asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is intended to extend the optical benefit scheme for sight testing to ophthalmic opticians; and, if so, if he considers it advisable to do so without ensuring that such cases are recommended for this purpose by registered medical practitioners.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Optical Benefit Scheme.
4.
Under the Opticians Act, 1956, registered ophthalmic opticians may prescribe spectacles and I have agreed to permit them to sight-test insured persons for the purpose of the Optical Benefit Scheme. Insured persons now have a choice in selecting either ophthalmic surgeons or ophthalmic opticians for sight-testing.
In accordance with the provisions of the Opticians Act, 1956, an ophthalmic optician is precluded from treating any disease of the eye or administering drugs for that purpose. He is permitted, however, to carry out orthoptic treatment for any person provided that the treatment is directed in writing by a registered medical practitioner who has examined such person.
There is no provision in the Opticians Act, 1956, requiring a prior recommendation by a registered medical practitioner in the case of a person attending an ophthalmic optician for sight-test and I see no reason to introduce such a condition in respect of insured persons only.
Does the Minister appreciate the fact that in cases of coronary refraction, very often there is an underlying disease responsible for it? In the light of these circumstances, does he not consider it desirable that, before these cases go to an ophthalmic optician, at least they should be examined by a qualified practitioner?
I do not propose to restrict the rights which have been given by an Act of this House to those who are described as ophthalmic opticians.
I am not asking the Minister to restrict their rights. I am asking him to protect the public.
No. The Deputy will not get away with that. He is definitely asking me to create a monopoly in favour of a certain privileged class, and I will not do it.
I am asking the Minister to protect people having their eyes examined, that they may not be referred to an ophthalmic optician until they have been examined by a duly qualified medical practitioner.
I do not recall that the Deputy made that point when the Opticians Act was going through the House.
He definitely did.
The common wisdom of the House is against him.