
News

Share
16th July 2016
11:05am BST

“Given the risk of death involved, her conduct was so bad in all of the circumstances – it fell so far below the standards to be expected of a competent optometrist – that it was criminal. “The prosecution say that the abnormalities in his optic discs would have been obvious to any competent optometrist who had examined them."Rose had a duty of care to refer Vinnie for further and urgent examination. Instead, her assessment said that he needed no further treatment. Rees told the court that Rose’s failure to detect the swelling of Vinnie’s optic discs was a “significant contributory factor” to his death, and that had she noticed the swelling the boy would undoubtedly have survived. In her defence, Rose said she had been unable to properly examine the back of Vinnie eyes with an ophthalmoscope because he had photophobia and shut his eyes against the close range light. She also claimed the boy had not looked in the direction she wanted due to "poor fixation". Rose is due to be sentenced at a later date.
Explore more on these topics: