Page images
PDF
EPUB

of medicine and related professions without a license. and ophthalmology.

This includes optometry

In the District an ophthalmologist, who is a physician, is licensed by the Medical Board; an optometrist, who is a specialist in correcting but not treating the eyes, is licensed by the Optometry Board; but an optician, a grinder and seller of lenses, is not required to have a license.

FITTING

Mr. Sax fitted me for contact lenses after examining my eyes and my glasses himself. Mr. Fields sent me to an ophthalmologist for the eye examination and prescription. However, he personally measured the curve of my eye and inserted several pairs of lenses in my eyes.

The District optometry law states that it is "unlawful for any person *** to represent himself as capable of examining the eyes of any person for the purpose of fitting glasses *** unless licensed."

The law, passed in 1924, does not mention contact lenses, which were not then in vogue. However, in 1946, the District Corporation Counsel wrote a legal opinion that "the fitting and adapting of contact lenses to the human eye are within the scope of optometry." Only a licensed optometrist or physician may legally fit contact lenses, the Counsel said.

[ocr errors]

In 1951 the District Commissioners took further note of contact lenses; they ruled that for a person to become licensed as an optometrist he must pass an examination in the theory and practice of contact lens fitting.”

A violation of the District optometry law is a misdemeanor providing a fine of $500 for the first offense, and a fine of $1,000 and a year in jail for the second offense.

EXCESSIVE

The District Optometry Board said most complaints have been that lens buyers were charged $50 to $100 more than advertised prices and often found they were unable to wear the lenses.

"An unlicensed person should not be allowed to put a foreign object in the eye," Dr. Ephraim, president of the Board, said. "Luckily, the human eye is sensitive and people discard a pair of ill-fitting lenses. But we have complaints from people who got abrasions."

I became involved when a member of the Optometry Board told me of its concern over the apparent violations of the optometry law.

When he went on to say that police were having trouble finding a purchaser to help make a case, I offered to help. I am a contact lens wearer.

My editors readily agreed that I should meet with Detective Sergeant Panetta of the Narcotics Squad. His boss, Inspector Moyer, approved my participation and Assistant Corporation Counsel Clark King welcomed the assistance of the News.

"BE FAIR"

Sergeant Panetta explained to me, "We are interested in being fair. We don't want you to persuade someone to break the law. We want you to act just like another customer. If they fit you for the lenses, report to us.'

On January 14, he sent me to the Imperial Optical Co. at 1334 G Street NW. "I am interested in finding out about contact lenses," I said to a young woman in a white uniform seated behind a glass window. "I'd like to know if I could wear them. Some friends of mine have them and have had trouble." "The specialist isn't in," she said, "but you'll be able to wear our lenses. They are not like the round ones." She held up a scalloped lens.

EXAMINATION

She made an appointment for me and I returned on January 18. A man in a white coat led me back to a room where he examined my eyes. He used the instruments an optometrist or a physician uses to determine what strength lenses a patient needs.

He was Anthony Sax, who was charged yesterday with violating the optometry law. He is not a licensed doctor or licensed optometrist in the District.

He questioned me about my eyes and I told him I didn't think I had had any

eye diseases or injuries and I had worn glasses since I was 11.

He took my glasses to another room and reappeared in 10 minutes to tell me that two pair of lenses-scalloped ones and "we throw in a pair of round ones"-would

cost me $155. The bill would be due in 3 days when the scalloped lenses would be ready. I gave him a $10 deposit.

REFUND?

He said, "All but a $15 fitting fee will be refunded if you are unable to wear them."

I returned for my lenses January 25 and gave him $100. I said I would like to pay the rest of the debt at the time of my 2-week checkup.

"Could you mail it in next week?" he asked.

I said I would.

He wrote on my receipt "balance to be paid on February 2" and told me to sign it.

I noticed the balance was $51.50 and not $45. It listed $2.50 for a lens case and $4 for cleaning and soaking solutions.

"How will I know if something goes wrong?" I asked as I put on my coat. "Oh, yes, I had these typed up for you," Mr. Sax said, handing me four mimeographed sheets of paper.

One of the instruction sheets listed "different normal sensations *** to recognize and not to become unduly concerned about them is a long step in the right direction."

SYMPTOMS

Among these symptoms was redness of the eye.

Dr. Charles E. Jaeckle, an ophthalmologist, said in a 1962 American Medical Association Journal article:

"Is anyone other than a physician qualified to determine whether the cause of the redness is the contact lens, some other foreign body or a disease? Both acute and chronic glaucomas have occurred in patients using contact lenses."

I returned to Imperial February 4 to complain quite honestly that I could not see well out of my left lens. Mr. Sax again tested my eyes and said I had more astigmatism in my left eye and it would take longer for the lens "to settle." He also said I had been inserting my lenses incorrectly.

I never had had this problem with my own lenses.

We discussed money again.

"I only have $20," I said. "Can I give you the rest at my next appointment?" "I don't know what the laboratory is going to say about this," he said. "They have written me already. I released the lenses to you and I am not supposed to unless they are paid for completely."

NO REFUND

I asked him again about the possibility of a refund in case the lenses didn't work out.

