I was surprised to read in In Focus (summer 1998) the newsletter of the College of Optometrists, an organisation that is increasingly extending the scope of its functions (arguably without the full enthusiasm of most of its members and fellows), that the 'College was disappointed that the free eye examination had not been extended to other high-risk groups such as those of Afro-Carribean origin, who were prone to sight-threatening diseases such as glaucoma and diabetes.' What a can of worms is contained in those words. On a practical level just what did the College find disappointing? What other 'high-risk groups' could Peter Leigh have been considering? Perhaps ethnic Japanese and Koreans, whose tendency to myopia will soon be proved by geneticists, were on his list. Those suffering with HIV infection can be at risk of ocular effects as optician readers are aware. There are various areas of the UK where colour vision defects are substantially higher than the average but unknown to the individual. People of Celtic origin could be at 'higher risk' of melanoma than citizens of darker skin. It is unlikely that your readers could not supply their own examples of 'high-risk groups'. Just what constitutes 'high risk', and is a person of mixed race a 'reduced but still a high risk'? Perhaps Mr Leigh had thoughts of optometrists defining the degree of ethnicity, by how black or white was the skin of a member of this 'high risk group' outside the consulting room door. The College of Optometrists, like many large, similar organisations, strives for its own self-enlargement. One only needs to examine the workings of The Law Society to see where that leads. I look forward to the College apologising for issuing such a statement and admitting that the proposals, such as they are, have been abandoned. Marvyn M Slater London N3