Letters: June 2

Those who serve

Moneo’s pontification on the issue of Health vs Wealth (Optician May 12) condemns everyone in the profession by saying ‘We are all guilty of not promoting this (clinical) side of our work and we all need to address this problem as a matter of urgency’. Such sweeping statements, unresearched, are as untrue as they are insulting to those who practise without the lure of the jingle of the cash registers. There is an unacceptable silence and unfair lack of acknowledgement of the work done by a minority who do promote healthcare as a matter of priority before prescribing R & L +0.25/0.25 axis 90 or MAR coating half-eyes.

Before a finger of accusation is pointed at the ‘not guilty’ for the serious crime of sinking the image of the profession, Moneo should do homework to separate those who sell from those who serve.

Today’s practitioners are yesterday’s students. They needed to be indoctrinated throughout the course that they have a collective responsibility of enhancing the profession’s standing in the community. Some of us have done more than our share of image promoting desired by the College of Optometrists.

Kusoom Vadgama
London NW11



Daysoft feedback

There are letters in the Optician of May 26 2006 to which I would wish, in due course, to respond fully. I refer to letter from J&J directors Meyler and Ruston, ‘The world’s first daily disposables’, from Dr Gerber, ‘The dangers of “click to fit”’ and Viewpoint by Omen which might have been entitled ‘Hiding behind an excuse that daysoft is supporting independents’.

However, I would like to immediately reassure Max Davison who also wrote.    While all commercial agreements are ultimately discretionary, it is our intention to keep to published undertakings to our customers, UKindependent opticians. By way of illustration, daysoft limited has held its prices for five years, but with no undertaking having been given to do so. It is correct that those individuals who wish to order on the internet and come to www.daysoft.co.uk will result in us gathering data but our view is that some other internet supplier would also have obtained this information whereas we, uniquely, rebate the originating optician if one of our customers. In this way we feel we are at least maintaining such patients in the independent sector.

By contrast, all major contact lens manufacturers supply the supermarkets who also have websites. For example, visit the Asda website and see what safeguards they provide and look closely at who supplies them…we don’t.

Ron Hamilton
Glasgow