- Email: [email protected]
Reply to Dr. Douglas
the reader comments
j o u r n a l devotes this section to com ment by readers on topics o f current interest to den tistry. T h e editor reserves the right to edit all com munications to fit available space and re quires that all letters be signed. A t the request of the author, signatures will be deleted before publication. Printed com munications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official policy of the Association. Y our participation in this section is invited. T h e Editor th e
fare institutions or organizations recognized by the Internal Revenue Service would be a major advance toward more equitable treat ment of the dentist and other professional practitioners. It would also encourage much greater participation by the professions in community service programs and thereby be of greatest benefit to the country. L eon Saks, D.D.S. 641 D octors Building Cincinnati 2, Ohio
D O N A T E D S E R V IC E T A X D E D U C TIB LE
In recent years, efforts have been made to secure equitable treatment from the Treasury Department for self-employed, “ professional” individuals. The legal, medical, dental and other health professions have sought to obtain this equitable treatment through the Keogh bill. This would allow a practitioner to set aside a portion of his annual income into a pension fund which would be nontaxable until it was used, similar to any retirement or pen sion fund. However, there seems to be diffi culty in getting this bill or some other tax relief bill for professionals through Congress. As an alternative I submit the proposal that the donation of services by a physician or den tist or other professional individual to a charit able, religious or educational institution be treated the same as a gift o f used furniture, clothing or other item of value. That is, it should be regarded as a legitimate tax de ductible item. The continuing trend toward welfare fee schedules that are unrealistic demands a more careful consideration. Any fee schedule for charitable or educational purposes should not be lower than the prevailing local fees for such service. However, 1as these agencies do not have the funds to pay such fees, part of the fee would be payable in cash and the balance in a certified receipt that would be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as evidence of a legitimate tax deductible item. It is my belief that securing of such tax deductible receipts for service rendered to wel
R E P L Y T O DR. D O U G LA S
I would like to take issue with a number of concepts and inferences expressed in the edi torial by B.L.D. in the February issue of T h e N ew York State D ental Journal, and in a letter-to-the-editor by the same writer in the February issue of t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e AM E R IC A N D E N T A L A S SO C IA T IO N . I feel that a reply is necessary because the point of view represented is one that organized dentistry has gradually moved away from and for very good reasons. T o be specific, I am discussing the writer’s personal opinion as to what the role of or ganized dentistry should be. He wrote: “ All that dentists can do is to provide the scientific information that is necessary to support sound arguments for the cause” and “ a carefully de vised educational program could reap great rewards . . . in advancing the fluoridation cause without direct involvement in it” and “ While the quest for water fluoridation and good dental health are inextricably related, it would be a mistake to make them one and the same thing in the eyes of the public.” In effect, the point of view at issue is whether dentistry’s role should be strictly edu cational and scientific and whether the image of dentistry would be tarnished by direct in volvement (albeit in concert with other rep utable groups.) The following counter-arguments are pre sented :
156/752 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
U p till very recently dentistry’s role in fluoridation has been strictly educational. It was the relative lack of success of this ap proach that prompted serious thought regard ing the necessity and desirability of further means of action. An example is the careful recommendation given by the Commission on the Survey of Dentistry that “ . . . greater ef forts [be made] to promote water fluoridation [by concerted efforts of] all public agencies with the assistance of voluntary associations and professional societies.” This idea is re peated by: — the Board of Trustees of the American Dental Association “ . . . the profession cannot remain passive in debates on fluoridation.” — all the participants at the Twelfth Na tional Dental Health Conference from Surgeon General Luther Terry down to each of the panelists, stressed the following themes— “ ac tion programs in dental health,” “ war declared against the vocal minority,” “ concerted action from the White House level to the precinct level.” — the Bureau of Public Information of the American Dental Association “ . . . it is the belief of the Bureau staff that the local dental society is the key. If it refuses to become actively and fully committed, the proposition will very likely be lost.” • — and Dr. Menczer, public health dentist, describing the successful campaign in Hart ford, Conn., “ The opportunity is greater than ever for local dental societies to exert leader ship at the local level in order to bring to gether the many and varied groups and agencies that are seriously and conscientiously interested. . . .” In T h e Journal o f Social Issues, (Vol. X V II, No. 4, 1961) Dr. Raulet of Johns Hopkins University analyzed two campaigns on fluoridation. His conclusions on the role of dentistry can be summarized as follows: Ironically [the] health professions, naive in the ways of power and propaganda, tended to defeat their own purposes. They were caught in the dilemma of conflicting role expecta tions. In choosing to spurn the politically partisan role and to accent the detached pro fessional role, they seemingly confirmed oppo nents’ charges of being undemocratic and conspiratorial. From the point of view of “ image,” what better image can one project than that of a health profession altruistically devoted to the public benefit with no hidden commercial gains up its sleeve. Therefore, by all means, tie in the image of dentistry with dental health and fluorida tion. After all, is it not true that the image of the health professions has become slightly
tarnished with the public’s suspicions of its selfishness? What better way to combat the public’s suspicions than by an active fluorida tion campaign in which the preventive, costsaving aspects of the proposal make the altru ism obvious. This is not to say that one must not tailor the campaign to the situation, but rather, that the cloth must not be sacrificed for a misconception in design. Leonard G orelick, D .D .S ., Editor Q ueens County D ental Society Bulletin 119-04 80th R oad K ew Gardens 15, N .Y .
