- Email: [email protected]
Women in oral surgery
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR J Oral Maxillofac 42:553.
Surg
1984
useful to all practitioners in oral surgery. However, the tacit assumption that all surgeons are men is likely to become increasingly unworkable in the future.
REDEFINITION OF GENERAL ANESTHESIA To the Editor:-Robert Himmelfarb’s letter about redefining pain control techniques in the April 1984 issue was most welcome; I could not agree with him more. Oral surgeons do not give “general anesthesia” in their offices, and it’s time we clarified and redefined what the pain and anxiety control technique that we use is. It is safe and effective, and it offers our patients a wonderful service, but it is misunderstood. With all of the creative minds in our Association, we must be able to come up with a more accurate term than general anesthesia or the now popular “ultra-light” general anesthesia. Some possible choices might include intravenous anesthesia (I use this term), controlled consciousness, balanced anesthesia, controlled awareness, chemamnesia, intravenous amnesia, and intravenous light sleep. We need to tell the Boards of Dental Examiners in the various states that just because patients cannot talk to us throughout their procedures and can’t continuously maintain their airways does not mean they are under “general anesthesia.” We must inform the insurance companies that although the term “general anesthesia” has been used over the years to describe our office intravenous “sleep” technique does not mean that the term cannot be changed to reflect what we actually do. It’s time to strike the term “general anesthesia” from our office vocabularies and our insurance forms.
HENRY E. BENNETT. DDS Davis. California
FUNDING
A HEADQUARTERS
BUILDING
TO rlze Editor:-In
response to the editorial in the April 1984 issue, “The Edifice Complex.” I offer the following: In principle, I am opposed to our Association being in any other business than the provision of support for the practitioners of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whatever the cost, if the membership requires services and their house of delegates approves dues to cover these expenses, these dues must be assessed! I agree that the staff of the AAOMS deserves credit for their unselfish service, as do the fellowship for their participation. I also agree that costs will increase-and that the sale of neckties will not cover the deficit. There is also no need to debate the pros and cons of owning an income-producing building. It is the approach to financing this acquisition with which I disagree. Those of us who have supported AAOMS for many years have created a substantial reserve fund. Let us use these monies to satisfy our edifice complex and then increase dues p.r.n. to meet current needs. In that way we will benefit proportionately from this “investment.”
STEPHEN FEIN, DDS
Daly City, California
WOMEN IN ORAL SURGERY
JOHN M. SACHS,
To the Editor:-1 enjoyed reading the editorial, “Why Gamble With Your Future?” The advice is certainly
DDS, MS Chicago, Illinois
553
Surg
1984
useful to all practitioners in oral surgery. However, the tacit assumption that all surgeons are men is likely to become increasingly unworkable in the future.
REDEFINITION OF GENERAL ANESTHESIA To the Editor:-Robert Himmelfarb’s letter about redefining pain control techniques in the April 1984 issue was most welcome; I could not agree with him more. Oral surgeons do not give “general anesthesia” in their offices, and it’s time we clarified and redefined what the pain and anxiety control technique that we use is. It is safe and effective, and it offers our patients a wonderful service, but it is misunderstood. With all of the creative minds in our Association, we must be able to come up with a more accurate term than general anesthesia or the now popular “ultra-light” general anesthesia. Some possible choices might include intravenous anesthesia (I use this term), controlled consciousness, balanced anesthesia, controlled awareness, chemamnesia, intravenous amnesia, and intravenous light sleep. We need to tell the Boards of Dental Examiners in the various states that just because patients cannot talk to us throughout their procedures and can’t continuously maintain their airways does not mean they are under “general anesthesia.” We must inform the insurance companies that although the term “general anesthesia” has been used over the years to describe our office intravenous “sleep” technique does not mean that the term cannot be changed to reflect what we actually do. It’s time to strike the term “general anesthesia” from our office vocabularies and our insurance forms.
HENRY E. BENNETT. DDS Davis. California
FUNDING
A HEADQUARTERS
BUILDING
TO rlze Editor:-In
response to the editorial in the April 1984 issue, “The Edifice Complex.” I offer the following: In principle, I am opposed to our Association being in any other business than the provision of support for the practitioners of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whatever the cost, if the membership requires services and their house of delegates approves dues to cover these expenses, these dues must be assessed! I agree that the staff of the AAOMS deserves credit for their unselfish service, as do the fellowship for their participation. I also agree that costs will increase-and that the sale of neckties will not cover the deficit. There is also no need to debate the pros and cons of owning an income-producing building. It is the approach to financing this acquisition with which I disagree. Those of us who have supported AAOMS for many years have created a substantial reserve fund. Let us use these monies to satisfy our edifice complex and then increase dues p.r.n. to meet current needs. In that way we will benefit proportionately from this “investment.”
STEPHEN FEIN, DDS
Daly City, California
WOMEN IN ORAL SURGERY
JOHN M. SACHS,
To the Editor:-1 enjoyed reading the editorial, “Why Gamble With Your Future?” The advice is certainly
DDS, MS Chicago, Illinois
553