« PreviousContinue »
CHARLOTTE, N.C., March 23, 1966. Representative BASIL WHITENER, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Regarding H.R. 12937, I would like to express my total opposition to this bill. These are optometrists who are attempting to gain by laws what they lack in education. They are not able by education or training or have proven in past ability to perform the function which they request. I would like to state for you the referred to report, dated March 24, 1962, on the optometrist work with the North Carolina Commission for the Blind is true and valid. This report is part of the North Carolina commission minutes of the spring meeting of 1962. The records are part of the public records on file with the North Carolina Blind Commission, Raleigh. Sincerely,
RICHARD B. RANKIN, Jr., M.D.
HOUSTON, Tex., March 26, 1966. Hon. John Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, House District Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
The Houston Ophthalmological Society wishes to respectfully go on record as being equivocally opposed to H.R. 12937; to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia. This bill is definitely not in the public interest as it will restrict the ability of the medically trained eye physicians to properly diagnose and treat anomalies and diseases of the eye. We respectfully request that this statement be entered into the hearing record.
GEORGE ROBERT KOLODNY, M.D., President of the Houston Ophthalmological Society.
AUSTIN, Tex., March 27, 1966. Hon. John Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, House District Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
I regret the error made in the original night letter signed by. Dr. Horald E.. Hunt and myself. The Texas Ophthalmological Association upholds wholeheartedly the arguments presented by the District of Columbia ophthalmological Society in opposing H.R. 12937, a bill to regulate the practice of Optometry in the District of Columbia. Bill H.R. 12937 should be defeated as it is not in the best public interest.
HENRY L. HILGARTNER, M.D., President-Elect, Texas Ophthalmological Association.
NORTHERN VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY,
Arlington, Va., March 26, 1966. Congressman John Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, House District Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN DowDY: At a meeting of the Northern Virginia Academy of Ophthalmology on March 21, 1966, the enclosed motion was passed by our membership. We are in complete support with the stand of the Section of Ophthalmology, Medical Society of the District of Columbia.
We should like the enclosed resolution to be introduced in the meeting stating our opposition to any changes in this law. Very truly yours,
John F. HANNON, M.D. Resolved: The Northern Virginia Academy of Ophthalmology is unanimous in its support of the position held by the Society of the District of Columbia on H.R. 12937, District of Columbia Optometry Act.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION,
New York, N.Y., March 28, 1966. Hon. John Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, Committee on District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Newspaper Publishers Association takes this opportunity to express its views with respect to bill H.R. 12937 and related bills which are subject of hearings by your subcommittee.
The ANPA is an association of daily newspapers founded in 1887. Our 975 members represent 90 percent of the daily newspaper circulation in the United States.
As we understand it, the bills would provide authority for the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to "refuse to issue, renew, or restore any license authorized by this act * * * for any of the following causes:
“(7) (8). Advertising directly or indirectly the performance of optometric service or any part thereof, including the furnishing of ophthalmic or optical material, in any form, manner, or way, or through any medium, whether it be printed, audible, visible, electronic, or in any other fashion, except as authorized by regulations issued under section 10 of this act."
Under section 10 of the proposal, the District Commissioners could authorize the use of professional cards and small signs at the optometrist's office.
It is disturbing to learn that a group of optometrists seeks enactment of a law to prohibit truthful advertising by optometrists.
We believe that optometrists have a right to declare themselves ethical; that they have a right to declare themselves professional and to endeavor to improve their public image; that they can be licensed by government. However, it is entirely another matter if they expect government to enforce their own particular ethics when it includes a prohibition against truthful advertising.
This association objects to the passage of any bill by the Congress which would set up a series of conditions controlling the advertising by optometrists in the District of Columbia. We take the position that it should be legal to advertise any service or product which it is legal to sell. This is fundamental.
If there is anything false or misleading in advertising, prosecution of those responsible for the advertising should be made under the provisions of laws touching upon false and misleading advertising now in existence in the District of Columbia.
If any one type of advertising be prohibited, plausible excuses will not be lacking for extending the prohibition to advertising by other groups, classes or individuals. We do not believe that Government controls should be so extended because to do so would place more hurdles in the path of individual initiative.
To enact the proposal now before your subcommittee would create a situation that would deny to the public information it is entitled to have. To restrict such information is to censor- to impair the right of the people to know.
We earnestly recommend that your subcommittee reject the proposal now before you, and request that this letter be made a part of the hearing record. Sincerely yours,
STANFORD Smith, General Manager.
