GOC forced to review new code of conduct

The Council expected to agree the 60-point code at a meeting last week, bringing optical practitioners in line with other health professionals.
However, a section explaining that optometrists and DOs should not accept 'any inducement' which might be seen to affect judgment, and other related points, were withdrawn at the last minute for further review. The five-paragraph section can be read at the website www.optometryonline.net
Members expressed their concern, one stating that the outcome might 'dumb down' the code. Another claimed there was nothing in the withdrawn points 'that anybody should find an objection to'.
The section will now be reviewed by a newly convened GOC panel, and it is hoped that the code will be ready for the GOC's legislative changes programme when it becomes law. Council chairman Rosie Varley said: 'The raw issue of financial inducements where they take place within optics ought to be debated by a group of people who cover all the interests.'
Council member Barrie Wilcox said he was 'uneasy', and commented: 'If I attend an optometrist I expect the advice that I am given not to be influenced in any way by financial reward.'
Bob Chappell also voiced his concern. 'It worries me considerably that anyone should think that because we live in this difficult world that is an excuse for dumbing things down rather than strengthening them,' he said.
Varley reassured him there was no intention that the guidance be diluted 'or made less effective'.
'The intention,' she said, 'is that they should be looked at by a group of people that represent all the interests in the optical world so that a form of wording can be produced that is tight and robust and workable.'
Nick Rumney commented that it was the public perception that was important. 'At some point we must make a decision in the public's interest,' he said. 'It appears this will come back with the same answer as previously.'
However, Professor Roger Buckley, chairman of the standards committee which had originally drawn up the code 12 months ago, said it was entirely appropriate that a cross-committee group look at the offending paragraphs. 'It is a very good way ahead, and I support it,' he said.Efforts to finalise a comprehensive code of conduct for practitioners Ð similar to codes produced for doctors and midwives Ð have been put on hold following an intense debate at the GOC.
The Council expected to agree the 60-point code at a meeting last week, bringing optical practitioners in line with other health professionals.
However, a section explaining that optometrists and DOs should not accept 'any inducement' which might be seen to affect judgment, and other related points, were withdrawn at the last minute for further review. The five-paragraph section can be read at the website www.optometryonline.net
Members expressed their concern, one stating that the outcome might 'dumb down' the code. Another claimed there was nothing in the withdrawn points 'that anybody should find an objection to'.
The section will now be reviewed by a newly convened GOC panel, and it is hoped that the code will be ready for the GOC's legislative changes programme when it becomes law. Council chairman Rosie Varley said: 'The raw issue of financial inducements where they take place within optics ought to be debated by a group of people who cover all the interests.'
Council member Barrie Wilcox said he was 'uneasy', and commented: 'If I attend an optometrist I expect the advice that I am given not to be influenced in any way by financial reward.'
Bob Chappell also voiced his concern. 'It worries me considerably that anyone should think that because we live in this difficult world that is an excuse for dumbing things down rather than strengthening them,' he said.
Varley reassured him there was no intention that the guidance be diluted 'or made less effective'.
'The intention,' she said, 'is that they should be looked at by a group of people that represent all the interests in the optical world so that a form of wording can be produced that is tight and robust and workable.'
Nick Rumney commented that it was the public perception that was important. 'At some point we must make a decision in the public's interest,' he said. 'It appears this will come back with the same answer as previously.'
However, Professor Roger Buckley, chairman of the standards committee which had originally drawn up the code 12 months ago, said it was entirely appropriate that a cross-committee group look at the offending paragraphs. 'It is a very good way ahead, and I support it,' he said.Efforts to finalise a comprehensive code of conduct for practitioners Ð similar to codes produced for doctors and midwives Ð have been put on hold following an intense debate at the GOC.
The Council expected to agree the 60-point code at a meeting last week, bringing optical practitioners in line with other health professionals.
However, a section explaining that optometrists and DOs should not accept 'any inducement' which might be seen to affect judgment, and other related points, were withdrawn at the last minute for further review. The five-paragraph section can be read at the website www.optometryonline.net
Members expressed their concern, one stating that the outcome might 'dumb down' the code. Another claimed there was nothing in the withdrawn points 'that anybody should find an objection to'.
The section will now be reviewed by a newly convened GOC panel, and it is hoped that the code will be ready for the GOC's legislative changes programme when it becomes law. Council chairman Rosie Varley said: 'The raw issue of financial inducements where they take place within optics ought to be debated by a group of people who cover all the interests.'
Council member Barrie Wilcox said he was 'uneasy', and commented: 'If I attend an optometrist I expect the advice that I am given not to be influenced in any way by financial reward.'
Bob Chappell also voiced his concern. 'It worries me considerably that anyone should think that because we live in this difficult world that is an excuse for dumbing things down rather than strengthening them,' he said.
Varley reassured him there was no intention that the guidance be diluted 'or made less effective'.
'The intention,' she said, 'is that they should be looked at by a group of people that represent all the interests in the optical world so that a form of wording can be produced that is tight and robust and workable.'
Nick Rumney commented that it was the public perception that was important. 'At some point we must make a decision in the public's interest,' he said. 'It appears this will come back with the same answer as previously.'
However, Professor Roger Buckley, chairman of the standards committee which had originally drawn up the code 12 months ago, said it was entirely appropriate that a cross-committee group look at the offending paragraphs. 'It is a very good way ahead, and I support it,' he said.