Lumen

Publicity machine
So the next wave of publicity for Glasses Direct has appeared and seemingly passed. However, be under no illusion, the well-advised James Murray Wells will return. The latest series leaves in its wake many bemused opticians wondering why the GOC has not taken any action against this web-based irritant: but more of this later. Clearly, his outfit cannot operate without the oxygen of publicity. It really does make one wonder how many more pairs of (allegedly poorly centred) specs were produced on the back of the publicity generated by the revelation that Murray Wells was present at the same party that Prince Harry wore his infamous Nazi regalia.

We are all slowly hearing of stories where a patient is asking for their PD to be written on the non-dispensed prescription. What should we do then?

Be aware, it is not a legal requirement to provide a PD, so leave it to the bona fide dispenser, who is equally not obliged to provide it to a patient.

If you do so, then charge a professional fee, as you will no doubt be liable for any consequential errors. Where not available, Glasses Direct will manufacture a punter's specs at a default PD of 63mm, taking no heed of BVD and completely ignoring vertical centres. How he is to be tackled by the GOC largely depends on which piece of legislation he thinks he is operating under. If it is the Opticians Act, then questions must be asked about the level of consistent, qualified supervision applied. If it is the Sale of Optical Appliances Order of Council 1984, then his operation may be at fault via the examples of specs obtained that have lenses centred other than at the centre of the pupils. Trading Standards should clearly be interested also. Indeed many believe he is at fault on all counts.

The consumerist and populist media love this kind of David versus Goliath battle. The little guy with only a slingshot of a website versus the high-street presence of the big (and not so big) boys (and girls).

The frustration for the optical profession is that this same media (and, indeed, the British public) is not at all interested in our side of the story. But then why should we be surprised when the truth is not allowed to get in the way of a 'good' story.

In many ways we only really have ourselves to blame for continuing to allow the optical profession's dependence on the cross-subsidy of the service by the price of the product. It is clear that this dependence will have to change or we will continue to see weakening sector profits fall even further as product margins are continually under such assault, together with increased 'attacks', more dangerous than that of the relatively innocuous Murray Wells.

This challenge may be compounded, given that it is entirely possible that new contact lens legislation to be introduced within the GOC's Section 60 order may soon see contact lenses sold cheaply within supermarkets and pharmacies, provided that they can 'make provision for' continuing aftercare - whatever that will be interpreted as meaning when the wording is known. Indeed, Murray Wells himself is reported to be considering such a move.