- Email: [email protected]
Dentistry and medicine
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
society should take a strong stand against the foundation’s intentions and withhold any support. The dupli cation of efforts can in no way serve the best interest of the public or our profession. LEON HERSCHFUS. DDS DETROIT
THE JOURNAL devotes this section to comment by readers on topics of current interest to den
C o m m en t on editorial
tistry. The editor reserves the right to edit all communications to fit available space and requires that all letters be signed. Printed communications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or of ficial policy of the Association. Your participation in this section is invited.
D entistry an d m edicine m In the letters discussing the DDS-
DM D issue, several writers have ex pressed a desire for dentistry to be come more closely identified with or even integrated with the medical pro fession. This is difficult to understand, in view of the fact that historically the medical profession has not encour aged this relationship on an equitable basis. An important lesson that we in the federal dental services have learned over the past 60 years is that when dentistry and medicine are integrated into a common organization, dentistry has been required to accept a subor dinate role and does not receive an appropriate emphasis. As a result of this integration and subordination, physicians make den tal policy and serve as dentistry’s spokesman in the military services and in government. This has handicapped the delivery of oral health care in the federal services. It also is serving as an unfortunate precedent for the or ganization of federally administered programs for the civilian community of which PSRO (Professional Stan dards Review Organization) is an example. Dentistry will not achieve its po tential when it is integrated into med ically dominated organizations. What is needed in the federal services and what should be retained in the civilian
sector is a parallel and equal relation ship between dentistry and medicine. This would allow the two professions to function alongside of each other in a spirit of cooperation without subor dination. This would also help restore harmony and balance to the federal health care delivery system to the ben efit of the patients it serves. LT. COL. R. STUART SCHWARTZ APO SEATTLE
A grees with sta tem en t m I concur fully with the statement issued by A D A Executive Director C. Gordon Watson in regard to the product evaluation program of the Preventive Dentistry Research and Education Foundation (July j a d a , page 45). We have an A D A Council on Den tal Therapeutics, established more than 40 years, which has an excellent reputation and is enjoying the fullest confidence of the dental professions. Therefore, there is not and should not be any room for the establishment of another product evaluation program. This would only create confusion, misunderstanding, and conflicting statements, not to mention the waste of money. Eventually, it will also be damaging to the outstanding reputa tion and fine respect the A D A Coun cil on Dental Therapeutics is enjoy ing. I believe that every state dental
■ Your editorial, “Prevention will prevail” (July j a d a , page 12), cer tainly was timely and offers encour agement for the future of the preven tive movement. I was disappointed, however, that you somehow felt the need to at tempt still another public “ put-down” of the so-called “ dental evangelists.” As in a previous editorial, you have these men libeled by label and ser iously misquoted. I have listened to most of them and never heard one “ separate prevention from the rest of dental health care,” nor have I ever heard one whose practice was depen dent on salesmanship and charisma. Have any of your staff members ever visited the office of one of these men? I know none has ever visited me in spite of numerous invitations. One started to several years ago, but when I told him that we wanted to get into his mouth, his schedule sud denly changed and he was unable to come any of the times he had sug gested or any other time. Perhaps it would be worth your time (and a service to the ADA) to visit one or more of these “ evangel ists.” It might even help to have them handle you as a patient so you could learn if salesmanship and charisma were their primary tools of patient management. Then you could publish reasonably accurate editorials. I cannot believe that the credibility gap between the A D A Headquarters Building and a large percentage of A D A members can be closed with ir responsible petty journalism. I have the greatest belief that the new editor will put an end to such counterpro ductive activity. ROBERT F . BARKLEY, DDS MACOMB, ILL JADA, Vol. 89, August 1974 ■ 237
society should take a strong stand against the foundation’s intentions and withhold any support. The dupli cation of efforts can in no way serve the best interest of the public or our profession. LEON HERSCHFUS. DDS DETROIT
THE JOURNAL devotes this section to comment by readers on topics of current interest to den
C o m m en t on editorial
tistry. The editor reserves the right to edit all communications to fit available space and requires that all letters be signed. Printed communications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or of ficial policy of the Association. Your participation in this section is invited.
D entistry an d m edicine m In the letters discussing the DDS-
DM D issue, several writers have ex pressed a desire for dentistry to be come more closely identified with or even integrated with the medical pro fession. This is difficult to understand, in view of the fact that historically the medical profession has not encour aged this relationship on an equitable basis. An important lesson that we in the federal dental services have learned over the past 60 years is that when dentistry and medicine are integrated into a common organization, dentistry has been required to accept a subor dinate role and does not receive an appropriate emphasis. As a result of this integration and subordination, physicians make den tal policy and serve as dentistry’s spokesman in the military services and in government. This has handicapped the delivery of oral health care in the federal services. It also is serving as an unfortunate precedent for the or ganization of federally administered programs for the civilian community of which PSRO (Professional Stan dards Review Organization) is an example. Dentistry will not achieve its po tential when it is integrated into med ically dominated organizations. What is needed in the federal services and what should be retained in the civilian
sector is a parallel and equal relation ship between dentistry and medicine. This would allow the two professions to function alongside of each other in a spirit of cooperation without subor dination. This would also help restore harmony and balance to the federal health care delivery system to the ben efit of the patients it serves. LT. COL. R. STUART SCHWARTZ APO SEATTLE
A grees with sta tem en t m I concur fully with the statement issued by A D A Executive Director C. Gordon Watson in regard to the product evaluation program of the Preventive Dentistry Research and Education Foundation (July j a d a , page 45). We have an A D A Council on Den tal Therapeutics, established more than 40 years, which has an excellent reputation and is enjoying the fullest confidence of the dental professions. Therefore, there is not and should not be any room for the establishment of another product evaluation program. This would only create confusion, misunderstanding, and conflicting statements, not to mention the waste of money. Eventually, it will also be damaging to the outstanding reputa tion and fine respect the A D A Coun cil on Dental Therapeutics is enjoy ing. I believe that every state dental
■ Your editorial, “Prevention will prevail” (July j a d a , page 12), cer tainly was timely and offers encour agement for the future of the preven tive movement. I was disappointed, however, that you somehow felt the need to at tempt still another public “ put-down” of the so-called “ dental evangelists.” As in a previous editorial, you have these men libeled by label and ser iously misquoted. I have listened to most of them and never heard one “ separate prevention from the rest of dental health care,” nor have I ever heard one whose practice was depen dent on salesmanship and charisma. Have any of your staff members ever visited the office of one of these men? I know none has ever visited me in spite of numerous invitations. One started to several years ago, but when I told him that we wanted to get into his mouth, his schedule sud denly changed and he was unable to come any of the times he had sug gested or any other time. Perhaps it would be worth your time (and a service to the ADA) to visit one or more of these “ evangel ists.” It might even help to have them handle you as a patient so you could learn if salesmanship and charisma were their primary tools of patient management. Then you could publish reasonably accurate editorials. I cannot believe that the credibility gap between the A D A Headquarters Building and a large percentage of A D A members can be closed with ir responsible petty journalism. I have the greatest belief that the new editor will put an end to such counterpro ductive activity. ROBERT F . BARKLEY, DDS MACOMB, ILL JADA, Vol. 89, August 1974 ■ 237