From an article by Kenneth Alden, Coronet Magazine, December 1963:
"Organized medicine has been campaigning to keep medical men from teaching at schools of optometry, threatening doctors with withdrawal of their hospital privileges."
Here is how the full AMA edict reads:
RESOLVED, that it is unethical for any doctor of medicine to teach in any school or college of optometry, or to lecture to any optometric organization or in any way to impart technical medical knowledge to non-medical practitioners.
See what your colleagues are thinking on OptometricPhysician® Blog.
The AMA adopted AMA Resolution 77 in June 1955.
Alden concludes, "Discrimination against optometrists is blatant and rampant. . . ."
The book, The Myopia Myth, by Donald S. Rehm (1981), provides even greater insight into that period. Rehm writes:
In addition to this boycott of optometry, efforts were made by the AMA to make the public believe that only medical doctors could examine eyes properly.
Furthermore, ophthalmologists were not even allowed to hire optometrists to work for them, unless their true identity as optometrists was not revealed to the public.
These resolutions resulted in a $90 million [about $540 million today] lawsuit brought against the AMA and eight Chicago ophthalmologists on July 24, 1964, charging them with violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit was brought by a group of optometrists, among them the principal plaintiff was Cyrus Bass of Chicago.
You might think that 50 years would bring additional wisdom and better understanding. Think again, while you consider the following resolutions considered at the 2008 AMA meeting. AMA Resolution 303 was proposed by the Illinois Delegation and primarily aimed at nursing:
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association adopt that the title 'Doctor,' in a medical setting, apply only to physicians licensed to practice medicine in all its branches, dentists and podiatrists; and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA adopt policy that the title 'Resident' apply only to individuals enrolled in physician, dentist or podiatrist training programs; and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA adopt policy that the title 'Residency' apply only to physician, dentist or podiatrist training programs; and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA serve to protect, through legislation, the titles 'Doctor,' 'Resident' and 'Residency.'
After strong opposition from numerous groups, Resolution 303 ultimately evolved into the slightly more palatable resolution 232, which calls for legislation requiring healthcare professionals to "clearly and accurately identify to patients their qualifications and degree(s)" and making it a felony to "misrepresent one's self as a physician."
I guess it could have been worse. This one was for the lawyers: AMA Resolution 202 introduced by J. Chris Hawk, III, MD, from South Carolina, was truly disturbing:
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association notify physicians that, except in emergencies and except as otherwise required by law or other professional regulation, it is not unethical to refuse care to plaintiffs' attorneys and their spouses.
Perhaps these words of wisdom from Rodney King will help the AMA as they consider next year's agenda:
People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?
(From a TV interview of Rodney King, May 1, 1992.)
Thanks to Dr. Jim Reed of Chattanooga, TN, for generously sharing several important historical documents with me.
Click to expand...