Sir,
In Eye 2012 (correspondence section), there is a letter written by B Drury and F Imrie1 which I would like to address. In this correspondence, they describe an unfortunate accident in which the parent of a child undergoing vision therapy was struck by a screw when performing tasks with a ball attached to a string. The authors use this as an opportunity to strike out at all of behavioural optometry, calling into question the methods they use; they even go one leap forward and question the efficacy of vision therapy.
The question at hand is not the efficacy of the procedures used, but the obvious bias on the part of the authors in this attack. When performing a therapy task, no activity is failsafe. This is true for vision therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and so on. If a patient receiving orientation and mobility training after losing sight bangs into something and gets a cut, should we then question the efficacy and safety of that type of training as well?
In closing, while I am sorry to hear of the incident that took place, I implore the authors and readers to simply look up the word ‘accident’ in the dictionary or online.
References
Drury B, Imrie F . An unexpected complication of behavioural vision therapy. Eye 2012; 26 (11): 1495.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taub, M. This is a letter to the editor. Eye 27, 454 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2012.271
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2012.271
This article is cited by
-
Reply to Dr Taub
Eye (2013)