- Email: [email protected]
Public Image
dentistry won’t h u rt our p atients or us either! Dr. Lewis’s TV presentation was a g reat em barrassm ent to the dental jk profession (and I for one regret m that). However, jr Jf if one or more m lives are Y m saved in each practice by his forcing the I issue, perhaps it will be worth it. Somehow I feel we will survive and come out of this as a more highly respected profession. I certainly hope so, because I w ant to stick around until we life m em bers again get free dues! J a m es F. Ford, D.D.S. C h attan ooga, Tenn. P U B L IC IM A G E
“How dentists see them selves, th eir profession, the public” was flawed (December). The article addressed well the issues concerning how dentists see them selves and their profes sion. U nderstandably, as the article pointed out, dentists’ cu rren t feelings about the profession are gloomy and only h a lf would choose dentistry as a career today. B ut why be concerned about w hat dentists perceive to be the public’s image of dentistry, or w hat dentists th ink should be done to improve the public’s image of dentistry, or w hat factors dentists believe affect the public’s image of dentistry? W hat difference does th a t really m ake? Go to the source! Ask the public their views on those topics. You would receive different answers. W ould you ask a. store m anager how custom ers feel about the store’s advertising policy or 16
JADA, Vol. 124, F ebruary 1993
would you ask custom ers? Why would you ask dentists how they feel about dental adver tising? You know the answer! Why not ask patients? Who cares if a m ajority of dentists surveyed in this article believe th a t dental advertising is harm ful to the profession’s image? Ask patients! Why not conduct patien t m arketing studies as I did for years? You would find th a t p atients view it totally differently—they love it! We have been brainw ashed into believing th a t patients do not like advertising by professionals, and we accept th a t as gospel. Not so! If dentists were asked if they believed in discounts, they would vote against th a t too— unless it was a non-dental item th a t THEY w anted to purchase—like a car or boat! Then they would buy it only w here they got the biggest discount. Hypocrisy! H. P a u l J a co b i, D.D.S. P alm H arbor, Fla. E Q U IP M E N T P U R C H A S E S
Are we suckers when it comes to evaluating m ajor equipm ent purchases? A laser m anufac tu re r will gladly charge us $400 to take their sem inar so we may purchase th eir $50,000 unit. A nother company will happily charge you a sim ilar am ount so you can purchase th eir (expensive) computerized ceramic milling machine. And perhaps you chose not to purchase because the equipm ent is prem ature, not cost effective or very lim ited in clinical use. So you blew the tuition. And the nerve of m anufacturers who ask us to buy sam ples for distribution so we can act as (unpaid)
salespersons for th eir product. B ut m ost of us (not I) do m ake these expenditures. I have noted among my physician friends th a t when new equipm ent is coming on the m arket for medical use, the m anufacturer will wine and dine them (gratis) even though the equipm ent m ay be purchased by th e hospital. Product samples are generously and gladly dispensed for patient sta rte r use—and a t no charge, not even for the shipping. Wake up, colleagues!! If you refuse to be party to these m achinations, the m anufacturers will listen up and tre a t us w ith a respect equal to our medical colleagues. H arold V. C ohen, D.D.S. Old B rid ge, N.J. L IC E N S U R E
After 25 years as a licensed dentist watching the endless debate on licensure, I am so tired of the sanctimonious posturings of state board officials from the most restrictive states pretending th a t they are protecting the public by their low pass rates for non-resident dentists w anting to move into th eir states. It would be refreshing for them to simply adm it th a t they were using the licensure process to preserve m aximal economic opportunity for th eir own sta te ’s residents and to preserve the economic viability of existing practices, and tailor the growth in licensed dentists in th eir state to the growth in the sta te ’s population and to also (possibly) address problems of m aldistribution w ithin the state. D entists are
“How dentists see them selves, th eir profession, the public” was flawed (December). The article addressed well the issues concerning how dentists see them selves and their profes sion. U nderstandably, as the article pointed out, dentists’ cu rren t feelings about the profession are gloomy and only h a lf would choose dentistry as a career today. B ut why be concerned about w hat dentists perceive to be the public’s image of dentistry, or w hat dentists th ink should be done to improve the public’s image of dentistry, or w hat factors dentists believe affect the public’s image of dentistry? W hat difference does th a t really m ake? Go to the source! Ask the public their views on those topics. You would receive different answers. W ould you ask a. store m anager how custom ers feel about the store’s advertising policy or 16
JADA, Vol. 124, F ebruary 1993
would you ask custom ers? Why would you ask dentists how they feel about dental adver tising? You know the answer! Why not ask patients? Who cares if a m ajority of dentists surveyed in this article believe th a t dental advertising is harm ful to the profession’s image? Ask patients! Why not conduct patien t m arketing studies as I did for years? You would find th a t p atients view it totally differently—they love it! We have been brainw ashed into believing th a t patients do not like advertising by professionals, and we accept th a t as gospel. Not so! If dentists were asked if they believed in discounts, they would vote against th a t too— unless it was a non-dental item th a t THEY w anted to purchase—like a car or boat! Then they would buy it only w here they got the biggest discount. Hypocrisy! H. P a u l J a co b i, D.D.S. P alm H arbor, Fla. E Q U IP M E N T P U R C H A S E S
Are we suckers when it comes to evaluating m ajor equipm ent purchases? A laser m anufac tu re r will gladly charge us $400 to take their sem inar so we may purchase th eir $50,000 unit. A nother company will happily charge you a sim ilar am ount so you can purchase th eir (expensive) computerized ceramic milling machine. And perhaps you chose not to purchase because the equipm ent is prem ature, not cost effective or very lim ited in clinical use. So you blew the tuition. And the nerve of m anufacturers who ask us to buy sam ples for distribution so we can act as (unpaid)
salespersons for th eir product. B ut m ost of us (not I) do m ake these expenditures. I have noted among my physician friends th a t when new equipm ent is coming on the m arket for medical use, the m anufacturer will wine and dine them (gratis) even though the equipm ent m ay be purchased by th e hospital. Product samples are generously and gladly dispensed for patient sta rte r use—and a t no charge, not even for the shipping. Wake up, colleagues!! If you refuse to be party to these m achinations, the m anufacturers will listen up and tre a t us w ith a respect equal to our medical colleagues. H arold V. C ohen, D.D.S. Old B rid ge, N.J. L IC E N S U R E
After 25 years as a licensed dentist watching the endless debate on licensure, I am so tired of the sanctimonious posturings of state board officials from the most restrictive states pretending th a t they are protecting the public by their low pass rates for non-resident dentists w anting to move into th eir states. It would be refreshing for them to simply adm it th a t they were using the licensure process to preserve m aximal economic opportunity for th eir own sta te ’s residents and to preserve the economic viability of existing practices, and tailor the growth in licensed dentists in th eir state to the growth in the sta te ’s population and to also (possibly) address problems of m aldistribution w ithin the state. D entists are