It has been said, with justification, that those who do not learn from history repeat it and that every time it repeats itself, the price goes up. In other words, we ignore the lessons of history at our peril, and one thing it teaches in the optical context is not to provide ambitious politicians and crusading journalists with supposedly good causes to champion. The history of the profession is littered with examples of what is liable to occur when this fundamental truth is ignored. One recalls, for example, how widespread publication of controversial optical procedures and attitudes brought about the abolition of opticians' invaluable sales monopoly and the imposition of additional duties to be performed when sight testing. This was followed by the legalising of the general sale of ready-glazed reading spectacles - a possibility against which the profession had publicly set its face, and, it has to be said, on specious grounds. Who can forget how a group of noble lords, incensed at this attitude, seized the opportunity to insert a remedial clause, which the Government did not oppose, in the first available Bill. This type of risk is, of course, an ever-present possibility when moves for further optical legislation are contemplated.
As a firm believer in the biblical injunction not to put one's faith in princes (to be read nowadays as politicians), I view this document with some trepidation. The potential danger is self-evident, not only in relation to the specific proposals but because of its wider implications. Experience has shown the need for the ophthalmic optical profession to keep its collective head well below the parapet. Put another way, anything capable of showing its members in an unfavourable light needs to be avoided at all costs. Who can possibly predict the outcome if the profession, bearing in mind its controversial history and the recurring criticisms of its members, is once again brought to departmental and ministerial attention?