D E N T IS T W R IT E S C O N G R E S S M E N
The following is a copy of a letter which I have sent to my Congressmen, Rep. Frank E. Smith and Sen. John Stennis, expressing my views on the administration bills, H.R. 422 and S. 909, which pertain to health care for the aged: As I continue to read the papers and watch the action and policies of the United States Government, I cannot help but feel a continual loss of personal freedom, individuality and a continued increase of taxes on the local, state and federal levels. There seems to be no end to the needs of humanity in this country and in the world, which certainly strikes at the humanitarian instincts of all people. With the United States Government, it seems, they are adopting a pol icy of supplying every need for everybody at home and abroad. Today I am presently concerned about the administrative bill H.R. 422, pertaining to the health care for the aged. I resent this bill for many reasons. Two o f which are: I am against the socialistic trend prevalent in our govern ment, which necessitates more taxes, and I prefer personally to give to the needy people as I find the need. I want to do it as an indi vidual, not as a cog in a machine. I found these quotes by Abraham Lincoln; he expresses my views very nicely: “ Y ou can not build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. You cannot help the poor by de stroying the rich. You cannot help the small men by tearing down the large men.” I hope you can understand my views in regard to this specific legislation and all other socialistic plans that our government seems to be determined to carry out. R . N . Vest, D.D.S. 538 Cedar G reenville, Miss.
j o u r n a l devotes this section to com ment by readers on topics o f current interest to den tistry. T h e editor reserves the right to edit all com munications to fit available space and re quires that all letters be signed. A t the request of the author, signatures will be deleted before publication. Printed com munications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official policy of the Association. Y our participation in this section is invited. T h e Editor th e
fare institutions or organizations recognized by the Internal Revenue Service would be a major advance toward more equitable treat ment of the dentist and other professional practitioners. It would also encourage much greater participation by the professions in community service programs and thereby be of greatest benefit to the country. L eon Saks, D.D.S. 641 D octors Building Cincinnati 2, Ohio
D O N A T E D S E R V IC E T A X D E D U C TIB LE
In recent years, efforts have been made to secure equitable treatment from the Treasury Department for self-employed, “ professional” individuals. The legal, medical, dental and other health professions have sought to obtain this equitable treatment through the Keogh bill. This would allow a practitioner to set aside a portion of his annual income into a pension fund which would be nontaxable until it was used, similar to any retirement or pen sion fund. However, there seems to be diffi culty in getting this bill or some other tax relief bill for professionals through Congress. As an alternative I submit the proposal that the donation of services by a physician or den tist or other professional individual to a charit able, religious or educational institution be treated the same as a gift o f used furniture, clothing or other item of value. That is, it should be regarded as a legitimate tax de ductible item. The continuing trend toward welfare fee schedules that are unrealistic demands a more careful consideration. Any fee schedule for charitable or educational purposes should not be lower than the prevailing local fees for such service. However, 1as these agencies do not have the funds to pay such fees, part of the fee would be payable in cash and the balance in a certified receipt that would be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as evidence of a legitimate tax deductible item. It is my belief that securing of such tax deductible receipts for service rendered to wel
R E P L Y T O DR. D O U G LA S
I would like to take issue with a number of concepts and inferences expressed in the edi torial by B.L.D. in the February issue of T h e N ew York State D ental Journal, and in a letter-to-the-editor by the same writer in the February issue of t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e AM E R IC A N D E N T A L A S SO C IA T IO N . I feel that a reply is necessary because the point of view represented is one that organized dentistry has gradually moved away from and for very good reasons. T o be specific, I am discussing the writer’s personal opinion as to what the role of or ganized dentistry should be. He wrote: “ All that dentists can do is to provide the scientific information that is necessary to support sound arguments for the cause” and “ a carefully de vised educational program could reap great rewards . . . in advancing the fluoridation cause without direct involvement in it” and “ While the quest for water fluoridation and good dental health are inextricably related, it would be a mistake to make them one and the same thing in the eyes of the public.” In effect, the point of view at issue is whether dentistry’s role should be strictly edu cational and scientific and whether the image of dentistry would be tarnished by direct in volvement (albeit in concert with other rep utable groups.) The following counter-arguments are pre sented :
