RIGHT TO PRACTISE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1926, Page 13

RIGHT TO PRACTISE

UNREGISTERED DENTISTS

OPENING OF ROYAL COMMISSION

During the war many dentists in training were debarred from sitting for their examinations, and subsequently an effort was made to introduce legislation permitting them to sit and practise, but opposition by the Dental Association, on the ground that the door was being opened too wide, was set up, and at the' request of the applicants a Royal Commission was appointed to consider each applicant on his merits. The Commission commenced its sittings in N the Parliamentary Library ■buildings yesterday. Mr. H. D. Acland is Commissioner. Mr. D. S. Smith and Mr. Denniston (honorary secretary of the New Zealand Dental Association) appeared on behalf of the association; Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for a number of unregistered dentists and the Unregistered Dentists' Association; Mr. George Toogood appeared on behal? of Fritz F. W. J. Castendyk; Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for W. J. Simpson; Mr. J. Meltzer appeared for Emanuel Cohen; Mr. A. M. Cousins appeared for Charles Savilo Lumley. The chairman said he was anxious to give assistance in cases of hardship, but would give no indications for publication: until his report. He proposed to it here to-day', Thursday, and Friday, to leave for Auckland on Saturday and sit there on Monday, leaving Auckland on Tuesday, 3rd prox., and returning to Wellington again on- 4th prox., and then leaving for Dunedin, where the Commission would sit on the Friday. "What is the attitude of the Dental Association towards applicants already accepted by the Director-General of Health?" asked Mr. Acland. Mr. Smith: "We would like to have the applicant's files submitted to us, as we think that some of these men have not the experience justifying them te registration." Mr. O'Leary referred to the order papers which cited "and any person who has satisfied the Director-General in 1922." This had alreadybeen done by applicants. Did the Dental Association wish the Commission to embark en a fresh inquiry as to whether the evidence before the Direetor-Gon-eral was satisfactory? The Chairman: "That is what they are apparently asking for." Mr. Smith: "The schedule indicates the class' of applicant. If we can show that the reasons which bring him into that class were misrepresented to the DirectorrGeneral of Health, surely that is a matter that should be gone into, as it has to do with the merits of the man in question." The Commissioner: "If you say that such evidence is incorrect, you will have to call evidence, and I will have to.decide whether the matter be included or not." Mr. O'Leary (to Mr. Smith): "Do you consider it does not matter whether the necessary term has been served, and that you will still have to ca)l evidence of qualification? ■' Mr. Smith: "Certainly." Mr. O'Leary: "Irrespective of whether he has practised dentistry for 4 or 20 years you want to call evidence that he is still incapable or unqualified?" Mr. Smith: "That goes into the question of individual merit,' which we think it our duty to discuss in some of these cases."

Mr. Smith said that the Commission was set up to indicate which men were unable to sit at the previous examination, returned soldiers, and cases of that kind. "But men who have sat and failed1 are out of tho scope of this Commission, I think, and have no individual'merits in the dental profession at all. The Government intended to close the matter finally in 1921-22, and only cases of hardship should lie reopened." Mr. O'Leary said it would appear that tho Dental Association was running the Commission. "The association says that all these men should be refused any further examination. What is the use of including them in the Commission? I submit that the interpretation of the Commission is that a man who previously satisfied the Direc-tor-General of Health and sat for examination is entitled to a further examination. The individual merits question should refer only, to dentistry." The Commissioner: "What does Mr. Smith mean by general merits?" Mr. Smith: "I think it includes character." The Commissioner: "If the question of character is raised it will be taken |in camera and decided by myself, but I think.that what is meant to investivate is individual merits in regard to dentistry." THE EVIDENCE COMMENCED. Mr. <O'Leary's unregistered dental clients Srere first dealt with. Stanley John Cook, aged 37, stated that on 24th March, 1922, he was accepted under the Act, and sat for examinations in 1522----23, failing in both. He had difficulty in getting some books for the first examination, coaching facilities were poor, and Ms time was limited by work, and in the . second examination his health was on the verge of a breakdown. Some of the questions asked on oral examination were unreasonable, like the difference, between cow's milk and human's milk, and he was asked a question regarding X-ray, none of which work he had done, and he was asked to give a diagnosis from plaister models in' three minutes that would have taken an expert specialist a month from the human body. If not allowed to bo re-examined his future would be that of a mere mechanic. Cross-examined, tho applicant said ho had passed the sixth standard, and had three years at Hawera High School, but did not sit for matric. He started dentistry in 1906, and at 17i years he had patients under gas, some under supervision and some not. Ho had been with Mr. Struthers for 13 years, and had taken practically every impression, doing simplo work in surgery.