"I never have to refund money," he said. "We don't let them take the lenses out of the office if they can't wear them."

He then told me it was "necessary" for me to sign up for $30 insurance on the lenses for 3 years. "Everyone loses or damages a lens within 3 years and a new lens costs $42.50."

Yesterday I returned to Imperial Optical with Sergeants Panetta and Didone. They arrested Mr. Sax.

It took much longer to get contact lenses at Embassy Opticians.

I first called on January 15. I was calling most of the opticians who advertise contact lenses in the telephone book. All of them except Embassy told me I had to see an ophthalmologist to get a prescription and approval to wear the lenses. I was told by Embassy to come in anytime.

I did on January 17. Norman Fields talked to me for about 10 minutes. He was wearing a business suit.

He told me I had to get a prescription from a doctor and gave me the name of an_ophthalmologist.

I went to the doctor. He seemed surprised at first that Embassy was selling contact lenses. "Do they have a (contact lens) laboratory there?" he asked. I said I didn't know. "Isn't it OK for me to get my lenses there?" I asked. "I have an optician here in my office," the doctor said.

"Should I get them from you?" I asked.

ACCEPTABLE

"Well," he said, "I've seen Mr. Fields' work and it is acceptable. Besides, Embassy referred you here and so you should get your lenses there."

As I got ready to leave I said, "Do I see you again?"

"I'll see you if you want," he said casually. He added, "There won't be any charge for just a check unless there is an abrasion or some problem."

I took the doctor's prescription for eyeglasses to Embassy on January 26. Mr. Fields wasn't in, but an assistant said, "You'll have to make an appointment. It's a special machine we use to measure your eye. It's very expensive and I'll have to bring it over from the other store."

So I returned on January 28 and Mr. Fields measured the curvature of my eyes with a machine called a keratometer.

(Quite a few optical companies in the city also measure the curvature of a patient's eye with a keratometer and using an ophthalmologist's prescription for eyeglasses make up contact lenses.

(The Optometry Board and Corporation Counsel's office believe that person should be licensed in order to measure the curve of the eye and fit lenses.

(The outcome of Mr. Fields' case will affect the operation of these other optical companies.)

TROUBLE

On Feburary 3, I went back and he put trial lenses in my eyes. getting them in and out.

He had difficulty

He asked for a deposit before he ordered my lenses and I gave him $15. He said he would call me when they were ready-within a few days.

He called and we made an appointment for February 8, but when I arrived he said my lenses weren't ready and inserted another pair of trial lenses-which he said were stronger than the other pair-in my eyes.

He asked for more money-saying a $60 deposit was needed and $60 more would be needed within 2 or 3 days when my lenses arrived if I wanted to take them home.

"But why can't we wait and see if I can wear them?"

"We require you to pay for the lenses in full before you take them.” When I returned to pick up my lenses yesterday, Mr. Fields was meticulous again in teaching me how to handle and wash the lenses. He gave me his home telephone number and told me to call him anytime, day or night, if I had trouble. "I live near you and if there is any problem, I can come over," he said.

I gave him the remaining $60 in marked money. "Can't we wait and see if I can wear them?" I asked.

"No," he said. "I'll give you the money back if necessary. I'll know before you do if you can't wear them."

He gave me, at no extra charge, a lens case and cleaning solution.

After Sergeants Panetta and Didone arrested Mr. Fields, he said, "She was the first person I had fitted here at Embassy. I had fitted other patients at my other (District) store, but she was No. 1 here."

ACCORDING TO WEBSTER'S

Ophthalmologist: A physician who specializes in the study and treatment of defects and diseases of the eye.

Optometrist: A specialist in optometry-an occupation consisting of the examination of the eye for defects and faults of refraction and the prescription of correctional lenses and exercises but not including the use of drugs or surgery.

Optician: A maker or dealer in optical items and instruments; one that grinds spectacle lenses to prescription and dispenses spectacles.

Dr. HoFF. I would also like to offer clippings of stories on the same matter which appeared in the Washington Star on February 16 and the Washington Post on February 17.

Mr. DOWDY. Without objection they will appear in the record. (The material referred to follows:)

[From the Washington Star, Feb. 16, 1966]

Two OPTICIANS CHARGED IN CONTACT LENS CASES

Two Washington opticians were charged yesterday under the city's Optometry Act, according to Morals Division Inspector Scott E. Moyer.

Arrested were Norman Fields, 42, of the 1100 block of Loxford Terrace, Silver Spring, and Anthony C. Saks, 33, of the 7400 block of New Hampshire Avenue, Takoma Park, Md.

Moyer said Fields had fitted lenses and that Saks had prescribed and fitted lenses for a decoy working for police. Both men are charged with the same offense of illegally fitting contact lenses, however, Moyer said.

General Sessions Court Judge Edward A. Beard released both men on personal bond. Fields' case was continued until March 16 and Saks' until March 17. Moyer said stringent Department eyesight regulations had ruled out the use of police officers as undercover agents in the two cases.

A spokesman for the Board said that hundreds of similar complaints have been filed in the past 2 years, but that complainants had never agreed to appear in court before.

