Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Dental Tribune United Kingdom Edition

while trying to take X-rays, and also that he had been rude to her when she had objected. She described leaving the appoint- ment feeling ‘battered emotion- ally and in more pain’. Despite a response from the dentist, the patient was dissatisfied with this and took the matter further to the healthcare commission who amongst many things rec- ommended that the dentist pay her £500 compensation for the feelings of shock and offence she had suffered. Now I’m not suggesting that all the facts of this case are known, but what sort of world are we living in when a dentist can have his reputation denigrated in the court of pub- lic opinion, an intentional at- tempt to damage his livelihood and be labelled by the media as ‘Britain’s rudest dentist’ all for attempting to check his pa- tient for dental disease? At what point does someone need to step in and suggest to the patient that they may be overreacting? In actual fact it is more than likely that the dentist didn’t ac- tually force her into enduring what the patient had coined ‘emotional battering’ and that clinically his actions were not negligent, so why do the regula- tors feel that monetary compen- sation of £500 is needed? I’m not saying that the patient’s grief is irrelevant, but does the punish- ment really match the crime? In my opinion there cer- tainly is a need for regulation here, but not in favour of the ever increasing presumption that patients are always right and dentists are always wrong. In the aforementioned case the regulators really need to con- sider his other patients who may be very happy with his manner and are now subject to unnecessary doubt regarding his professionalism. I have no doubt that the patient felt upset at the end of her treatment, but unless we apply the standard of common sense (which I ac- cept is relatively uncommon), it is the government and dentists that end up worse off. I’m not sure how much this whole fiasco has actu- ally cost the taxpayer, but if it that money was put to- wards dental treatment costs, just think of how many pa- tients would be better off! Implementing any regulation without justifying its cost and benefit to patients not only runs the risk of being bad regulation, but is simply no longer sus- tainable. Many trades support the business of dentistry and whilst dentists in good faith have purchased equipment such as vacuum sterilisers, if it is proved that many of the items purchased are actually not needed, the next wonder prod- uct that comes out may lead to a situation similar to that of the boy who cried wolf. I commend the Scottish gov- ernment for their application of common sense. Of course good regulation should help to pro- tect patient’s interests: this is a given principle. But this prin- ciple should also be applied fairly across the board; for those dentists who are found in breach of any regulation, surely the punishment should match the crime. DT Dentisis can now have their reputation torn to tatters in the court of public opinion 15CommentSeptember 5-11, 2011United Kingdom Edition FREE5*accommodation,SEMINARS,factoryTOUR,EXCURSIONS&CULTURALeventswithordersofSILVER,GOLD&PLATINUMpackages.Seewww.diouk.com/DEALS Date Web Venue Contact us DIO HQ & Paradise Hotel (Busan Beach, South Korea) Sep. 26th to 28th 2011 0845 123 3996 info@DIOUK.com www.DIOUK.com/DEALS www.dioimplant.co.uk Sharing the most recent advances in global implant dentistry Verifiable CPD 5* Accommodation International Speakers Factory Tour & Excursions About the author Neel Kothari qualified as a den- tist from Bristol University Dental School in 2005, and currently works in Sawston, Cam- bridge as a princi- pal dentist at High Street Dental Prac- tice. He has com- pleted a year-long postgraduate certifi- cate in implantology and is currently undertaking the Diploma in Implantol- ogy at UCL’s Eastman Dental Institute.