DENTAL DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 97, 21 October 1924, Page 8

DENTAL DISPUTE

I Tffi^ENDMENT-BILL r

REPLY TO UNREGISTERED

ASSISTANTS

; The following statement-by the NewZealand Dental Association has been £ent to "The Post" :—..". ■In your issue of Saturday, 18th inst., you published what is intended to.:be a reply to the statement made by the New Zealand Dental Association which appared in your issue; of 15th inst. } .-- ■/■ • "In that statement the' Dental Association charged.^ the , Unregistered Dental Assistants' Association .with the suppression and the distortion of the position in order that the .dental assistants,might' place befbfe'the public a plausible argu--ijtent for-! the ; present ■ Bill. '■ The - fur-; ther statement --of- the unqualified men" which is now referred to serves but to confirm the charge .already made by.the, Djental Association." '' '. "■'" ;;This may -be 'seen from the follow-' ing short-examination 'of' their statements : ■ (1) The unqualified men. claim tßat they have stated that it is-in" the iriterests.jDf ;>the-i public ..health, .that, the c: of the privileges afforded by the present Bill should be granted. A t cursory examination of paragraph (l)r of their-, statement shows that this is aSxjfc so". They., state1 that "the! fact ; that. these men have so long been engaged in full practice must be enough assurance that the; public interest cannot . suffer (sic) the BilL! To do the unqualified . men. justice, ~this is a printer's error. The words should be "cannot suffer by the Bill;"' In the first place, this, is not &" statement that it is in'ithe interests of the~publis>health-that ttie Bill should - be passed. The association emphasises the word ."health," and ' repeats "■ its' charge that the unqualified men have not claimed at1 any time, either, before the Health Committee of the House: or iii the public Press, that it is in the interests of public .health . that ,th:s ■ Bill'should pass. Furthermore, the < statement thffct, the. public, interest cannot suf--: fer under-the'-Bill is^based on the preiiiss that "these men haveso long been engaged in full-practice.;1;^ This .'premiss jsj simply_contrary to fact; no evidence has. at any time been given to show that these can justly claim that they have been in full practice as dental surgpons.- If they had been they \would have been breaking the law; but if : they had, and could 'not pass "the'"moderate" examinations provided for them ■in 1922 and 1923, then it is plainly in the public interest that they should be prevented. from practising any longer. As the Bill stands at^ present, not one of these un-qualified-men need ■ sit for any exam-ipation-.:at all,, but may, continue: to practise-dentistry under the jall<!ged safe- , guard of "supervision" without limit of time. ."' ''..' .": : ■■■''■ ■■{',{2) With reference to paragraph (2) of their plea, .the New I Zealand Dental Association reiterates its statement that -the object of Section 22 of the Act of 1004 was to provide for the needs of the-, students who were then training under registered,-dentists, and that that object ceased to" exist ii^-1911. It is true that the section was-Snot-repealed '-in that, ■ year, and "dreamec! on tlie'Sfatute Book until 1922, when Parliament, realising the abuses which, had grown up.'under the alleged safeguard of' "immediate supervision," abolished the provision. : .In 1922 definite undertakings were given and taken:-by-nil -parites, viz., the then. Minister of Public Health (the Hon. C. J. Pa*), the New Zealand Den-, taLAssocjatioß,i^ud. the unqualified imen,' to the^effect. that-{if tho. request .pf the last-named- for' two examinations* to -test their fitness to. practise .dentistry, were granted, .there"' "would' *IjV no' furthecjipjlifcatipn- to enter the"-dental prci-iessjon-by- any- -other ■ than- the recog-iiisedr-path.of study and. adequate training v afc,±he Dental School .at Driuedin. This ; . action taken by ■ Parliament 'in 1Q22- : wasabased upon-the-interests of public, health: It is now sought to undermine this basis, and, to nullify , the precautions_.effected.,.by ,the legislation of that year.- ■„ ; ' .-'. .„- '. ■ ?It is siSid that tKe"sufficiency, of the supervision in "question rests" with ■ the registered ''.dentists, themselves. The New.; Zealand; Dental Association • do,es not approve,of practice' under supervision. Every "dentist who realises the responsibilities i; of -Jus position,: and'his duty.towards patients; particularly in the light of.modern knowledge", knows that "fIT would"" be hopele*ss"to attempt" ■tp..JalfiL.the,, = conditions- required. . The Pfti.iSS^-JS^ePiM.ed. to..,th.e__best^service tha*^ie»K3«ntist'--himseTF"can-"-personallyi' raider. , ■ . ?5<3) The third statement'.madeVby .the. iinqualifiedvmen is illuminating in show--ing thelerigffi'to which "they are pre-" pared. to,'go:;;/,«They state. '!Evidence, bj witne|sjfi3j;~ including^*- prominentmedical'practitioner, was''given -before,, and evicferitly..._accepted by the Public H-ealthrj^ommittes: • 'that the", examm-. ations'.of 1922 and 1923 were-unreason-ably, difficult, considering the time given i& prepare.'for same." What are the *3j?ts • ';v;.T.h&; -'medical practitioner .ieferred to did not give evidence before the 'CpmmifteaTh&'gave a letter, .which he ijj&rked.;,^ Confidential and without pre]»dice":to onVof-'the' unqualified- men who had-failed, in^fiis examination,- but tfho had been Icoache'd for it, to some extent, by the1' medical f practitioner in question. : Apparently tho medical practitioner nover intended that the letter should: be used before, the Committals in support /of these men's, claims, and the man who produced it admitted ""Sien questioned before the Committee tfiat the medical practitioner 'referredtcrwas not taking sides one way or the other. Can suppression and distortion be carried further? -.-■:. .- ... : "(4) The unqualifad men finally state tliat"their:;app"eal is "an appeal riot for sympathy, but for justice." No just appealeahibebftsed-r iupon an"--incomplete' and distorted statement of the position. 'It is further said, that the Public Health Committee bj; its report, and the House byj-ife-wfe^ TiavS-*- showif their•recogHitton of-the justice of "the appeal. The opponents of- the > 8i11,,-including the' "University authorities,- the ' -New - Zea-' land' Branch" of . the British Medical Association, '. and the . ' New Zealand Dental-Association find it difficult to believe that, in-the stress of Parliamentary business the.'. Health. ,Committee or the -House has had the opportunity to-appreciate properly, the facts of this important matter. This view is supported by the following considerations: The Department of Public Health submitted to the Health Committee an adverse report upon the Bill; the. Chairman of the Health Committee was absent on the occasion when . counsel for. the_ opponents of . the Bill presented their case to the Committee; arid when the Committee:-met : to hear the parties fitijally,. only about half- the. members of the Committee were' present. ■To nleri- '< tion : ono -piece of evidence -atone which . seems _to , have been neglected—Dr. ! PJckerill,- -the'- 6hairman of" the' Exam-' in >lfS7"Kfld"i"the-Health Committee that .at the first examination for. the un.qualified men in 1922. they were1 permitted, to do-their examination in den tir-.surgery upon living mouths. The It-suits. "Wvere "so disastrous -to the patients—bot'ii"'from pairi and bad work' —:tliat'; ab ' the - second examination 'in 1923 dummy models had to bo sub- , stituted ! . ■ ■^ JJpog' m cahii consideration of the

position, -will-justice be done if specjal privileges are granted to these unqualified men to continue in dental work for which they have been adjudged unfitted by the i'est'-.of moderate examinations, or will justice be done if protection is granted to the public by .these men being required to undertake the work of mechanics, which is their propert "function?, The public whose health is at stake may safely be left to decide. ,