Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

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."

What is the relevance of your response?

brook2jack

I understand how businesses selling illegal whitening training, products and the proceedure want to protect their income but I cannot understand how anyone can say they are protecting the public by campaigning for any old person off the street to put chemicals inside a persons body that are strong enough to change the colour of teeth.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to whiten teeth when the specialists in oral health have said it is not safe to do it if you don't know what you are doing.

I cannot understand that if a dental nurse with two years full time training, or a dental therapist with a three year oral science degree cannot carry out dental whitening unless a dentist has prescribed it, anyone can argue that a beautician after a three hour sales patter and demo is safe to do so.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

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

What facts are they? Have you got a chrystal ball in your surgery? Do you know the outcome of the appeal and the EU law infringement case? Embarrassing!

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

I understand how businesses selling illegal whitening training, products and the proceedure want to protect their income but I cannot understand how anyone can say they are protecting the public by campaigning for any old person off the street to put chemicals inside a persons body that are strong enough to change the colour of teeth.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to whiten teeth when the specialists in oral health have said it is not safe to do it if you don't know what you are doing.

I cannot understand that if a dental nurse with two years full time training, or a dental therapist with a three year oral science degree cannot carry out dental whitening unless a dentist has prescribed it, anyone can argue that a beautician after a three hour sales patter and demo is safe to do so.

I do not understand the relevance to the Jamous case? All her customers were delighted!

Are you prepared to tell the high street chemists or the EU of your assertions?

welshdent

Teethwhiteninguk wrote: »

What facts are they? Have you got a chrystal ball in your surgery? Do you know the outcome of the appeal and the EU law infringement case?

Has there been an original case where the lady in question was acquited? yes or no?

Was there an appeal where the high court found in favour of the GDC? yes or no?

They are FACTS. They happened.

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

Has there been an original case where the lady in question was acquited? yes or no?

Was there an appeal where the high court found in favour of the GDC? yes or no?

They are FACTS. They happened.

The appeal case has not been heard yet. The EU law infringement has not ended.

A case happened but has not been concluded and no sentence has been passed.

Until this has occurred neither you or I can comment further.

welshdent

so thats a yes to both questions

<<waiting for teethwhiteninguk to insist on having the last word no matter what it is>>

Teethwhiteninguk

welshdent wrote: »

so thats a yes to both questions

<<waiting for teethwhiteninguk to insist on having the last word no matter what it is>>

There is no resolution yet.

brook2jack

Click on the following photographs which are taken from illegal whiteners websites showing their success stories. The poor people were initially delighted enough to give permission for their photos. There is picture after picture of gum burns (white on the gums) untreated gum disease and tooth disease all of which will be made worse by this treatment, except the illegal whiteners are ignorant of what an unhealthy mouth looks like and the folks who have had it done won't be aware until it's too late https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=599965173363820&set=a.598720986821572.150319.592837014076636&type=1&theater

press the next button for the whole terrible gallery.

welshdent

chickens .... equally as pointless but could it be a last word?!