DENTAL SCHOOL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19205, 23 June 1924, Page 2

DENTAL SCHOOL.

HOSTILE CRITICISM EXAMINED.

DIGNIFIED AND EFFECTIVE REPLY. UNIVERSITY! COUNCIL’S EMPHATIC PROTEST. It will he remembered that the report of the Special Committee on the Dental School, made public last January, contained some extraordinary comments and criticisms on the • ’• of the school. A reply was made a ho time by the Dean of the Dental Faculty and by the University Council, but, the council has now gone into the matter comprehensively and forwarded through the registrar (Mr H. Chapman) the following letter to the Hon. C. J. Parr, Minister of Education. It disposes in the most complete manner of several damaging statements to which wide publicity was given as emanating from the committee:— DENTAL SCHOOL. Juno 19, 1924. The Hon. .the Minister of Education. Dear Sir, —Referring to the report of the committee on the Dental School and the evidence placed before the committee as forwarded by you, I have already replied to the report in a communication dated February 26, forwarding therewith a comprehensive reply by the Dean of the Dental Faculty which is endorsed by the council : and in view of Ihe fact that provision is now being made for the building of a now school in Dunedin, there will be no need to traverse the report as full}’ as might otherwise have been necessary There are, however, certain statements in tile report to which further reference must be made in the light of the evidence received from you since my communication of February 25. The council regrets to have to draw your attention to the fact that certain of the committee’s findings ar° quite unsupported by the evidence, a perusal of which confirms the view of which the council was apprehensive, tha-t the committee. in coming to their conclusions, were influenced by representations other than those placed . before them as a committee, and their report is suggestive cf a desire to reflect upon the school or the Dean without any strict regard for the evidence placed before them. I.et me ; draw your attention more specifically to the conclusions of tho committee under the following heads:— I.—EFFICIENCY. Tho report states: “Conclusive evidence was placed before the committee to show that, the graduates have not received and tho students are not receiving sufficient training in either operative or mechanical dentistry.” This statement, which has received wide publicity, constitutes a very grave reflection upon the school as at. present conducted, and also upon the graduates. Not only is there no such conclusive evidence, but there is no such evidence as ought reasonably and in fairness to the University to have been obtained in support of so sweeping and condemnatory a. statement,. Tlio only evidence bearing on the question of efficiency i s the ex parte testimony of two witnesses. r lhe first of these witnesses is Mr Davies, who was asked to express his opinion on the following statement by the chairman: —“Representations have been made to members of tho committee that students who nave qualified lately aro incompetent and do not shov' evidence that their training is up to a standard that may reasonably be expected.” That statement is an admission by _ tho chairman that members of (he .committee were taking cognisance of represntations made privately to them, for no such representations had been made to the committee by any witness. Mr Davies's replies, taken as a whole, clearly indicate that his view may be, summarised in his first statemenl—viz., that the school cannot, turn out men properly under the conditions under which the students aro working. It has been to remedy these conditions by providing a new and up-to-date building that the council has been agitating for the past four years. Further, the Dean admits that the time for the teaching of both operative and mechanical dentistry might with advantage be lengthened, and that this is ihe real object of the lengthening cf the course proposed by the recent, alterations in the regulations of the General Medical , Council.

The only other witness who refers to tho question of efficiency is Mr Glecson, who gave evidence in Auckland subsequent to tho taking of evidence in Dunedin. Mr Glceson’s evidence is largely discounted by the fact that it is incorrect in important particulars. Ho is evidently imperfectly informed as to the work done at the Dental School. The following are extracts from the reply of tho Dean and Professor Bell to Mir 'Glceson’s evidence: Dr Pickerill’s Reply.

“1. ‘Only one method of root treatment is taught. - ’ Incorrect. Several methods are taught. Last year, for instance, wo were adopting the Dreyor method of defatting organisms in situ prior to the use of vaccines for tho treatment of root infection.

“2. Cocain 5 per rent, solution is used hero as a routine local anesthetic. Novocain is no safer because it has to be used in four times the strength, and it is very much more expensive. Novocain causes a dermatitis of the operators] hands which cocain does not. Novocain is always used, however, in nerve blocking operations. “3. There has always been a demonstrator of mechanical dentistry; in addition, Professor Bell spends at. least half his time demonstrating methods of mechanical dentistry to students. “4. The use of sodium dioxide and carbolic acid for root canal treatment is as old ns the hills, I was taught it as a student. But sodium dioxide is a very caustic drug to allow students to use in a routine fashion in children’s months, and I have seen unfortunate accidents happen therefrom. Students are, however, taught both these methods, ’’ DR BELL’S REPLY. “In "reply to Mr Glceson’s remarks before ‘The Dental I beg to state that our students are taught all the approved modern methods of root treatment. Those which (hey adopt as ‘route’ possess world-wide recognition and have been recognised by the best authorities as giving tho best results. In the hands of students the free use of drugs like carbolic acid and Sodium dioxide is fraught with considerable dangers, for sitch as which I would not care to be responsible. Some clinical methods to which Mr Glceson refers are still improved, others are the subject of time-worn controversies. “As regards mechanical dentistry, our students are taught the latest scientific methods; but it is well known that a student having had no previous experience has insufficient time to perfect himself in tho practical work while studying for a degree. So far as I know the Dental School has never been without a demonstrator in mechanical dentistry.’’ It is remarkable that not a single oucsiion was put to the Dean of the Faculty on the subject of the efficiency of the school, nor was any question put to him from which it might have been inferred that the school’s efficiency' was being called in question. The. council received no intimation that tho committee were to report on this aspect of the question ; it had neither the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses nor of tendering evidence which would have been readily forthcoming in defence of tho school. In ray letter of February 26 I sent a number of reports from the employers of our graduates bearing valuable and strong testimony to tho efficiency of the latter. The. unfairness of tho procedure adopted in this case must appeal to yourself in view of your knowledge of the procedure in our courts of justice. 11.- -CLINICAL MATERIAL.

