Depends. Cool cyborg eyes, better glasses, cataract surgery, retinal detachment surgery, etc. are not eugenics, so they're fine to advocate for. Heritable genetic modification, embryo selection, sterilisation campaigns etc. are eugenics, and advocating for them will do more harm than good.

Visual impairment isn't, afaik, something the eugenics bad guys are focusing on at the moment – though it was in the past – so they're not likely to twist research into the sorts of things that get bowdlerised out of history textbooks. (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5225285/ exists, but there's no organisation seeking legal permission to electrocute non-compliant blind children.*) So even if you keep it vague, advocating for "curing" blindness is unlikely to be seen as, or act as, advocating for eugenics; likewise, research into the developmental origins of (say) congenital cataracts is mostly safe.

Eugenics is when you take measures that improve the overall fitness of the human population. In other words, eugenics is when you decide which kinds of people should and shouldn't exist.

There are people with skin so fair that it burns in even moderate sunlight – even through clothing –, leading to an increased incidence of melanoma. This is associated with the Asp294His polymorphism in the MC1R gene. This would be very easy to "cure"… and I really wish, as a species, we had the capacity to say "hey, option's available to anyone who wants it, but we won't force it on anyone". But if we had that technology today, you know it would be used in some tired plan for ethnic cleansing, where the cruelty is the point and the costs don't matter. Every time we have some scientific (or cultural) advance that can be construed as legitimising such actions, people attempt it.

And maybe we'll grow past that.

---

*: since they've come up in the thread before, I feel obliged to note: Autism Speaks' PR machine is, surprisingly enough, on the right side of this particular child torture issue.