HOUSTON, Tex., March 30, 1966. Hon. John Dowdy, Chairman, Subcommittee Number 4, House District Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
We the Board of directors of the Ophthalmic Dispensing Association of Texas by unanimous vote this date request the following statement be included in the testimony of the hearings on H.R. 12937:
Resolved, The Ophthalmic Dispensing Association of Texas wishes to be recorded as opposing H.R. 12937. This bill is considered as a further attempt by optometry to restrain trade and the right of the public to freely choose the supplier of optical goods and services. This bill, is passed would severely affect the historic ophthalmologist-optician relationship the methods and procedures of which effectively caring for the public which seeks medical eye care.
EVERETT C. OLNEY, President.
REPRINTS FROM THE AMERICAN LAW REPORTS, ANNOTATED
INDIANA SUPREME COURT- MAY 14, 1942
(220 Ind. 476, 41 NE(20) 622; 141 A.L.R. 876) Physicians and Surgeons, $ 1542—what constitutes practice of optometry-sale of
glasses 1. Sales of sets of glasses, the two lenses of which are alike, the method being for the salesman who sits at a table opposite the customer to hand glasses to the latter who tries them until he makes his choice by the trail and error method is not the practice of optometry within the statute which defines such practice in terms which include both the scientific professional examination of the eyes and vision and the furnishing of remedies, including lenses, for the correction of abnormal conditions.
[See annotation on this question beginning on page 883.] Judgment, g 68-construction-looking to whole record.
2. The court on appeal may look to the whole record to ascertain the meaning or effect of the judgment. Statutes, $ 255—construction—"and" as meaning "or.”
3. The word “or” is not to be substituted for the conjunctive "and" employed in a subsection of a statute defining optometry so as to include scientific professional examination of the eyes and the furnishing of remedies, including lenses, for the correction of abnormal conditions, especially in view of the subsequent use of the symbol "and/or" in a different context in the same subsection. Statutes, § 224-construction-reference to title-practice of optometry.
4. A subsection of a statute relating to optometry, though broad enough in terms to make its prohibition of advertising prices of glasses applicable to any person whatsoever, including persons who are selling glasses as merchandise and are not practicing optometry, will not be given that effect in view of the title of the act: “An act to define and regulate the practice of optometry ..." and the fact that the subject of the act is the practice of optometry, its object being “to define and regulate” such practice. Statutes, § 76—sufficiency of title-liberal construction.
5. The title of an act should be liberally construed in determining whether it sufficiently covers the subject matter of a particular provision thereof.
(See RCL title “Statutes,” $ 85.) Physicians and Surgeons, $ 151,-regulation--effect of statutory definition.
6. The field of operation of an act entitled “An act to define and regulate the practice of optometry .." is circumscribed by the definition of optometry in the act and does not include the advertising and sale of glasses as articles of merchandise.
APPEAL by relators from a decree of Allen Circuit Court in favor of defendant in an action by the State to enjoin defendant from a practice alleged to constitute the practice of optometry without a license. Affirmed.
Messrs. Pell & Pell, of Shelbyville, George N. Beamer, Attorney General, Francis N. Hamilton, John R. Walsh, and Joseph W. Hutchinson, of Indianapolis, and Wendell Harris, of Fort Wayne, for appellants.
Messrs. Hoffman' & Hoffman and Colerick & Corbett, all of Ft. Wayne, for appellees:
* * CNS T Se
UÍ 1935 1.
for any rere LIKE 33 tygiasse
**ANT it gimiration in or n and pilet on glasses ich in define and tale e 30. citrificated to prac. OTTIE
all, and defining *mer TIES. IT". thaud dues, defining centar nuemea.
ve the changes do not azt ne esta.
23 are clearly within the tie fine
20 any person whatsoever. ind Itaken it
ich they sell. Is this sucsection wie wenge permits within the title of the ser? mais ce of optometry. Its object is to jedine ane
51 are regulatory of such practice are leart:
la Wivertising by an optometrist is regulation of i uvertising by appellees is merely regulation of
*Fine" in the title give it broader scope. They cst line no questions as to the constitutionality
of the let differing from the dictionary e un uf what is comprehended by the word strate incident to a lawful merchandising
o advertise has been held to violate the In ***t utrenament, Regal Oil Co. v. State, 1939, 123
urtes v. Bontempo, 1940, 65 Ohio App. 103. htu s 634, 32 NE(2d) 17. We cannot isUntermut the sale of eyeglasses as merchandise