Optometry: Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 4, Eighty-ninth Congress, Second Session on H.R. 12937, H.R. 13049, H.R. 13155, H.R. 13176, H.R. 13623, and H.R. 13821 to Regulate the Practice of Optometry in the District of Columbia, March 21, 22, and 23, 1966
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966 - 384 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
advertising amended application Association authority bill called cause Chairman changes charges child Commissioners committee complete concerned condition contact lenses corporate correct course court definition determine diseases dispensing District of Columbia doctor DRYDEN evidence examination expert eyeglasses fact feel field fitting frames give glasses HARSHA hearing held HORTON human Indiana indicated interest Kohn legislation lens licensed MAGEE matter McNEVIN means medicine necessary objection operation ophthalmologist opinion optical optician optometrist patient person physician plaintiff's position possible practice of optometry prescription present problem profession professional prohibit proposed protect provisions qualified question reason record referred regulation rules Sisk society standards statement statute testimony things tion vision visual WHITENER written
Page 222 - Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless Justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination; Provided, however. That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller...
Page 180 - ... making use of any advertising statements of a character tending to deceive or mislead the public ; advertising professional superiority or the performance of professional services in a superior manner...
Page 195 - That it shall be unlawful for any person not registered under the provisions of this Act, and who has not paid the special tax provided for by this Act, to have in his possession or under his control any of the aforesaid drugs...
Page 216 - Bait advertising. — It is an unfair trade practice for an industry member to offer for sale any industry product when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the product so offered as advertised and at the advertised price. NOTE : In determining whether there has been...
Page 60 - Optometric Association has had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation under consideration and wishes to report to the committee that it is in favor of HR 12937, and would therefore recommend that your subcommittee give it favorable consideration for enactment. Mr. DOWDY. May I say, Mr. McNevin, if you have a prepared statement, it will be made a part of the record and you can brief it for us if you wish to do it that way. Mr.
Page 225 - ... customers or prospective customers, or to agents, employees, or representatives of competitors' customers or prospective customers, without the knowledge of their employers or principals, as an inducement to influence their employers or principals to purchase or contract to purchase products sold or offered for sale by such industry member, or to influence such employers or principals to refrain from dealing in the products of competitors or from dealing or contracting to deal with competitors....
Page 40 - ... standards which will insure not only competency in individual practitioners, but protection against those who would prey upon a public peculiarly susceptible to imposition through alluring promises of physical relief. And the community is concerned in providing safeguards not only against deception, but against practices which would tend to demoralize the profession by forcing its members into an unseemly rivalry which would enlarge the opportunities of the least scrupulous. What is generally...
Page 11 - Examiners, supra. The advertiser of frames may be using his ads to bring in customers who will buy lenses. If the advertisement of lenses is to be abolished or controlled, the advertising of frames must come under the same restraints; or so the legislature might think. We see no constitutional reason why a State may not treat all who deal with the human eye as members of a profession who should use no merchandising methods for obtaining customers.