- Email: [email protected]
Dental education
Volume 95 Number I
Letters to the editor
it.” Having overlooked such data, and believing that British orthodontics was still enjoying the growth in demand it had seen in the 196Os, it was perhaps not unreasonable that the committee would wish to explore those areas in which, as Dr. Vig mentions, we are all too vulnerable. Our recent experiences in the U.K. therefore serve only to reinforce the advice given by Dr. Vig. We should as a specialty undertake objective and continuing reappraisals of our work not only to enable us to better serve the needs of our patients but also to protect our specialty from less charitable estimates of its worth made by hostile public bodies. C. D. Stephens, MDS, FDS, M. Orth. Bristol, United Kingdom REFERENCES 1. Parker CD. Orthodontics in the general dental services (a review of its aims, methods and achievements). Br J Orthod 1986;13:12534. 2. Todd JE, Dodd T. Children’s dental health in the United Kingdom 1983. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1985.
Dental education< To the Editor:
The American Dental Association has petitioned the Federal Trade Commission for clarification of the consent order entered in the ADA-FTC advertising case. This letter is in support of that petition. I am in opposition to the FTC attempting to force the American Dental Association to adapt its ethical provisions to meet the FTC’s philosophy. The Association has defined sound ethical criteria to establish that it is not ethical for a general dentist to advertise or announce to the public in a manner that has been traditionally reserved for the dental specialist, and thus indicate that a general dentist is a specialist. I am president and dean of the Baylor College of
85
Dentistry in Dallas, Texas, and have responsibilities for dental programs, general and specialty. It has been long recognized that educational programs extending beyond the basic dental education program provide extensive training in specialty areas only introduced at the basic level. As in many fields, these programs are equivalent to advanced graduate work lasting 2 or more years and are designed to expand the knowledge base and provide special clinical skills. In addition to the organized advanced specialty programs, there are extensive offerings in the area of continuing education. Continuing education programs typically consist of single courses directed toward a specific subject or technique. Any dentist, general practitioner, or specialist may enroll in continuing education courses, but the completion of one or many will not serve to produce the broad specialty training achieved through the organized specialty programs. It is obvious that any advertisement suggesting that treatment or services are available at a specialist level should also indicate a level of training commensurate with the services offered. If a general practitioner is allowed to limit practice to a specific area of expertise, there would be no way for the public to distinguish between the individual who has completed an advanced specialty program and the one who has taken only one continuing education technique course. The educational standards established and achieved through the accreditation process of the American Dental Association are agreed on by the specialty community, the practicing profession, dental educators, and other appropriate communities of interest. The accqmplishments and training achieved through specialty programs must not be confused with the limited training modes of continuing education, which do not possess the stringent accreditation standards. The rigorous standards of the specialty programs and their oversight by the dental schools and accreditation process guarantee a firm level of quality of treatment and care. The public has a need and right to be able to determine those who have completed an advanced specialty program and those who have not. Richard E. Bradley, DDS, MS Dallas, Texas
Letters to the editor
it.” Having overlooked such data, and believing that British orthodontics was still enjoying the growth in demand it had seen in the 196Os, it was perhaps not unreasonable that the committee would wish to explore those areas in which, as Dr. Vig mentions, we are all too vulnerable. Our recent experiences in the U.K. therefore serve only to reinforce the advice given by Dr. Vig. We should as a specialty undertake objective and continuing reappraisals of our work not only to enable us to better serve the needs of our patients but also to protect our specialty from less charitable estimates of its worth made by hostile public bodies. C. D. Stephens, MDS, FDS, M. Orth. Bristol, United Kingdom REFERENCES 1. Parker CD. Orthodontics in the general dental services (a review of its aims, methods and achievements). Br J Orthod 1986;13:12534. 2. Todd JE, Dodd T. Children’s dental health in the United Kingdom 1983. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1985.
Dental education< To the Editor:
The American Dental Association has petitioned the Federal Trade Commission for clarification of the consent order entered in the ADA-FTC advertising case. This letter is in support of that petition. I am in opposition to the FTC attempting to force the American Dental Association to adapt its ethical provisions to meet the FTC’s philosophy. The Association has defined sound ethical criteria to establish that it is not ethical for a general dentist to advertise or announce to the public in a manner that has been traditionally reserved for the dental specialist, and thus indicate that a general dentist is a specialist. I am president and dean of the Baylor College of
85
Dentistry in Dallas, Texas, and have responsibilities for dental programs, general and specialty. It has been long recognized that educational programs extending beyond the basic dental education program provide extensive training in specialty areas only introduced at the basic level. As in many fields, these programs are equivalent to advanced graduate work lasting 2 or more years and are designed to expand the knowledge base and provide special clinical skills. In addition to the organized advanced specialty programs, there are extensive offerings in the area of continuing education. Continuing education programs typically consist of single courses directed toward a specific subject or technique. Any dentist, general practitioner, or specialist may enroll in continuing education courses, but the completion of one or many will not serve to produce the broad specialty training achieved through the organized specialty programs. It is obvious that any advertisement suggesting that treatment or services are available at a specialist level should also indicate a level of training commensurate with the services offered. If a general practitioner is allowed to limit practice to a specific area of expertise, there would be no way for the public to distinguish between the individual who has completed an advanced specialty program and the one who has taken only one continuing education technique course. The educational standards established and achieved through the accreditation process of the American Dental Association are agreed on by the specialty community, the practicing profession, dental educators, and other appropriate communities of interest. The accqmplishments and training achieved through specialty programs must not be confused with the limited training modes of continuing education, which do not possess the stringent accreditation standards. The rigorous standards of the specialty programs and their oversight by the dental schools and accreditation process guarantee a firm level of quality of treatment and care. The public has a need and right to be able to determine those who have completed an advanced specialty program and those who have not. Richard E. Bradley, DDS, MS Dallas, Texas