Pot and kettle?

For example, one detects at least three separate, but possibly overlapping, themes in the chorus aroused by the D&A initiative. The first derives from a belief, evidenced by a motion put before a College of Optometrists' agm some years ago, that it is in some way unprofessional to provide free services. (As an aside, I have before me a cosmetic surgery clinic's pamphlet offering to arrange 'your free surgeon's consultation') We know too that old habits die hard in the optical context, with some ophthalmic opticians constantly on the qui vive for any weapon with which to belabour corporate entity - a task made easier when, as on the present occasion, the latter conveniently provided one. Finally there is the well publicised fear that this development will prejudice efforts to achieve significantly higher NHS sight testing fees. I have, however, to confess to a wry smile when considering the latter grievance in relation to ophthalmic opticians who currently charge more than the NHS' &\#163;14.10 for carrying out a private sight test and others who regard prevailing NHS rates as manifestly inadequate. Turning to the overall situation, we have, on the one hand, those who are prepared to provide free sight tests to the public; on the other, practitioners opposed to this modus operandi but, nonetheless, willing to carry out cut-price sight testing work for the State. In the circumstances, I have to ask myself whether there is any difference in principle between the respective approaches - a question which, in turn, casts doubt on this latest brouhaha.