156/752 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
U p till very recently dentistry’s role in fluoridation has been strictly educational. It was the relative lack of success of this ap proach that prompted serious thought regard ing the necessity and desirability of further means of action. An example is the careful recommendation given by the Commission on the Survey of Dentistry that “ . . . greater ef forts [be made] to promote water fluoridation [by concerted efforts of] all public agencies with the assistance of voluntary associations and professional societies.” This idea is re peated by: — the Board of Trustees of the American Dental Association “ . . . the profession cannot remain passive in debates on fluoridation.” — all the participants at the Twelfth Na tional Dental Health Conference from Surgeon General Luther Terry down to each of the panelists, stressed the following themes— “ ac tion programs in dental health,” “ war declared against the vocal minority,” “ concerted action from the White House level to the precinct level.” — the Bureau of Public Information of the American Dental Association “ . . . it is the belief of the Bureau staff that the local dental society is the key. If it refuses to become actively and fully committed, the proposition will very likely be lost.” • — and Dr. Menczer, public health dentist, describing the successful campaign in Hart ford, Conn., “ The opportunity is greater than ever for local dental societies to exert leader ship at the local level in order to bring to gether the many and varied groups and agencies that are seriously and conscientiously interested. . . .” In T h e Journal o f Social Issues, (Vol. X V II, No. 4, 1961) Dr. Raulet of Johns Hopkins University analyzed two campaigns on fluoridation. His conclusions on the role of dentistry can be summarized as follows: Ironically [the] health professions, naive in the ways of power and propaganda, tended to defeat their own purposes. They were caught in the dilemma of conflicting role expecta tions. In choosing to spurn the politically partisan role and to accent the detached pro fessional role, they seemingly confirmed oppo nents’ charges of being undemocratic and conspiratorial. From the point of view of “ image,” what better image can one project than that of a health profession altruistically devoted to the public benefit with no hidden commercial gains up its sleeve. Therefore, by all means, tie in the image of dentistry with dental health and fluorida tion. After all, is it not true that the image of the health professions has become slightly
tarnished with the public’s suspicions of its selfishness? What better way to combat the public’s suspicions than by an active fluorida tion campaign in which the preventive, costsaving aspects of the proposal make the altru ism obvious. This is not to say that one must not tailor the campaign to the situation, but rather, that the cloth must not be sacrificed for a misconception in design. Leonard G orelick, D .D .S ., Editor Q ueens County D ental Society Bulletin 119-04 80th R oad K ew Gardens 15, N .Y .
D E N T IS T W R IT E S C O N G R E S S M E N
The following is a copy of a letter which I have sent to my Congressmen, Rep. Frank E. Smith and Sen. John Stennis, expressing my views on the administration bills, H.R. 422 and S. 909, which pertain to health care for the aged: As I continue to read the papers and watch the action and policies of the United States Government, I cannot help but feel a continual loss of personal freedom, individuality and a continued increase of taxes on the local, state and federal levels. There seems to be no end to the needs of humanity in this country and in the world, which certainly strikes at the humanitarian instincts of all people. With the United States Government, it seems, they are adopting a pol icy of supplying every need for everybody at home and abroad. Today I am presently concerned about the administrative bill H.R. 422, pertaining to the health care for the aged. I resent this bill for many reasons. Two o f which are: I am against the socialistic trend prevalent in our govern ment, which necessitates more taxes, and I prefer personally to give to the needy people as I find the need. I want to do it as an indi vidual, not as a cog in a machine. I found these quotes by Abraham Lincoln; he expresses my views very nicely: “ Y ou can not build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. You cannot help the poor by de stroying the rich. You cannot help the small men by tearing down the large men.” I hope you can understand my views in regard to this specific legislation and all other socialistic plans that our government seems to be determined to carry out. R . N . Vest, D.D.S. 538 Cedar G reenville, Miss.