Ethics in Advertising
April 2, 2012
I was listening to the radio on the way home from work the other day and heard an advertisement for a dental office. The ad stated that they were specialists in cosmetic dentistry and implants and that they are the “premier” dental office in the area.
There is no recognized specialty in cosmetic dentistry or implants. Therefore, claiming that you are a specialist for either of these two areas is both illegal and unethical. While it is not illegal to say that you are the “premier” office, it too is unethical for advertising in dentistry.
While I have no problem with legal and ethical advertising in dentistry, what concerns me is over-advertising. The last thing the field of dentistry needs is the public looking at dentists in general as opportunists, and not as dedicated and concerned professionals. How this plays out in the long run will be decided by the ethical standards practiced in dental offices and the rules and regulations enforced by the governing within the profession.
Ethics is about doing good and the concept of right and wrong. Things that may be legal may not be ethical. On the same note, procedures that a dentist is not properly trained in or does not have the technical ability to perform, at least within the standard of care, may be legal for that dentist to do but not ethical. “”Do no harm”, should be the first item on the list of any dentist or any other healthcare provider.
Unfortunately there are healthcare providers, including dentists, who think they are doing people good but don’t realize they practice outside of their true ability. In 1952, the legendary (in the dental world) Dr. L.D. Pankey said, “It’s the moral obligation of the dentist to bring his ability up as close to his capability as possible in accord with his talent. Learning the technique is not enough. A dentist needs to learn how to take care of the whole person.” That is as relevant in 2012 as it was in 1952.
A healthcare professional’s core protocol should be prevention and the quest for determining an individual’s risk for future disease even before the patient has expressed concern. There is a push in dentistry to treat patients based on more objective data, which is commonly referred to as evidence based dentistry. Basically, information about a particular situation is fed into a database containing a multitude of clinical research and “the computer” spits out the best treatment options for that situation based on research. What this does is to minimize the emotionally and empirically based part of the clinical decision making process. My only issue with this is that the empirical, or practical experience of the provider, plays a key role in deciding what is best for a particular patient based on an individual’s unique circumstances.
Cosmetic dentistry poses a different challenge because it is highly discretionary. The dentist, or cosmetic surgeon if we are talking about medicine, must be the patient’s advocate and remain more concerned about the patient’s issues and wellbeing than their own. The benefits of treatment should always outweigh any possible negative consequences. Sometimes the best treatment is no treatment. Sometimes the best treatment for an individual patient is cosmetic enhancement because the benefits of this treatment will have a positive impact on their life.
Any general dentist does “cosmetic” dentistry and most at least do parts of implant procedures. As in any profession, there are varying degrees of talent. Your comfort level with the dentist and the office in general is most important. If you are interested in something that you hear advertised, ask your dentist. He or she probably offers those services.
Politicians and Light Bulbs
August 11, 2011
I know what you’re thinking; politicians and light bulbs? That’s an oxymoron. I thought the same thing when I heard this one. It’s back in the news because the date the incandescent light bulb goes out is rapidly approaching.
Congress passed an energy bill which controls the type of light bulbs all Americans must use by the year 2014. It bans the use of the incandescent light bulb and requires the use of those squiggly fluorescent bulbs. I know what you’re thinking again; that’s not so bad….they’re energy saving and that’s good, right?
In addressing the House of Representatives, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas noted that there was nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to control the type of light bulbs Americans use. Other than the lack of constitutional authority, Rep. Poe goes on to say, “These light bulbs contain mercury. So, they have to be disposed of in a certain way. According to EPA rules, you are supposed to take them to a local recycling center.”
Again, that’s not so bad, right? Recycling is good. He goes on to say, “Thanks to Congress, nothing is easy. If you throw them away at home you are supposed to seal them in two plastic bags and place them in the outside trash. Otherwise, the bulb may break and pollute the landfill, of all things. These bulbs are made of glass so they are fragile. If one breaks it or drops it you have to follow simple rules thanks to Congress. And according to the EPA, here’s what you do if you break one of these light bulbs. And I quote, ‘Have people and pets leave the room and don’t let anyone walk through the area. They must evacuate the room. Open a window and leave the room for fifteen minutes or more. Shut off the central heating and air conditioning system. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with a metal lid.’ Obviously that’s readily available. I continue, ‘Use sticky tape such as duct tape to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar. Do not use a vacuum or a broom.’”
He continues, “If you break one of these light bulbs in a high-rise where the windows don’t open, will the EPA police haul us off to jail because of improper disposal procedures? If we dropped one of these light bulbs we would have to evacuate the House of Representatives according to the EPA light bulb law.”
The warnings on these light bulbs say that they may cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones, and remote controls. They are also ONLY made in China. So, not only are they only made in China but they contain mercury. Let’s see……another product that we don’t produce that we will rely on….and they contain mercury….which is obviously not good for the environment….but is still legal to stick in teeth. I am not aware of any warnings on the packaging of amalgam (silver) filling material and this contains 50% mercury. I will discuss more about that next week.
Thank God for politicians.
