Professional foul

When is somebody going to realise that DOs are not stupid and that we all work extremely hard to try to distinguish ourselves from 'dispensing assistants/sales assistants'? If we will be required to carry out CET just to retain our registration, the outcome is obvious Ð we will de-register. There would be nothing to be gained by CET or by paying increasing membership fees when the dispensing function is allowed to be carried out by anybody who cares to give it a go.
If, however, these same professional bodies were to have some foresight, they may realise that what they should be fighting for is the re-regulation of dispensing. Only then will DOs start to regain confidence in what is being done to protect the profession, and I am sure we would then welcome CET with open arms.
The day compulsory CET is introduced for DOs the obvious outcome will be a mass de-registration and the GOC will be left in financial ruin Ð unless, of course, the GOC expects all optometrists to foot the bill for the shortfall in fees.
It also seems that DOs are perceived as salespeople and not medical professionals. In many multiple 'stores' you will more than likely be dispensed by a school leaver with no actual qualification or real social skills. To add insult to this, there seems to be some kind of competition as to who can charge the least amount for an eye examination!
How could an eye examination possibly be carried out as part of a 'price war'? Optometrists are are already providing a medically qualified service not a £5 quick look around the eyes in 10 minutes.
As a hard working DO in independent practice, all I can see is that our professional bodies are simply failing us and our membership fees are being squandered.
I hope that many more DOs and optometrists will now sit up and really think about the implications of the forthcoming proposals and take the effort to make their voices heard at the GOC, before our profession becomes more of a medical laughing stock.
H Soneji
Esher, Surrey

Evergreen reply
n I read Melanie Chilvers' letter (March 12) which was triggered by the optician article about Evergreen Sales Consultants (February 27). First, please let me apologise if I touched a raw nerve Ð that was never my intention, indeed the article was not written to provoke an exchange of views via a lengthy correspondence. If you and I need to hold a philosophical discussion then I will come to Norwich, buy lunch, and enjoy a healthy debate.
After 25 years in UK optics we must both feel frustrated that the optician's practice remains the poor relation in Britain's high streets Ð how can something we both feel passionately about remain unexciting to the general public? I would never advocate that you prescribe products that are 'inappropriate' or 'unnecessary' and as a business man, I know that to 'exploit' customers is a road to ruin.
No, I just believe that the majority of patients visit their optician upon receiving a reminder (every two years?) or more probably somewhat later (3-4 years). You already state that the 'the optical market has changed beyond all recognition' which is why I believe there must be something new, exciting and beneficial for every patient when they visit their optician, having already psychologically decided how much they can afford for a new appearance and looking forward to appreciative comments from family, friends and work colleagues. At the same time the UK has prospered over the last 4-5 years with booming high-street sales to the point where interest rates have just risen to dampen down this spending spree. But has optics enjoyed such a boom? Everything that I read says no, and that is why I feel additional training is needed to reverse this situation.
We now have the widest choice of designer frames ever Ð Memoflex type, titanium, genium, screwless rimless and very, very low-cost frames. Then, high index lenses, polarised lenses, new varifocals, better MAR coatings, brilliant advances in contact lenses and finally advice on laser treatment. I am not suggesting you should persuade them to buy anything that does not improve their lifestyle.
My 15-year-old daughter received her first pair of glasses two weeks ago and was delighted with the clarity of the board and PC screens at school. One week later she forgot to take them, had an awful day without them, and is now asking for second pair to keep in her schoolbag at all times. Isn't this typical of all spectacle wearers?
I just believe that by optical staff asking the right questions to enable them to understand patient needs and aspirations, and being competent to present the benefits of today's products, patients will feel the desire to enjoy the improvements to sight correction. If we are all doing such an excellent, professional job, how is it that so many people wear glasses that clearly don't suit them and obviously could be changed to give greater pride in ownership?
From a professional point of view the vast majority of the British public had their eye care needs catered for by the NHS 524s with glass lenses during the 50s, 60s and even 70s Ð but we have now moved away from the medical appliance of those days. Do all current patients know of and understand the exciting advances in sight correction since those days? Until the answer to that question is yes, then we have not lived up to our responsibilities.
We don't need to call it 'failure' Ð we just need to strive for constant improvement in our techniques. I don't wish to criticise or create conflict Ð we are both on the same side, striving to give ever-greater patient satisfaction by using CET and any other training available that can help.
Michael Green
Rickmansworth, HertfordshireProfessional foul
n I am beginning to wonder if I am the only dispensing optician who believes the profession is being well and truly 'ripped off' by our professional bodies.
When is somebody going to realise that DOs are not stupid and that we all work extremely hard to try to distinguish ourselves from 'dispensing assistants/sales assistants'? If we will be required to carry out CET just to retain our registration, the outcome is obvious Ð we will de-register. There would be nothing to be gained by CET or by paying increasing membership fees when the dispensing function is allowed to be carried out by anybody who cares to give it a go.
If, however, these same professional bodies were to have some foresight, they may realise that what they should be fighting for is the re-regulation of dispensing. Only then will DOs start to regain confidence in what is being done to protect the profession, and I am sure we would then welcome CET with open arms.
The day compulsory CET is introduced for DOs the obvious outcome will be a mass de-registration and the GOC will be left in financial ruin Ð unless, of course, the GOC expects all optometrists to foot the bill for the shortfall in fees.
It also seems that DOs are perceived as salespeople and not medical professionals. In many multiple 'stores' you will more than likely be dispensed by a school leaver with no actual qualification or real social skills. To add insult to this, there seems to be some kind of competition as to who can charge the least amount for an eye examination!
How could an eye examination possibly be carried out as part of a 'price war'? Optometrists are are already providing a medically qualified service not a £5 quick look around the eyes in 10 minutes.
As a hard working DO in independent practice, all I can see is that our professional bodies are simply failing us and our membership fees are being squandered.
I hope that many more DOs and optometrists will now sit up and really think about the implications of the forthcoming proposals and take the effort to make their voices heard at the GOC, before our profession becomes more of a medical laughing stock.
H Soneji
Esher, Surrey