No District law specifically bars opticians from prescribing and fitting contact lenses. The law does bar unlicensed persons from practicing optometry.

HELD OPTOMETRIC

The prescribing and fitting of contact lenses were pronounced optometric activities in a 1946 opinion from the District Corporation Counsel.

The District and American Optometric Associations have since pushed to get. this restriction written into the law. A spokesman said legislation is to be introduced later today in Congress. It is expected that Senator Alan Bible, Democrat, of Nevada, will introduce the bill in the Senate and Representative B. F. Sisk, Democrat, of California, in the House.

Police said that Fields had fitted the decoy at the Embassy Optical Co., 1361 Connecticut Avenue NW., and that Saks had prescribed and fitted lenses at the Imperial Optical Co., 1334 G Street NW.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1966]

BILLS WOULD TIGHTEN OPTOMETRY LAW HERE

Legislation to tighten up Washington's 42-year-old optometry law and prevent misrepresentation of the profession will be introduced next week in both the House and Senate.

Representative B. F. Sisk, Democrat, of California, who has been working closely with the local office of the American Optometric Association for more than a month on a bill, said he will submit a measure Monday.

Senator Alan Bible, Democrat, of Nevada, chairman of the Senate District Committee, plans to introduce another proposal in that body, an aid reported.

Sisk noted that "high-powered advertisements and fancy but expensive installment plans that conceal high rates of interest are being used to sell a health device which, when properly prescribed and fitted, can be highly beneficial to the

user.

"But, on the other hand, it may be and often is highly dangerous."

The Congressman said the purpose of his bill is to bring standards of practice here "up to a level which exists in most of our States ***."

Basically, the bill would bar such practices as offering discounts or free eye examinations, displaying eyeglasses and other instruments so that they can be seen from streets or corridors and advertising with other gimmicks.

The proposal also would improve procedures for licensing optometrists and set strict standards outlawing corporate practice.

Sisk noted that physicians and dentists-and most optometrists-have won such standards across the country. "But unfortunately, this is not true in our Nation's Capital," he said.

Dr. HoFF. On February 18, 1966, the Washington Daily News also published an editorial which said in part, and I quote:

There has been growing official concern here, shared by the Washington Daily News, that the District's optometry law does not adequately guard the public in the delicate area of contact-lens fitting. Evidence has been mounting in recent months that many lens buyers were not getting the kind of professional service and care that these lenses seem to require. It seems that the law needs to be clarified.

It should be set forth precisely what professional training should be required of lens fitters at all stages of the contact-lens process. Possible injury to the

eye is at issue. unqualified.

The penalty should be harsh enough to stay the hand of the

There are flagrant abuses taking place every day in Washington. The files of the District court reflect the case of a woman who recovered a judgment against one of these quickie establishments for the loss of sight in one eye from contact lenses. The educational qualifications of the contact-lens fitters in that case are illustrative of the problem. I understand that one had a B.A. in music and the other had completed 1 year of dental school.

In another case a young man who was a participant in the Job Corps program was standing outside a jewelry store. A man lured him inside and sold him a pair of glasses for which he was charged $86. The boy was successful in getting a job at a chain grocery store, but he was not able to pay the $86 to the jewelry store. They tried to garnishee the young man's wages and the grocery store, which has a policy of dismissing employees whose wages are attached, fired him. A subsequent vision examination disclosed that the young man did not even need glasses.

I am sure that the complaint filed with the District of Columbia Board of Optometry Examiners is replete with similar stores of fraud and deceit. The Optometry Society for the District of Columbia will also be pleased to turn its complaint files over to the committee, if it so desires.

The problems involved with unethical practices are:

1. Misleading advertising.

2. The lack of adequate time for thorough examinations. 3. The lack of quality materials.

4. Consideration of profit motives above considerations of the patient's best interests.

Over-the-counter sale of readymade eyeglasses is a particularly pernicious practice which the proposed law would also outlaw. The use of these readymade eyeglasses may, by giving some temporary improvement in vision, mask the underlying causes of changes in vision, changes which might be symptomatic of eye conditions or bodily diseases which would be disclosed during an eye examination. We all read of the traffic toll, loss of lives, injuries on many of the highways of this city. Over 85 percent of the decisions of the motorists are the result of what he sees or does not see.

Our society has worked closely with the District of Columbia Motor Vehicle Department, in attempts to either bar from the highways motorists with serious visual defects, or to provide them with the necessary corrective eyewear.

Everyone who rides in a taxicab sooner or later, if he looks at the driver's identification card, has seen stamped on some of them the slogan "I must wear prescription glasses." This is beneficial. But let me point out that any taxidriver can go to any one of numerous stores which sell readymade eyewear and, for $1 or less, buy a pair of glasses which he selects, and neither the passenger in the cab nor a police officer who stops the driver can tell whether these glasses are prescribed or purchased over the counter. Practically the only way to prevent this is to prohibit the sale of corrective eyewear without a prescription by either an optometrist or a physician.

Because of the obvious abuses in the area of readymade glasses, the Federal Trade Commission adopted regulations to govern the

« PreviousContinue »