VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, San Francisco, Calif., February 5, 1962. Hon. JOHN E. Moss, Hon. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: After much thought over a long time, I believe that this bill should be enacted into law for the future good of our country. My brief comments are that many congenital defects in children have been remedied partially. Research of a high order is vitally needed to accomplish the same for other defects. Human wastage would be lessened and rehabilitation increased, thereby benefiting future generations elsewhere as well as in our country. The National Institutes of Health are in an enviable position for studying these questions and producing answers. Respectfully, Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, WILLIAM A. REILLY, M.D., THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Chairman, Subcommittee of Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: Health and Safety, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROBERTS: This letter is in strong support of H.R. 8398 (Institute of Child Health and Human Development). It is especially important that this Institute be designed to emphasize the social and emotional problems of develop ment. Very truly yours, DONALD W. FISKE, Professor of Psychology. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROBERTS: The following statement is submitted on behalf of the American Medical Association with respect to the provisions of S. 2073, 87th Congress, which is now pending before your subcommittee. The proposed legislation would authorize the appointment of two additional Assistant Secretaries in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and would abolish the office of Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs), created by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631). Although the American Medical Association's House of Delegates supported this reorganization plan, which provided for the creation of a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with Cabinet status, it did so, in large measure, because of the assurance given at the time by Dwight Eisenhower, then the President of the United States, and other advocates of the plan that a doctor of medicine would occupy the office of Special Assistant to the Secretary of HEW (Health and Medical Affairs), as provided in section 3 of the plan. The American Medical Association strongly believes that matters respecting the health of the people of this country should be considered by competent, qualified physicians. Accordingly, we respectfully request that S. 2073, 87th Congress, be amended so as to retain the present office of Special Assistant to the Secretary of HEW (Health and Medical Affairs) with the statutory requirement that such Special Assistant be a doctor of medicine. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to express the views of the physicians of America on this important legislation. We respectfully request that this statement by the American Medical Association be included in the record of the hearings on S. 2073, 87th Congress. Sincerely yours, F. J. L. BLASINGAME, M.D. Hon. OREN HARRIS, HOWARD UNIVERSITY, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, MY DEAR MR. HARRIS: It is my understanding that the Congress will shortly consider H.R. 8398, a bill to create a new Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and to elevate the Division of General Medical Sciences to Institute status. As professor of pediatrics in the College of Medicine of Howard University and as chief pediatrician to Freedmen's Hospital, I am vitally interested in the proposed creation of new facilities for the study of child health within the framework of the National Institutes of Health. In my opinion, the basic research which will be made possible by the creation of a new Institute of Child Health and Human Development will add a great deal to the health facilities of our country. There is a great need for the concentration of effort in a type of Institute which this bill would create. I would like, therefore, to highly endorse the proposal to create this new Institute. Your support in this regard will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Re hearings on H.R. 8398. Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, ROLAND B. SCOTT, M.D., AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROBERTS: In response to your inquiry as to the number of optometric graduates in the United States, the following information is furnished: Twenty years ago, 1942, 418 graduated; 15 years ago, 1947 with one new school added, 528; 10 years ago, 1952, 636; 1957, 455; 1958, 349; 1959, 323; 1960, 375; 1961, 319. It is estimated that in order to replace losses from death and retirement and to meet population growth, 710 optometrists should be graduated each year. This is more than double the average number graduated during the last 5 years. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM P. MACCRACKEN, Jr. NATIONAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION FOR EYE CARE, Hon. KENNETH ROBERTS, DEAR CONGREssman Roberts: The National Medical Foundation for Eye Care wishes to address these comments to the proposals made by Dr. Glen Heath, associate professor of optometry, University of Indiana, as a witness before the Subcommittee on Health and Safety of the House Interstate and Foreign_Commerce Committee in its consideration of H.R. 8398 ("a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of an Institute of Child Health and Human Development and for other purposes"). In his remarks Dr. Heath proposed that the following amendments be made in the text of this measure: Page 2, line 8, after the word "health" insert the word "vision." Page 2, line 12, after the word "development" insert the words "including physiological optics." Page 2, line 19, after the word "sciences" insert the words "including physiological optics and development vision." We submit that there is no more need, reason, or justification for specifically mentioning "vision" or "developmental vision" in the description and provisions for establishment of an Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and for establishment of an Institute of General Medical Sciences than there would be a need, reason, or justification for listing any of the other functional faculties or physiological properties of the human body, the proper functioning of which are clearly integral parts of satisfactory child health and human develop ment. Similarly there can be no more justification for specifically