Lumen writes: GOC abdication

GOC abdication

Returning to my previous concerns with the lack of GOC interpretation that should have accompanied the recent changes to contact lens legislation, several of my associates have recently been discussing the weaknesses that are so evident as a direct consequence of this GOC abdication.

These included:
The provision (or lack of provision) of aftercare by the supplier
The verification (or lack or verification) of the specification by the supplier
The meaning of general direction (as opposed to supervision) of unregistered supply.

You will recall that the Section 60 Orders now place a responsibility on the seller of the contact lens to 'make arrangements for the individualÉto receive aftercare in so far and for as long as is relevant in their individual case'.

I have had it pointed out to me that, as far as the wording of the Section 60 goes, these Orders make no differentiation between the aftercare requirements incumbent on sale by a GOC or a non-GOC registered supplier.

However, because the GOC has thus far failed to explain what their intention was and what their meaning of aftercare was, we should now all be asking how the internet or supermarket sellers of contact lenses can provide aftercare to the same extent as the registered supplier. Does the optical profession provide too high a service?

I would argue not. Does/do the internet/supermarkets provide too low a service? I would argue yes. This latter point is a definite 'patient safety' issue in waiting. Some of my friends and associates have conducted test purchases from the various modalities of unregistered supply and universally report that, with the exception of one seller, verification is not taking place prior to sale and supply.