married Diane Johnston in 1985. She died in 2022.
In addition to his son, he is survived by two granddaughters.
Dr. Paton left his role as medical director of Project Orbis in 1987, after a dispute with the board of directors. That year, President Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal.
Although his official connection with the organization had ended, he occasionally served as an informal adviser.
Now called Orbis International, the organization is on its third plane, an MD-10 donated by FedEx.
From 2014-23, Orbis performed more than 621,000 surgeries and procedures, according to its most recent annual report, and offered more than 424,000 training sessions to doctors, nurses and other providers.
'The plane is just such a unique venue,' Dr. Hunter Cherwek, the organization's vice president of clinical services and technologies, said in an interview. 'It was just an incredibly bold and visionary idea.'
Advertisement
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Out Of Touch Or On A Mission? Patrick's Anti-THC Rant
In a press conference held this week, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick continued to staunchly defend Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), legislation aimed at banning all consumable THC products in the state. Patrick spoke to a room full of reporters about the bill's intent to protect the overall health of Texans, particularly for minors in the Lone Star State, by cutting all access to THC products that have continued to grow in popularity since the state-wide legalization of hemp in 2019. On a city-wide level, as previously covered by The Dallas Express, Dallas voters passed Proposition R in November of last year, making possession of under 4 ounces of marijuana the 'lowest priority' for local law enforcement. However, both efforts have continued to receive pushback from Patrick and other leaders like Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton's office has even sued a handful of municipalities for approving the relaxed laws on marijuana enforcement. 'This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to 'follow the law.' It's quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don't allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce,' Paxton said in a press release published last year. SB 3, which has passed both legislative chambers, now seeks to ban all forms of THC, including Delta-8 and Delta-9 variants, currently sold regularly in gas stations and 'smoke shops,' while exempting 'non-intoxicating' cannabinoids like CBD and CBG. However, some details surrounding the bill seem to remain a bit cloudy. The bill will also allegedly allow for the state to maintain and continue running its Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Program, allowing limited medical use of low-THC cannabis products. However, Patrick has not yet clarified if the bill will impact the application process for the program. Critics argue that the ban could have significant economic repercussions, as previously reported by The Dallas Express, potentially dismantling Texas's $8 billion hemp industry and cutting off nearly 50,000 jobs. 'If this ban is passed, it would criminalize both consumers as well as sellers/distributors. Businesses in Texas would have to stop selling these products altogether, which would likely result in a lot of businesses closing up shop altogether,' Ben Michael, an attorney at Michael & Associates, previously told DX. 'This would also likely mean that larger companies based in other states would be limited with where or who they could sell to, leading to potential legal battles. Consumers in Texas could also face fines or charges for buying these products, even if they are for medical purposes, because it seems as though the ban essentially has no exceptions,' Michael added. Yet, Patrick seems deadset on pushing the ban forward. 'We cannot in good conscience leave Austin without banning THC, which is harming our children, and destroying Texans' lives and families,' The Texas Lieutenant General declared via X. Governor Greg Abbott has yet to say whether he will sign SB 3 into law. If enacted, the ban will take effect in September of this year.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why Dems Have a Secret Super-Spreading Epidemic: Trump Envy
Senior-level Democrats across the country are facing an epidemic. Some cases are benign, but in others it is quite acute, with symptoms resembling insanity. And in every instance, unless properly treated the consequences can be severe—not just for Democrats but for the whole country. The disease is Trump-envy. And according to the best minds at the Department of Health and Human Services—which is admittedly setting the bar pretty low these days—there is no known vaccine. Of course, that's their response to everything so best to take it with a grain of salt. Or, per our new surgeon general nominee Casey Means, perhaps a microdose of shrooms? Nonetheless, the disease is real. I've seen it myself up close. It's not pretty. It is important to be able to distinguish between the milder forms of this 'mind virus,' which have some symptoms which are actually beneficial, and the more severe forms, which can have you talking like a CNN political consultant overnight. I've witnessed the former even among close friends and respected colleagues. These are smart people with lengthy public service careers and a proven dedication to our national interests. They understand the threat Trump poses to our democracy and to our standing in the world; his corruption, his racism, misogyny and general odiousness. In other words, their reasoning powers are unimpaired. But here's what I have heard from them. Often even those who served at high levels in the Biden Administration and were deeply loyal to our former president will say, sotto voce, 'I wish that we could have acted as decisively as Trump does.' Or, 'We would really be better off if we could keep our party in line the way he does.' Or, 'Yes, he may be a dictator, gutting the constitution, and stripping away our human rights but we should have taken more aggressive steps to reduce the size of some bloated cabinet departments too.' (Yes, some DC-lifers get wistful about bureaucratic reorganizations. It's a sign of a different disease. But let's leave that for another column.) Sometimes their begrudging appreciation for what Trump has done is more specifically policy-driven. Many have come to the view that Democrats should have been tougher on immigration. They wouldn't have gone as far as Trump has done. But in retrospect they think that we would have been better off if Biden had been as tough on immigration as say, America's toughest president on the issue, Barack Obama—who deported people at twice the current rate being achieved by Trump. Many top national security professionals with whom I have spoken also appreciated the swiftness of Trump's decision to change America's approach to Syria in ways that might give the new government in that country a chance. They were happy to see Trump give the cold shoulder to Netanyahu during his recent Middle East trip. They were glad to see him moving toward a nuclear deal with Iran and actively promoting AI leadership in the US. Yes, they'll be the first to admit, the Syria decision may have been premature. Yes, Trump's chill with Netanyahu is playing out alongside a continuation of Biden's policy in support of war crimes in Gaza. Yes, it was Trump who blew up the original Iran deal that he now seems intent on putting back into place (in some