citing "physiological optics," one of the basic medical sciences, than for mentioning any of the other basic medical sciences of which anatomy, histology, physiology, pharmacology and physiological chemistry are but a few. On the other hand, we submit that in the phraseology of the bill as now written, and as Dr. Heath himself concedes, there is no conceivable reason to suppose that the Surgeon General, or any agency functioning under his authority, would be inhibited or prevented from consulting representatives of any of the physiological, anatomical, or other scientific disciplines or any other technical services, which in his, or their judgment, might contribute to the problems or projects under consideration. In his statement before your committee, Dr. Heath asserted that unless Congress "makes it crystal clear in the legislative history that the Surgeon General is expected to utilize the services" of optometrists in the work of the proposed Institutes, they will not be used. And he bases this prediction on his observation that other medical agencies in the Department of HEW have seldom found it necessary to avail themselves of "optometric consultants." Perhaps the reasons why the services of optometrists have not generally been found necessary to the work of these medical agencies are that optometry is not a "medical science"; that optometrists are not medical scientists; and that the training and functions of the physician embrace, as an integral part of medicine and the medical sciences those areas in which optometrists are legally permitted to function, We, therefore, respectfully suggest that since these proposals add nothing whatever to the sense, clarity, and purposes of this bill they should be rejected. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. JAECKLE, M.D., Secretary. Hon. KENNETH A. ROBerts, THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROBERTS: In response to your request made during the congressional hearings on H.R. 8398, I am replying concerning the proper title for the proposed new Institute and suggested amendments in the wording of the bill. I do not know whether or not it is permissible for a letter such as this to be included in the record, but if so, I would greatly appreciate your insertion of this. I believe strongly that the original title proposed by the Administration, "National Institute of Child Health and Human Development," is superior to that of "Institute of Child and Maternal Health and Human Development" or "Maternal and Child Health and Human Development" or "Human Development" alone. The following are my reasons: As was clearly emphasized during the testimony, the development of the human and the health and the well-being of the child depend upon many factors other than maternal factors. As a physician who is frequently the last court of appeal for babies with severe abnormalities such as mental retardation, congenital anomalies, mongolism, and the like, I constantly must fight the severe guilt feelings which exist in the mothers of these infants since they have been so frequently thought of in the public mind as the parent responsible for the defect. There is abundant scientific evidence that these babies are the products of abnormal genes in the father as frequently as in the mother. I would hope that the Congress might not continue this concept of transference of blame to the mother by overemphasizing the maternal aspects of the problem. Again, as was clearly brought out in the testimony, the term "child health" does not carry with it any connotation of clinical specialty or other vested interest but refers to the well-being of the child both as regards his past and his future. I believe the term "Institute of Human Development" has relatively little meaning for the American public, and I do not think the full impact of this decision of Congress would be felt if the concept of the well-being of the child were to be neglected. I am in complete agreement with the testimony of the obstetricians that maternal factors are an important aspect of child health, and I believe that this should be recognized by amendment to the body of the bill in the form that I suggested in my testimony, namely, the following wording: "PART E-INSTITUTES OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES "ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT "Sec. 441. The Surgeon General is authorized, with the approval of the Secre tary, to establish in the Public Health Service an institute for the conduct and support of research and training relating to child health, maternal health, and human development, including research and training in the special health problems and requirements of children, mothers, or aged persons and in the basic and clinical sciences relating to the processes of human growth and development." I would hope that it would also be possible to include in the Congressional Record the following statement: As professors in universities, many of us live somewhat in ivory towers and do not have sufficient opportunity to see the contributions made by Members of Congress to the welfare of the Nation. I personally was enormously impressed with the sincerity, knowledge, and goodwill of all the members of the subcommittee who received testimony through the hearings. I think it is unfortunate that more of the citizens of this Nation could not have the experience which my colleagues and I enjoyed during the hearings which you conducted. Sincerely, In re H.R. 8398. Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, ROBERT E. COOKE, M.D., THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am writing to ask your support for the proposed Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Since I am executive secretary of the Committee on Human Development, my opinions are reflected in the memorandum filed with your subcommittee on February 15, 1962, by Dr. Robert Hess, chairman of the Committee on Human Development. I should like, however, to add this personal letter as well. I think it is especially important that the proposed Institute be one which provides support for the behavioral sciences and for research in the social aspects of human development. I think also that the support of research in normal development will be important in the prevention of both mental and physical illness, and that the proposed Institute could well fulfill the function of encouraging that research. Respectfully yours, Mrs. BERNICE NEUGARTEN, Associate Professor and Executive Secretary. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed subject to call of the Chair.) |