The mechanics of CET explained
As a provider of CET I share RH Gray Morris's concerns (Letters, August 5, 2005) regarding internet-only access to the GOC CET scheme run by Vantage Technologies. However, he overestimates the problem because he is confused regarding the mechanics of the scheme. He's not the only one.
Under the compulsory scheme, it is providers, not individuals who have the responsibility for recording CET points. Providers are able to add points to your GOC number even if you have not yet registered at www.cetoptics.com. Individuals are not able to add their own CET points but have the responsibility to check and accept the points in their account.
Anyone who has not already registered at www.cetoptics.com should do so now. There they will find a list of any CET points accrued in 2005. Once registered, individuals need only visit the Vantage website once a year to check and confirm their points tally.
For people who feel they are still unable to complete the registration process, Replay Learning offers a service to register and manage points on behalf of its customers who do not have internet access. To qualify for this service you need to have attended or be booked to attend a Replay Learning conference or be a subscriber to the Virtual Lectures distance learning programme. You can call Replay Learning on 0870 881 0715.
Peter Charlesworth
Moniaive, Dumfries & Galloway
Legal argument to rule change
Further to much debate on the new and outrageous domiciliary rules, I decided to do some research. It appears that my fellow optometrists may be breaking the law with respect to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA 1995) should they abide by the terms of the recent SI-480 (2005) governing the new domiciliary rules. Please read the following DDA excerpt:
'20 (1) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if (a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and (b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.'
Since the DDA is an Act of Parliament (primary legislation) it is considered sovereign to a Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation). Hence, on occasions of conflicting legislation such as this, one should abide by the former over the latter. Therefore - according to my understanding of the law - the requirement to provide three weeks' notice for providing domiciliary visits to a care home (containing disabled persons) contravenes the DDA and hence should be discarded.
So when are the optical bodies to challenge SI-480?
Ian Charles White
(optometrist but no lawyer)
Cheshire