Evergreen reply
n I read Melanie Chilvers' letter (March 12) which was triggered by the optician article about Evergreen Sales Consultants (February 27). First, please let me apologise if I touched a raw nerve Ð that was never my intention, indeed the article was not written to provoke an exchange of views via a lengthy correspondence. If you and I need to hold a philosophical discussion then I will come to Norwich, buy lunch, and enjoy a healthy debate.
After 25 years in UK optics we must both feel frustrated that the optician's practice remains the poor relation in Britain's high streets Ð how can something we both feel passionately about remain unexciting to the general public? I would never advocate that you prescribe products that are 'inappropriate' or 'unnecessary' and as a business man, I know that to 'exploit' customers is a road to ruin.
No, I just believe that the majority of patients visit their optician upon receiving a reminder (every two years?) or more probably somewhat later (3-4 years). You already state that the 'the optical market has changed beyond all recognition' which is why I believe there must be something new, exciting and beneficial for every patient when they visit their optician, having already psychologically decided how much they can afford for a new appearance and looking forward to appreciative comments from family, friends and work colleagues. At the same time the UK has prospered over the last 4-5 years with booming high-street sales to the point where interest rates have just risen to dampen down this spending spree. But has optics enjoyed such a boom? Everything that I read says no, and that is why I feel additional training is needed to reverse this situation.
We now have the widest choice of designer frames ever Ð Memoflex type, titanium, genium, screwless rimless and very, very low-cost frames. Then, high index lenses, polarised lenses, new varifocals, better MAR coatings, brilliant advances in contact lenses and finally advice on laser treatment. I am not suggesting you should persuade them to buy anything that does not improve their lifestyle.
My 15-year-old daughter received her first pair of glasses two weeks ago and was delighted with the clarity of the board and PC screens at school. One week later she forgot to take them, had an awful day without them, and is now asking for second pair to keep in her schoolbag at all times. Isn't this typical of all spectacle wearers?
I just believe that by optical staff asking the right questions to enable them to understand patient needs and aspirations, and being competent to present the benefits of today's products, patients will feel the desire to enjoy the improvements to sight correction. If we are all doing such an excellent, professional job, how is it that so many people wear glasses that clearly don't suit them and obviously could be changed to give greater pride in ownership?
From a professional point of view the vast majority of the British public had their eye care needs catered for by the NHS 524s with glass lenses during the 50s, 60s and even 70s Ð but we have now moved away from the medical appliance of those days. Do all current patients know of and understand the exciting advances in sight correction since those days? Until the answer to that question is yes, then we have not lived up to our responsibilities.
We don't need to call it 'failure' Ð we just need to strive for constant improvement in our techniques. I don't wish to criticise or create conflict Ð we are both on the same side, striving to give ever-greater patient satisfaction by using CET and any other training available that can help.
Michael Green
Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire