Backsliding
Although I have, from time to time, been critical of the General Optical Council and its workings, those criticisms have largely been about the current fashion for political correctness.
I have never doubted its resolve to be seen to protect the public and indeed we have been told that the recent Section 60 order would strengthen the Council's ability to do this. It, therefore, seems to me incredulous that a case of misleading advertising against Optical Express should be dropped because the disciplinary committee has 'no jurisdiction' to hear the proposed charge.
There may well be a whole list of tortuous legal reasons why this is so, but that begs the question as to why a case brought under the old rules should apparently now be thrown out because the rules have now changed.
The Rules on Publicity were reviewed a few years ago and it was proposed to soften them in some respects until the Office of Fair Trading stepped in and opposed any Rules. Given that, as far as I can recall, it was decided to rely on guidance and serious professional misconduct replaced a breach of the Publicity Rules, it is difficult to see what has changed.
The fundamental difference between the old Rules and the proposed new ones was that while comparative price advertising of product would have been permitted, provided it was accurate and met with the standards imposed by the various advertising standards bodies, comparative advertising of professional services and the making of claims, particularly those relating to clinical matters, not capable of justification were still matters for the Council's disciplinary process.
Indeed one could also argue that flouting advertising standards in any serious way with the intention of gaining a professional advantage is a disciplinary matter.
As far as I am aware the Council still has powers to deal with these matters under what we know as serious professional misconduct, which covers a multitude of sins. Are we now being told that contravention of guidelines relating to misleading advertising can no longer be described as serious professional misconduct under any circumstances or has the GOC framed the charge wrongly and Optical Express have used their financial muscle to hire a lawyer to run rings around the GOC's disciplinary process?
Whatever the reason, both the profession and the public have a right to know exactly what is going on.
Missed opportunity
At this time every year I devote a few words to National Eye Week, sometimes encouraging, on other occasions critical. The fact that this event which is potentially important for the eye care industry, has passed without me seeing any public sign of it is not new nor even of earth-shattering importance.
No doubt the Eyecare Trust will be able to point to many PR opportunities that have resulted in many millions of opportunities to be aware of this event.
But what my ignorance does underline is the real opportunity that the eye care industry in the UK is missing. Sadly there are no signs of the profession and industry coming to their senses and promoting eye care and its healthcare value against the continuing barrage of media comment and criticism against the charges made for eye care services.
One note of criticism is that, having secured the sponsorship of Optrex, the Eye Care Trust has allowed itself to be used to promote one of its sponsor's products, something a charity should always avoid.