Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

Teethwhiteninguk

No training or dental supervision is required for legal products, unless the law has changed since October 2012.

I am only interested in reading about the legal reality (not the GDC's or anyone else's opinion).

I have no vested interest in the industry and the public needs to receive the correct legal position. For this reason I will await the outcome to my EU law infringement concern in due course.

brook2jack

As said before please read details of prosecutions by the gdc . They have nothing to do with the product used it is not mentioned either by prosecution or defense. They have been prosecuted for illegal practice of dentistry . Full stop.

Just to clarify here is details of a prosecution ..

Quote
It was alleged:

• That Pearl Teeth Whitening Limited (trading as Pearl National), did unlawfully carry on the business of dentistry at various locations in England and Wales between the 17 January 2011 and the 15 May 2012 at a time when a majority of its directors were not and are not persons who are either registered dentists or registered dental care professionals

This is Contrary to Section 43 (1) and (3) of the Dentists Act 1984.

During sentencing, District Judge Bennett said:

“It is clear from their website that Pearl National operated from a large number of locations and from the facts of the case presented to me, that they employed unqualified people to provide teeth whitening to their customers.”

End of quote.

Just to clarify other than a dental degree , hygienist or dental therapist qualification there is no nationally recognised dental whitening qualification. This is why many reputable beautician s organisations such as babtac will not insure teeth whitening.

Do not confuse with prosecutions by trading standards which are about materials used, it is stated in the prosecution and using or selling an illegal concentration of hydrogen peroxide is what the have been prosecuted for.

The law clarified in October 2012 that products 0.1 % to 6% cannot be used or sold by anyone other than a dentist or hygienist /dental therapist working to a dentists prescription. It has no effect on legislation regarding illegal practice of dentistry.


The illegal practice of dentistry people tried many defences including what they were using was cosmetic so not a dental procedure. As you are well aware the gdc has no.powers of prosecution other than those of the dentists act and can prosecute in public courts only those who have breached the terms of the act ie people doing acts of dentistry without being qualified. All the prosecutions bar one have never pretended to be dentists but they have carried out dentistry by assessing people as fit for whitening and then carrying it out. The gdc cannot prosecute over solutions used, or public health those prosecutions would be brought by trading standards or environmental health.

Teethwhiteninguk

Good reply.

I am fully aware now of the GDC's position. The barrister I spoke to was concerned about the harassment of non-dentists who are operating completely legally!

I look forward to a resolution to this very interesting case.

welshdent

There you go again.

"concerned about the harassment of non-dentists who are operating completely legally!"

That is a wholly contradictory statement. How can non dentists be operating completely legally ... if they are not dentists?!

and please please please do not throw back the concentration of peroxide line.

It is the very fact they are not dentists (or gdc registered) that makes what they are doing illegal.

brook2jack

Teethwhiteninguk wrote: »

Good reply.

I am fully aware now of the GDC's position. The barrister I spoke to was concerned about the harassment of non-dentists who are operating completely legally!

I look forward to a resolution to this very interesting case.

The case has been resolved. Individuals and companies have been found guilty not by the GDC but by the courts. They have tried to claim they are acting legally but the courts have found otherwise again I quote from a case against a "cosmetologist ie a beautician quote
On Thursday 22 December 2011 Mr Carl Espano, of 29 Western Road, Torquay, Devon, TQ1 4RJ pleaded guilty at West London Magistrates’ Court to practising dentistry when not registered with the GDC, contrary to section 38 (1) and (2) of the Dentists’ Act 1984.

He has been fined £1,000 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge. He has also been ordered to pay full costs to the GDC of £857.

Mr Espano, in mitigation for his actions, raised the House of Lords judgement in the case of ‘Optident and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another (2001) UKHL 32. However, the magistrates’ appeared to give this argument little or no weight when determining his sentence.

The Magistrates told Mr Espano:

“This is a serious offence, particularly for potential victims as you didn’t have any indemnity in place for any damage you might have done to any teeth. In addition, should you have damaged the adult teeth, a patient only has one set. Accordingly we view this as a serious offence.” end of quote.

There have also been according to beautician s organisations numerous civil suits.

There are no non dentists operating legally. However there are many misinformed individuals who have been sold expensive equipment and training and wrongly told by scamsters that what they are doing is safe and legitimate when it is neither. It is not in the public interest to allow these potentially dangerous and certainly illegal practices to go on .

Groupon have at last woken up and will not promote any more whitening done by non dentists, if anyone sees any that have slipped through contact groupon via Daniel at compliance@groupon.co.UK

To check a dentists registration look at http://www.gdc-uk.org/Pages/SearchRegisters.aspx

To report illegal whitening illegal practice@gdc-UK.org and read this page http://www.gdc-uk.org/membersofpublic/illegalpractice/pages/tooth-whitening.aspx

Teethwhiteninguk

Mr XX has reviewed the links and documents you have sent me and at this point he is happy to act on our behalf, on the basis that this is bringing your businesses disrepute and is unlawful. This is obviously a very sensitive area and Mr XXX is highly experienced in claims against the GDC.

brook2jack

Teethwhiteninguk wrote: »

Mr XX has reviewed the links and documents you have sent me and at this point he is happy to act on our behalf, on the basis that this is bringing your businesses disrepute and is unlawful. This is obviously a very sensitive area and Mr XXX is highly experienced in claims against the GDC.

I really hope if you are paying Mr xxx he has not based his thoughts on a few links on an internet site but on a thorough knowledge of the law. As I have said before read the cases, all of them.

I am also rather puzzled why Mr xxx has said it's bringing your business into disrepute when you have said you are a neutral observer just interested in a legal argument. Quote "
I have no vested interest in the industry and the public needs to receive the correct legal position. For this reason I will await the outcome to my EU law infringement concern in due course." End of quote.

However this will be an interesting civil case and as such has no impact on the criminal cases being heard in court on illegal practice of dentistry.

Teethwhiteninguk

As I have stated, I am only interested in the law and I am in touch with many organisations including this forum, which is proving very helpful.

It is really interesting, don't you think?

brook2jack

Interesting may not be the word the hundreds of people damaged by illegal tooth whitening operations would think. Interesting may not be the word many people who have paid out thousands to bogus companies for equipment and chemicals they cannot legally or safely use would think of.

Interesting may not be the word many people on this forum think of when posting on the many threads about the damage done to them by illegal whiteners with their couple of hours training , unknown chemicals and no idea of oral medicine.

This is not some interesting philosophical debate but a question of protecting the public from the damage caused by unqualified people placing chemicals in one of the most sensitive parts of the body.

Teethwhiteninguk

This is stating the obvious. No-one wants the public to be harmed and the relevant authorities should be protecting people.

You are missing the point. There are illegal non-dentists and illegal dentists.

Once again, I am only interested in the law which protect everyone.