- Email: [email protected]
In togetherness there is strength
Opinion of Other Journals
In togetherness there is strength ^ ■ T h e annual meeting of the A D A House of Delegates could be accurately called “ a time of crisis” each year, this past year certainly no less than any other within memory. The spectre of national health insurance with its attendant con trols and dehumanization hovered over the de bate of the delegates, warping and shaping House actions. The somewhat more palatable private insurance company and dental service corpora tion plans for financing dental health care gained support in spite of a certain interference in doc tor-patient relationship, simply because they interfere far less than the federal government could be expected to. Part of the $30 dues in crease is a direct result of the threat of N H I. Twenty dollars of the increase will go for a com prehensive educational program to demonstrate the competence of the private practice system of dental health care. Delegates additionally found frustration in the awkward position of be ing opposed to PSROs but wanting to be repre sented on them if and when they probe dentistry (hoping the ship never arrives, but if it does, in sisting on being aboard). Against this difficult background, some, if not all, delegates were treated to a news letter from a group called the Association of American Den tists with a lead article comparing A A D with AD A . The article at once condemned the lead ership of the A D A and assured us that AAD members were, in fact, AD A delegates, com mittee members, and “ attendees.” It may come as a surprise to the AAD that delegates and com mittee members are AD A leaders. In fact, the
518 ■ EDITORIALS / JADA, Vol. 90, March 1975
article gave one the eerie feeling that some sort of fifth column was attempting some sort of infil tration. Another article produced the A A D ’s reason for being— “ . . . we could not get con trary opinion published . . . ” On the off chance the A A D is listening, I would like to suggest joining the ADA and work ing like hell to make it the organization you think it should be; and if you’re truly American, as your name implies, you will not pick up your marbles and go home if the majority doesn’t see things your way. You will work a little harder within the group. Dentistry can ill-afford the fragmentation the AA D represents—we have more than we need from the AADS (American Association of Dental Schools) who also seem intent on going their own way—to Washington. This, of course, puts them closer to the source of subsidies with easy access to the curriculummodifying directives necessary to maximize the take. Differing points of view with attendant debate are healthy and necessary to a vigorous society. The divisiveness of several groups going separ ate ways seriously weakens the strength and prestige of each of them. If the present threats to private dental practice and our traditional rela tionship with our patients are not enough to unite us, it is difficult indeed to imagine what it would take. — Grant A. MacLean
Reprinted w ith perm ission fro m the CDS Review 68:5 Jan 1975.
In togetherness there is strength ^ ■ T h e annual meeting of the A D A House of Delegates could be accurately called “ a time of crisis” each year, this past year certainly no less than any other within memory. The spectre of national health insurance with its attendant con trols and dehumanization hovered over the de bate of the delegates, warping and shaping House actions. The somewhat more palatable private insurance company and dental service corpora tion plans for financing dental health care gained support in spite of a certain interference in doc tor-patient relationship, simply because they interfere far less than the federal government could be expected to. Part of the $30 dues in crease is a direct result of the threat of N H I. Twenty dollars of the increase will go for a com prehensive educational program to demonstrate the competence of the private practice system of dental health care. Delegates additionally found frustration in the awkward position of be ing opposed to PSROs but wanting to be repre sented on them if and when they probe dentistry (hoping the ship never arrives, but if it does, in sisting on being aboard). Against this difficult background, some, if not all, delegates were treated to a news letter from a group called the Association of American Den tists with a lead article comparing A A D with AD A . The article at once condemned the lead ership of the A D A and assured us that AAD members were, in fact, AD A delegates, com mittee members, and “ attendees.” It may come as a surprise to the AAD that delegates and com mittee members are AD A leaders. In fact, the
518 ■ EDITORIALS / JADA, Vol. 90, March 1975
article gave one the eerie feeling that some sort of fifth column was attempting some sort of infil tration. Another article produced the A A D ’s reason for being— “ . . . we could not get con trary opinion published . . . ” On the off chance the A A D is listening, I would like to suggest joining the ADA and work ing like hell to make it the organization you think it should be; and if you’re truly American, as your name implies, you will not pick up your marbles and go home if the majority doesn’t see things your way. You will work a little harder within the group. Dentistry can ill-afford the fragmentation the AA D represents—we have more than we need from the AADS (American Association of Dental Schools) who also seem intent on going their own way—to Washington. This, of course, puts them closer to the source of subsidies with easy access to the curriculummodifying directives necessary to maximize the take. Differing points of view with attendant debate are healthy and necessary to a vigorous society. The divisiveness of several groups going separ ate ways seriously weakens the strength and prestige of each of them. If the present threats to private dental practice and our traditional rela tionship with our patients are not enough to unite us, it is difficult indeed to imagine what it would take. — Grant A. MacLean
Reprinted w ith perm ission fro m the CDS Review 68:5 Jan 1975.