UNREGISTERED DENTISTS.

Evening Star, Issue 19062, 3 October 1925, Page 6

UNREGISTERED DENTISTS.

Whxx in doubt, appoint s Commission. The expedient which the late Hon. J. A. Millar called tho “ sheet anchor of the shuffler” has been very popular with tho Reform Government. As if there had not been enough of them before, it was announced by the Prime Minister on almost the last day of tho session that a Commission would be appointed to meet the case of the unregistered dentists whose importunity to be given another chance to show that they are qualified to practise on the people’s teeth has been an embarrassment to tho Government, Tho solioitants have already been favored with two special tests, which they have failed to pass, but they have persuaded some members, including tho Health Minister, that a third should he given them. When a Bill was brought down for that purpose a year ago Sir Maui Pomare voted for it and Mr Coates against it, so that the awkwardness for the Ministry caused by a similar measure being forced to tho front this year can bo imagined. The Bill has been shelved, but we are not sure that the compromise which has been adopted as a substitute for it is not worse than its passage would have been. A Commission will inquire into tho individual cases of the aspirants for full dental honors who have been unable to show their competency. It will take the place, apparently, of a new examination in deciding which, if any, of them are to be registered, and a Bill will bo brought forward next session to give effect to its recommendations. Meanwhile those men who aro breaking the law by practising at the present time in the absence of registration and others who will he encouraged to follow their example are not to be prosecuted. It was implied by the Prime Minister that such immunity would be easily arranged, because the initiative for prosecution was with the Dental Association, representatives of which had agreed to this compromise. Representatives of the association may have preferred the compromise to Sir Maui Pomare’s Bill, but a further explanation will be required from Sir Coates before either its principle or the reasoning on which it is founded can be justified. The Dental Act, which requires very special qualifications to be possessed by those whoso business is now recognised as both an art and science, was passed not for the advantage of the dental profession, but for the safety of the public. By the Act of 1921 it is laid down that “ No person shall, after the 31st day of March, 1922, unless he is registered ns a dentist under the principal Act, practise or hold himself out, whether

directly or by Implication, as practising or as being prepared to practise dentistry,” subject to a fine of £IOO. He can assist in the work room of a registered dentist, but he must not perform operations on a patient’s mouth even under the latter’s supervision. A further clause makes the registered dentist equally responsible with the other for the observance of this law, and equally liable for a breach of it, when it provides “No dentist shall, after the 31sb day of March, 1922, permit any unregistered person to carry on the practice of dentistry in his name or on his behalf, whether on the promises where such dentist is practising or elsewhere,” subject to a penalty of £IOO. The argument that the initiative for prosecution lies, by implication solely, with the Dental Association is surely, in those circumstances, untenable. The object of making laws is that they should be obeyed. The present compromise looks unpleasantly like a conspiracy to flout one between the Government, which should be the first protector of the laws, and a special party.