Reply to Dr Taub

Sir,

We would like to thank Dr Taub¹ for his interest in our correspondence.² In response, we would like to address two issues that he has raised.

Firstly, when an ‘accident' occurs as a result of a recommended therapy or intervention, this is termed a complication. All therapies have potential complications and need to be considered on the basis of their risk and benefit profile. If patients are encouraged to repeatedly hit homemade pendulums at eye level, ocular trauma is a complication that deserves consideration. Any equipment used in such exercises should be designed to be as safe as possible to minimize the risk of ocular injury. In light of this case, the particular behavioural optometrist involved is going to modify the construction of the equipment used for this exercise.

Secondly, Dr Taub implies that we intended this case report to somehow represent adequate reason to ‘strike out at all of behavioural optometry'. It is not. Arguments regarding efficacy are discussed in thorough literature reviews performed by other authors.^{3, 4}