REGISTRATION OF DENTISTS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 16 October 1924, Page 11

REGISTRATION OF DENTISTS.

HAWERA RESIDENT CONVICTED. PRACTISING WITHOUT REGISTRATION. A conviction was entered against a local clentist. at the Hawera Magistrate’s Court to-day on a charge, of practising as a dentist without being registered. Sergeant Henry said that under the Dentists Amendment Act of 1921 all dentists were required to he registered. Defendant was a returned soldier who, upon receiving his discharge, had gone to Tauranga and had worked for his brother, who was practicing as a dentist. He there gained experience as a dental mechanic, and after returning to Hawera did dental work for various people-, chiefly his personal friends. Prior to 1921 the New Zealand Dentists’ Association became aware of what defendant was doing, and he was written to and warned’ No warning had been given since 1921, and. defendant had not been aware of the 'passing of the amending Act. Mr E. C. Spratt, for defendant, said that Poole had only been doing mending and modelling work; lie had been doing nothing in the way of teeth extraction or dental operation, lie was known as a good dental mechanic, and there was no doubt that he could obtain a position with aiiy. registered dentist and do the same work*. However. the position was that lie could not do it without being registered, and i before he could become registered he had to pass the necessary examinations. Under the Act a person could do dental work so long as the work did not involve personal attention. In July of 1920 an Act was passed in England which provided for the registration of all dentists, and in February, 1921, the same provisions were passed word for word in New Zealand. “I don’t know how they managed it,” said Mr Spratt, “but they did.” Mr Spratt said that some time ago defendant had suffered an accident to his hand, and dental work was all he was able to do. Air Q’Dea, for the New . Zealand Dental Association, said it was not fair to those who had spent so much time and money in becoming qualified that an unqualified man should be allowed to practise. Defendant might he just as good as a qualified man, hut in such cases hov r were the public to know. The Dental Association was not going to be vindictive so long as it was known that such a practice could not go on. The proper thing for defendant to do was to get work with a qualified dentist.

The Justies, Messrs C. O. Ekdahl and E. Dixon, viewed defendant’s case leniently, and entered a conviction, with court costs 7s.