This is how I feel about this matter. I undertook to the House, after the full discussion we had on the Committee Stage, to consider very carefully whether and in what way Section 48 could be amended to meet the views expressed by certain Senators. On this issue between myself and Senator ffrench O'Carroll and other Senators who raised the question of whether ophthalmic opticians should be entitled to engage in orthoptic treatment, I do not think there should be any compromise.
I made it clear that, so far as I was concerned, since the inclusion of this part of the Bill was a Committee amendment of mine in the Dáil, after due consideration I could not alter my view on it. On the Committee Stage I advanced the reasons why I felt it was proper and fair, in the interests of the public, that this treatment should be carried on. However, I was concerned about the point made by certain Senators that the wording of the last few lines of sub-section (3) might, though not intended, work an abuse inasmuch as advertising might take place. The exclusion in sub-section (3), in relation to the representations which an ophthalmic optician might make, includes any representation that he was capable of or did carry on orthoptic treatment. The purpose of that particular saving was to take orthoptic treatment out of the general prohibition already contained in the Bill on various representations which an optician might make. Having considered the matter carefully, I thought the best way of meeting the points raised in this House was by an amendment to Section 52.
In the next amendment, Senators will notice that I propose to include, if the House agrees, in Section 52 a particular prohibition on advertising which will include advertising of orthoptic treatment. In other words, the board itself may, under Section 52, in addition to a control of any advertising with regard to the prescription of spectacles by a registered optician, also include the control of advertising in relation to orthoptics by a registered optician. I think that represents a very genuine attempt to meet the views expressed by certain Senators with regard to the danger of representations, almost amounting to advertising, by ophthalmic opticians in relation to orthoptics.
I fear I must insist that the liberty to engage in orthoptics should be available to ophthalmic opticians, because, in fact, it represents the present position. The liberty is carefully circumscribed by the provisions in the Bill. It can only be exercised on the written direction of a registered medical practitioner who certifies he has examined the patient and directs a particular treatment. I think, on the main issue, the provisions in the Bill are fair and reasonable, and the later amendment to prevent advertising is an effort to meet the views expressed by Senators on the subsidiary question with regard to making representations in relation to orthoptics.
