Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

even a law firm is saying what brook has said.

http://www.mablaw.com/2013/05/high-court-rules-that-teeth-whitening-can-only-be-performed-by-dental-professionals-general-dental-council-jamous/

http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2013/05/17/When-is-a-dentist-not-a-dentist-Tooth-whitening-and-the-Dentists-Act-1984.aspx

why do you repeatedly and belligerently argue against a point of fact? Hell if you have access to the transcript put it up so we can see but there above are 2 independent (i.e. totally non dental) reports on that exact case saying exactly what brook has said. Tooth whitening is dentistry. Dentistry must be done by those licensed to do so. Disagree with it as much as you like, campaign against it as much as you like. But at present, in law from the high court, whitening is an act of dentistry. It is the carrying out of the procedure that is the problem. The material of choice used is completely wholly and utterly irrelevant on THIS point of law.

Yes, I read those, they have jumped the gun.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

even a law firm is saying what brook has said.

http://www.mablaw.com/2013/05/high-court-rules-that-teeth-whitening-can-only-be-performed-by-dental-professionals-general-dental-council-jamous/

http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2013/05/17/When-is-a-dentist-not-a-dentist-Tooth-whitening-and-the-Dentists-Act-1984.aspx

why do you repeatedly and belligerently argue against a point of fact? Hell if you have access to the transcript put it up so we can see but there above are 2 independent (i.e. totally non dental) reports on that exact case saying exactly what brook has said. Tooth whitening is dentistry. Dentistry must be done by those licensed to do so. Disagree with it as much as you like, campaign against it as much as you like. But at present, in law from the high court, whitening is an act of dentistry. It is the carrying out of the procedure that is the problem. The material of choice used is completely wholly and utterly irrelevant on THIS point of law.

They are expensive, why would I share confidential information here?

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

You have asserted you know of a mile long list of patients harmed by dentists whitening teeth.

I would have thought as a consumer advisor you would want all these people you know to have their problems resolved? http://www.gdc-uk.org/sites/dcs/Pages/default.aspx is where private dental complaints are quickly resolved at no cost to the patient and with a high satisfaction rating.

Chris Dean said: 'For the first four months of 2012, the figures show that 55% of all concluded dentist conduct hearings involved dentists who created risk for their dental patients by not having liability cover or not co-operating with the formal processes.'

He added: 'The rise in the number of dentists who put their patients at risk is bringing the dental profession into disrepute.'

The GDC admitted in March 2012 that it had no idea how its own registered dentists have breached their professional standards in the last seven years.

Chris added: 'How can the GDC be regarded as an authoritative voice in the monitoring and determination of the quality of dental care in the UK? It is failing in its primary function – that of protecting dental patients.'

The law firm has responded to the regulator's failings by creating an awareness campaign calling for changes in the law.

Dentists who put their patients at risk is bringing the dental profession into disrepute.

http://www.btgcampaign.co.uk/news_details.php?id=16

welshdent

You are actually unbelievable. so reporting on a court case that has been and gone is jumping the gun? I have heard it all now. You are the one insisting on transcripts.

welshdent

Ah so when you start to feel that perhaps your own arguments are getting beyond a joke you then start dragging things up to attack others? Ignoring the fact that if anyone has a problem with treatment provided by a dentist then they will most likely have already taken proceedings out against them via one of the many options available. But hey what ever floats your boat.

welshdent

Dentists that do not have indemnity are struck off usually. In addition to that, it bears no relevance to anything you have said regards your arguements on whitening. Face it. Until there is another appeal and until there is a change in interpretation, what you are arguing is irrelevant.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

You are actually unbelievable. so reporting on a court case that has been and gone is jumping the gun? I have heard it all now. You are the one insisting on transcripts.

Yes, people do it get wrong sometimes.

I have been involved in legal cases many times and this is not uncommon.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

Dentists that do not have indemnity are struck off usually. In addition to that, it bears no relevance to anything you have said regards your arguements on whitening. Face it. Until there is another appeal and until there is a change in interpretation, what you are arguing is irrelevant.

We will wait and see.

I am not as arrogant as some people posting here today!

brook2jack

Are you aware of who Chris Dean is? He is not a member of cqc he is director of dental law partnership, a firm specialising in sueing dentists.

Why may he have an axe to grind, could it be the review in the law after the Jackson report which came in this year curtailing the massive costs legal firms were claiming where a case in which eg a patient got £10,000 earned the lawyers £150,000


this from dental protection may explain
" Early in 2010 there was some promising news when Lord Justice Jackson published his eagerly
awaited review of the civil justice system, and if his recommendations in the area of clinical
negligence are implemented, this should have a significant (favourable) effect on our future claims
costs. The most important recommendations are that After-the-Event insurance cover (ATE) and
success fees should no longer be recoverable from defendants for claims conducted under
Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFAs) – which is effectively the ‘no win-no fee” model used by The
Dental Law Partnership and several other similar law firms which specialise in suing dentists. DPL
particularly welcomed his refreshing recommendation that there should be a new test of
proportionality taking into account all the factors of the litigation, not just the fact that the costs
were necessarily incurred. This would address the acute problem (see above) of very high legal
fees claimed by claimants’ lawyers in connection with relatively modest dental claims."

welshdent

Oh I love that. Arrogant because we are stating facts. Brilliant.