Letters: Febuary 23

A recent Daily Express article highlighted the fury of a mother whose child was not allowed to wear swimming goggles in an Ipswich pool without a GP’s letter.

At first I thought it was an early April fool, ‘If children learn to swim in goggles should they then at any time fall into a river they wouldn’t be able to swim to safety because they may be unable to swim without goggles!’ quoted a Suffolk council official.

Now if the chlorinated waters of a swimming pool are such a distraction to a child, then they will hardly even begin to concentrate on learning to swim. It is certainly discrimination if a child needs to wear a pair of corrective goggles and when they are the only ones so allowed they will really stand out!

It gets worse when you consider that most professional swimmers wear goggles to protect their eyes from treated water. Did I not read a contact lens article noting the level of harmful bacteria found in swimming pool water is escalating, with the likelihood that the level of chemical treatments will rise, compounding those irritated eyes. 

Finally I wonder whose optical responsibility is it to monitor such goings on. Why couldn’t a local optician provide the lady with the required ‘letter’ for the authorities, why only from a GP? Would the area LOC have dealt with this or is it beyond their remit. Perhaps they wish not to ripple their local waters?

Frank Norville, Gloucester



While I can empathise with Grace Haine’s view (Letters, February 16), I have to correct her illogical thinking. The GOC states that CET exists to ensure that registrants are up to date with knowledge of skills they need to practise safely throughout their career. If Ms Haine agrees with this, then she has to comply fully with CET requirements, whether working full-time, part-time or even one day a year.

She cannot expect to do a reduced number of CET points just because she doesn’t work every day! Indeed, a patient may have a valid complaint were they to be looked after by an optician who only worked part-time and was only ‘partly’ up to date and possibly not entirely ‘safe to practise’.
It is perverse to argue that because most part-time workers are female, the GOC’s CET requirement is discriminatory.

I have shown above why the same CET requirement, irrespective of regularity of work, is correct. But were there to be a lower requirement for part-timers, it would not be women but men who would claim discrimination, as more men would be at a disadvantage and the provision would not be a proportionate means of achieving a ‘legitimate’ aim.

I hope I have clarified two issues for G Haine, but as to her final question, I regret that I cannot help as I gave up wondering what benefits there were to GOC membership long ago.

David Levy, Radlett, Hertfordshire



Does anyone know of or use an insurance broker who will insure contact lenses. Like many opticians, most of our contact lens work is of the disposable modality.

However, we do fit the occasional specialised lens, which should be insured against loss or damage. The contact number is 01708 346393.

Jon Sames, Romford, Essex