form or another). And yes, it may be that Trump's stance on AI is influenced by the interests of some of his big donors. But nonetheless, veterans of the last Democratic administration are saying—quietly, behind closed doors—that they appreciate some of what Trump has been doing even as the excoriate much of the rest. And while such open-mindedness can be dangerous if it loses its moorings in facts and morality, a willingness to admit when the opposing side gets something right, even if it happens infrequently, is pretty healthy. What is downright dangerous is when Trump envy takes over the organs which directly control political ambition. If you don't know what I mean, turn on any cable news channel where you will hear chin-stroking political greybeards positing that the only way forward for Democrats is to mimic Trump—finding the party's own Joe Rogan, rebuilding its relationship with young men, maybe building out a few migrant detention camps, but more comfortable. Maybe with some bottled water and wifi? Never mind that a left-wing Rogan-stein is a terrible idea. That there are a lot more sensible young voters concerned about issues like climate change or gun control or having an economic future or control over their own bodies than there are Three Percenter gamers who might switch sides. That Trump is already alienating many who voted for him and the best thing Democrats can do is shine a light on the pain his presidency is causing—and underscore that basic principles like creating opportunity, promoting tolerance, helping those who can't help themselves and defending the rule of law are precisely the right agenda for the moment. Those suffering from acute Trump envy have lost their bearings. Yes, Democrats need to evolve. Yes, there are things we could learn from Trump's victories—like embracing patriotism and strength. But we should not forget that over the past thirty years Democrats have won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. That's seven of the last nine elections. Yes, we have to win the electoral vote but the prospects look very good in 2026 and 2028. Furthermore, the Democrats who understand Trump's true strengths—clear communication, speaking in terms his base can understand—are out there. As it happens, they are not the ones triangulating victories and offering to meet fascism halfway (yes, I mean you Gavin Newsom). They are people with the one gift politicians can't hire a consultant to teach them: authenticity. Of course, many of these that the Trump-envy sufferers are targeting most for criticism are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the strongest, clearest, most effective voices in the Democratic Party now. Such criticism is a big mistake. AOC gets it. That said, if AOC is not for you, there are other prospective candidates who have properly learned the lessons of the past few years without completely going off their heads—like J.B. Pritzker or Gretchen Whitmer or Jasmine Crockett or Wes Moore. What is important is this: In politics there is no cure for some degree of envy toward those who have actually won. It's the nature of the beast. But too much envy can result in losing touch with reality—and with your base; with who you are and why you are in politics in the first place. For every Democrat at the top levels of the party, and even for those of us whose role is not to strategize but to vote, to donate, to work for wins in the years ahead, it is vital we learn how to tell the difference.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Army issues policy to discharge, disqualify transgender troops
The Army has issued its policy on the separation of transgender soldiers through an initial stage of voluntary separation followed by involuntary separation. 'The Army has developed a phased approach for gender dysphoria disqualification and separation from service,' an Army spokesman told Army Times. 'The first phase is for individuals who want to self-identify.' Phase I ends on June 6, the policy states, while Phase II begins on June 7. The policy, posted to the service's Human Resources Command webpage on May 22, gives commands 30 days from identification to initiate the separation process for individuals who have a 'current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria and/or have a history of cross-sex hormone therapy or a history of sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery.' The Defense Department defines gender dysphoria as referring to a 'marked incongruence between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, lasting at least six months, as manifested by conditions causing clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' 'We encourage anyone subject to this policy to contact their chain of command or appropriate point of contact as soon as possible,' the official said. Soldiers who fall into those categories are considered immediately non-deployable. If deployed, those soldiers will be redeployed within 30 days of notification or as soon as is feasible, according to the posting. Individuals will be placed in administrative absence status, outlined in Army Regulation 600-8-10, with full pay and benefits until separation is complete. 'The Army recognizes the selfless service of all who have volunteered to serve,' the official said. 'These individuals will be treated dignity and respect throughout this process.' As part of the new policy, transgender recruits will not ship to initial entry training and will be disqualified at the Military Entrance Processing Station. Applicants currently in the Delayed Entry Program are disqualified from service. Offers of admission to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point will also be rescinded. Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets may participate in classes until separated or disenrolled. Academy and ROTC cadets will not be required to repay educational benefits and will not be subject to completion of military service obligations. Green-to-Gold soldiers will be released from the program and separated in accordance with enlisted policies. Discharge statuses for individuals impacted by the new guidelines will be listed as honorable, according to the policy. Waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis for individuals who have demonstrated 36 consecutive months of stability in their biological sex without clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas. These individuals must have demonstrated they have never attempted to transition to a sex other than their biological sex and are willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards, including those associated with their biological sex. The guidance also includes information on intimate spaces policies. Access to intimate spaces will be determined by the individual's biological sex. Commanders are instructed to apply all standards that reflect consideration of an individual's biological sex, such as uniform and grooming standards, body composition assessment, medical, physical and body fat standards, drug testing and bathroom and shower facility use. Commanders are also expected to ensure all such shared intimate spaces will be clearly designated for either male, female or family use. House Democrats, meanwhile, have planned legislation to roll back the Pentagon's efforts to force transgender troops out of the service, which may require a public vote in the coming weeks, Army Times previously reported. Six service members filed a lawsuit in January challenging President Donald Trump's transgender ban in the military.