Oliver's army

Author Oliver James's comment that, since privatisation, opticians can now make money by frightening customers into having tests and his description of the eye test as 'another opportunity to get fleeced' will no doubt raise professional hackles. So too will his support for mail-order company Vision Direct whom he urged Independent readers to join in battle, helpfully supplying the company's phone number. A more mature reaction to such comments would be to acknowledge, as one correspondent on our letters page this week has done, that freedom of choice can only be exercised where the public is fully aware of the consequences of that choice. Shailan Ruparelia points to research conducted, among others, by the Royal National Institute for the Blind that demonstrates the urgent need for education on eye health. The public, he argues, are ignorant of the benefits of the eye examination and, given the choice, would opt in large numbers for a cheaper basic sight test. He rightly observes that consumers are neither able nor ready to make an informed choice and until they are, the 'nanny state' approach may be better for public and profession alike. It was this approach that prevailed in the court ruling on mail-order contact lenses and the recently revived discussion, and rejection, of a two-tier eye test . Both these issues will be hotly debated in the coming months. Would that more of the profession's efforts were directed at better informing the public and rather less at protecting its own interests.