Right through tho report there are repeated references to lack of clinical material in Dunedin; the committee go so far as to estimate the alleged inefficiency of the school ns duo to “lack of clinical material (30 per cent, deficiency).” This conclusion is also unsubstantiated by the evidence placed before the committee. The following question was put by the chairman to Mr Davies: “Evidence has been tendered ns that there is not saifficient (finical material in Dunedin. Dr Pickerill says plenty. What is your opinion with regard to this?”

Onco again tho statement, by tho chairman that evidence had been tendered as to the insufficiency of clinical material is an admission that, tho committee wore talcing cognisance of representations other than those submitted to thorn as a committee, for there is no record of any such evidence having been given by any witness prior to Mr Davies. Tho committee reiectod the evidence of tho Dean that, there had been no lack of clinical material, and incorrectly adopted in their report a statement, by Mr Davies —or ib may be more correct to say adopted just so much of Mr Davies’ evidence as appeared to confirm the evidence of insufficiency of material, which (he chairman declared had already been tendered. Mr Davies said that the Students’

Association had “approached the University Council asking that the Dental Hospital be thrown open to. all and sundry because of lack of clinical material of the kind wanted.” Ho further adds: “The committee of our branch stated to the University Council that this would encroach upon our private practices. . . . VVe do not object to the students of the university being allowed to get teeth attended to at the Dental School/’ The committee, in embodying this evidence in their report, ■stated: “It is noteworthy that as shown m the evidence the dental students themselves approached the Otago University Council last year asking for more clinical material, and that the local Dental Association asked that the school should, not encroach upon their patients.” It will be observed that the committee omit from their report the words “of the kind wanted” in their reference to the admission of students as patients to the Dental Hospital. These omissions are very significant as both matters have an intimate bearing on the supply of clinical material. The request of the students was for more of the kind of clinical material which impecunious patients could not supply. The question related to the quality and not the quantity of clinical material. Patients who attend the Dental Hospital cannot afford to pay for “gold and precious metals for crown and bridge work.” In this respect the climax, material available in Auckland would be in just the same position as that in Dunedin. The council has been credibly informed that even in Melbourne, with its population of over half a million and with a Dental School no larger than that of Dunedin, the same difficulty as to the lack of clinical material of the kind referred to is experienced. This difficulty has been almost entirely remedied here by the admission of students ami nurses as patients at the Dental Hospital, with the concurrence of the Dental Association. The committee avoided am' reference to the admission of students, and it may be mentioned that in view of the largo number of students at the Otago University the kind of clinical material referred to is as amply provided for at Dunedin as it would be at Auckland. HI, —TRANSFER OF SCHOOL. The majority of the committee recommend the “transfer of the school bodily from Dunedin to Auckland.” this conclusion no loss than the others already mentioned will be found to be unsupported bv the evidence. The contention that such transfer is desirable on the ground of greater facilities in respect of clinical material has already been disposed of. Ino other arguments, however, will bo found to bo equally inconclusive. The Auckland evidence is singularly indefinite as to details and lacking m adequate information as to what is required to provide a properly equipped, DentaScliool, and many of the arguments adduced are ill-considered. The statement of the extent to which Auckland is contributing to the support of special schools in Dunedin wholly ignores the large contributions to the Otago University from endowments, from the Church Board, and from private benefactions. f lhe committee discountenance the proposal to provide a certificate of proficiency course in Auckland. Their report shows that they hao before them (be regulations of the General Medical Council, hut where these regulations appear to toll against the school remaining at Dunedin they are quoted, ana where they tell against the transfer to Auckland they are ignored Thus we are told; “The hospital at Dunedin must be already overtaxed with medical students for the number of patients, without dental students, who as part of their course should, oven for the L.D.S. according to the G.M.C. regulations:— “1. Attend a course in the practice ot a recognised general hospital of not less than 80 beds with certified instruction in clinical medicine and clinical surgery. “2. Act as medical clinical clerks at nos--15 “3. Act as surgical dressers at hospital for three months. , . . , “4. Present certificates of clinical instruction in venereal diseases.” By that quotation as well as other references to these regulations in their report Ihe committee profess familiarity with the GM C regulations, and urge the necessity of compliance with these regulations for the school in Dunedin for the purpose of the degree, but they make no reference to that portion of the regulations which insists that the course of Rental instruction in medical subjects shall be taken at a recognised Medical School. ■\ccording to the majority of the-com-mittee. if the school is to remain in Dunedin the regulations of the G.M.C. must be complied with, but apparently the opinion cf the some members of the committee comoliance with .these regulations will not be necessary if the school is to be located in Auckland; for having discountenanced the suggestion of a C.O.P. course in Auckland and declared for a degree .course there they still recommend the transfer of the school to Auckland, notwithstanding that the G-M-G. regulations for the degree cannot be complied with in Attakbnd until there is a recognised Medical School there. Until that time cornea the degree will net be recognised, as it is at present, in ho United Kingdom and throughout . the British Empire. The report is significantly silent on that aspect of the quesII What has boon said above, taken in conjunction with my letter to you of February 26 last, fully bears out the assertion that semo of the committee’s conclusions aro unwarranted, unjust, and unsupported by the evidence, snbmittced to them. I ani directed in addition to point out that, in (he opinion of the council, the constitution of the committee was unsuitable to deal with the efficiency of the Dental School and the proposed transfer to Auckland. V committee advising on such important questions should have comprised at least one member who had himself undergone Tini versify training in dentistry. lurther, the council records its emphatic protest against the procedure adopted in this investigation.