Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-13
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page Nine.)

House.
Mr.. BEYER of Portland: Mr. Speak
er: TO this bill in general I have no
objection. The committee have I'M
doubtedly devoted a great deal of care
to this matter, and this matter is also
a matter Of the public health and pub
lie protection. Personally I have had
the good fortune to study a good deal
in regard to optics and more especially
in it's application to the human eye
in a good many forms for several years.
Now there have been certain irnputa-
tions MADE as to the Jealousy of the
medical profession. This matter, as the
gentleman from Yarmouth has pointed
out, is matter of protection to the
public. and the examinations for ad-
mission to this practice are what espe-
cially interest Inc. An Amendment has
been offered here which l think would
improve the standard Of the examina-
ton for admission to the practice Of
optometry. If the change in the per-
sonnet of the board will practically
prevent a qualified man from prac-
ticing optometry, then we do not want
the amendment. If the amendment Will
raise the standard of examination,
making the examination more search
ing, Will select only the best ones from
the aspirants for admission to this de-
gree, then | say the amendment Will
benefit the public. Now it is up to you
to decide this question. whether an ex-
animation conducted by three doctors
and TWO optometrists will be more fair,
more searching, more calculated to pro-
tect the public against mistakes and
errors which might be fatal. than a
board under the control of this bust
ness of optOmetry. Another question is
whether a rreponderancc of those en-
gagged in the practice Of medicine on
the board will De Ubiquitous, whether
& doctors sense Of right and wrong is
abolished when he is trying to protect
his profession or rot. So | wish you
would look at the matter with this in
View. whether this change in the per
sonnet OF the board will result in bet
ter opticians. or whether the doctors
will be so prejudiced as to prevent Il
properly qualified man from getting
on this board. If you agree that the
examinations will be better and that
the doctors will be fair enough so as
not to render the bill nugatory l hope
the amendment will be adopted.
Mr.. TIBBETTS of Orrington: Ny
Speaker: | hardly see how this pro-
fcssion OF opt )metry can be divorced
entirely from the profession of rned-
cine. The gentleman from Houlton
said il was an entirely distinct and
separate matter. that the physicians
had nothing to do with it. If that is
the case tEcn strike the physicians Off
from the board altogether. Another
thing. perhaps rot generally under
stood. is that in this matter of optome-
try TO orton'ctrlst or oculist can prop
crly examine ard diagnose the cond-
tions of the eye without using medi-
cine: they must use it in order prop
crly to examine the eye. 1t also seems
very hard for Some gentlemen to realize
that physicians as d body have the
good of the public at heart and are
not actuated by selfish or jealous mo
tves whenever they PROFOUND anything
that they think would be for the add
Nanc"mcnt of the public good; it seems
I" be accepted as foregona conclu-
sion that they do it from a selfish mo-
tive. | believe that the proposed board
of three physicians. or three oculists
or opticians who have received the de-
gree of doctor of medicine will make
it better for the public and give the
public better protection and be the
means OF keeping out of this profess
son Il number of people who are not
fitted to be in it. That might be pass
cd upon by the board of optometry
and the public be safeguar,led by hav-
ing on that board three physicians.
Mr.. DAVIES of Yarmouth: Mr.. Speak
err it seems to me that the doctors or
physicians are always travelling in Indian
file, one, right behind the other. and the
one who goes behind the first one is very
careful not to enlarge the footprints of
the gentleman who preceded him Naugh-
teri but the House will permit me to
remind it of the question at issue so as
to see Just how far we have gone aficld
from the original question. ! should like
to read the provision as suggested by the
bill establishing this board: Said board
shall consist of five MEMBERS three of
whom shall have been resident opticians.
engaged in the actual practice of optom-
ctry in the State of Maine for a period
of five years prior to their appointments;
one an oculist who in like manner has
been engaged in the practice of his pro-
iession for five years prior to his APP
pointment: and one a physician in actual
practice" 1t seems to me. considering
the scope of what this board is intended
to do. that that would be "A perfectly fair
board to pass upon the qualifications of
the gentlemen who beside to practice
this science or this profession.
Mr.. WELD: I hope there is not ply
stefan in the State of Maine who would
serve upon that board
Mr. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Speaker I
rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. MONTGOMERY: That the gentle
man from Old Town has spoken twice to
the question
The SPEAKER The gentleman from
Old Town has proceeded by unanimous
MIR. WING OF Kingfield: Mr.. Speaker.
| move the previous question.
The motion was agreed to.
The question being. shall the main
question be now put?
1t was agreed to.
The question being on the adoption of
the amendment