Evening star., 1952-05-28
0ptometry Bill
Attacked and
Defended Here
House Unit Hears
Pleas on Proposal
To Tighten Law
By Harold B. Rooers


etrists was strongly attacked and
stoutly defended today before a
House subcommittee.
The bill to tighten standards and
restrict certain advertising was
sponsored and urged by spokeSmen
for District and national optome-
try groups.
Opposition came from the
Washington Publishers Associa-
tian, the National Retail Optical
Association and groups represent
ing stores having optical depart
mentS.
The session before a House Dis
trict subcommittee was unable to
hear all witnesses today.
Strong opposition is expected to-
come from the District Medical
Society.
Advertising Curb Attached.
A spokesman for the optome-
trists defended the proviso for re-
stricting advertising. But such
q restriction was attacked by the
Washington Publishers Associa-
ton.
The first witness, Peyton r.
Evans, executive secretary and
counsel of the publishers associa-
ton. charged that the bill was
designed to police the practice of
optonetry at the expense of the
public.
He charged that the bills pro-
viso restricting the advertising of
prices for optometric service
would be unfair to the public.
Stated simply" Mr.. Evans
said. 1.-The buying public in the
District would be denied the right
or opportunity to compare the
prices of frames, eyeglasses or
any other lenses for the human
eye.
"Who would be the loser?" Mr..
Evans asked. "The buying public.
Who would gain? A few certifi-
cate holders that do work which
is not a learned profession"
Mr.. Evans was closely ques-
toned by Representative Miller,
Republican, of Nebraska, a ply
sician, who supported the bill.
~ Cites Low Price.
On the question Of advertising,
he criticized the practice of some
firms advertising glasses for $7.95.
The legislator suggested it would
be difficult for any one to get an
examination and glasses for that
price. 5
Mr.. Evans countered by saying,
There's a loss leader in every
business. You can't legislate
against the loss leader"
Some provisions of the bill, Mr..
Evans said, would be helpful. But
he objected to what he said was
an attempt of the optometrists to
ask Congress to legislate on what
should be the ethics of their own
business.
Seen as Own Problem.
Doctors, dentists and lawyers
do not advertise, it was pointed
out by both DR.. Miller and Mr..
Evans. These professions have
already handled their own ethical
problem, Mr.. Evans said.
The publishers spokesman also
proposed that the bill be amended
to assure that stores may employ
licensed optometrists in their op-
tical department.
The restriction on advertising
services Of optometrists was among
the provisions of the bill defended
by Henry Hoff, president of the
District Of Columbia Optometric
Association.
1T seems" he told the commit
tee, that for some reason the
newspaper association looks upon
this situation as a personal affront
and as an attempt to regulate the
newspaper. Such was never con-
templated.
Hits Newspapers Stand.
''Its sole purpose is to protect
and defend the people of the Dis
trict Of Columbia from the un-
scrupulous. This seems to be a
purpose to which the newspapers
heartily subscribe. The amend
lnent does not prohibit adver-
tising. but simply elevates its
standards"
The bill restricts the advertising
Of optometric services and devices
sold in connection with their
examination. But it specifically
Stipulates that there would be no
ban on price advertising of spec
tacles and eyeglasses which were
not prepared. manufactured or
sold upon the prescription of a
physician or an optometrist.
The proponents of the bill stress
that the measure raises the stand
ards of the practice of optometry
in the District. They charge that
the present law here was far be.
hind that of other States.
:, Among the standards to be
raised would be requirements for
a license to practice optometry.
The bill increases, the education
requirements for the practice of
optometry from three to five
years, declaressoptometry to be a
profession and prohibits optom-
etrists from engaging in medical
treatment Of the eye.
Board Head Favors It.
Rex. B. Shelley, chairman of the
District Board of Optometry. sup
ported the bill.
He told the subcommittee that
his board was handicapped be-
cause I'VE do not have any real
power to discipline those members
of the profession who use the
license issued to them to prey
upon the public"
Also testifying for the bill was
Joseph M. Babcock Of Portmouth,