Can my dentist do this? Isn't this discrimination?

baza52

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

Yes, baza, you've made it pretty clear who's side you are on here. How about you apply some of this to yourself and perhaps consider that I didn't act in any way unreasonably?

Its not about sides is it. Just because my opinion differs to yours.
You have said that your mental illness can make you come across as a difficult/complex patient to care for and manage in terms of my chronic pain and appeared grumpy and withdrawn.
(thats a quote of yours)
Posters have said that the dentist may have felt threatened by your behaviour and this could well be the case.
The dentist has a choice to not treat you if they feel threatened by your behaviour or your attitute towards them.

Having a disability is NOT a get out of jail free card and you cannot use the fact you have a disability to make your point that you feel unfaily treated.

The best and kindest advice i and anyone else can give you is to move on and let this drop. Your not going to be happy being treated by this dentist anymore and the dentist no longer wants to treat you. There is not a way forward.
Your only choice is to move on and visit a new dentist.

baza52

ok, to quote part of your original post "What I suspect has happened here is the dentist was at a loss as to what was causing my chronic pain and decided she could do without the headache, therefore removing me from her practice."

If the Dentist had no idea how to hlep you or treat you they are within their right to transfer you. Would you rather they just kept seeing you withought any idea how they could help or treat you?

Do you honestly think your 100% not at fault?

MrHeisenberg

baza52 wrote: »

ok, to quote part of your original post "What I suspect has happened here is the dentist was at a loss as to what was causing my chronic pain and decided she could do without the headache, therefore removing me from her practice."

If the Dentist had no idea how to hlep you or treat you they are within their right to transfer you. Would you rather they just kept seeing you withought any idea how they could help or treat you?

Do you honestly think your 100% not at fault?

Nope, not true. She still had a duty to carry out general dental duties.

If she couldn't pinpoint the cause, she needed to be mindful of the condition when carrying out routine investigations and procedures.

Yes, I think she is trying her luck as I certainly didn't do anything to justify the extreme measure of ending the relationship. I think the failure to notify me speaks for itself too.

baza52

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

Nope, not true. She still had a duty to carry out general dental duties.

If she couldn't pinpoint the cause, she needed to be mindful of the condition when carrying out routine investigations and procedures.

Yes, I think she is trying her luck as I certainly didn't do anything to justify the extreme measure of ending the relationship. I think the failure to notify me speaks for itself too.

perhaps if you just post facts rather than your assumptions you would get more favourable replies.

Why did the dentist not carry out their general duties?

How was the dentist not mindfull of the condition?

Failure to notify you has been mentioned and that it is NOT a reqirement to do so but is advised. Advised does not mean it has to be done.

brook2jack

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

Nope, not true. She still had a duty to carry out general dental duties.

If she couldn't pinpoint the cause, she needed to be mindful of the condition when carrying out routine investigations and procedures.

Yes, I think she is trying her luck as I certainly didn't do anything to justify the extreme measure of ending the relationship. I think the failure to notify me speaks for itself too.

Actually according to the GDC scope of practice a dentist is advised to step away if they feel a problem is beyond their competency , quote

You should only carry out a task or type of treatment or make decisions about a patient’s care if you are sure that you have the necessary skills and are appropriately trained, competent and indemnified. If a task, type of treatment or decision is outside your scope of practice or you do not feel that you are trained and competent to do it you must refer the patient to an appropriately trained colleague.

You have obviously seen many dentists over the years and this one only once. You have been discharged from at least four consultants. You are considering treatment eg a sinus lift and implants which will not be maintained , repaired or replaced in NHS general Dental practice.


With your diagnosis any dentist attempting any treatment in the area knows they risk the possibility of making things worse. You have been asking for a bridge which would be inadvisable even for someone without your problems. You have then asked for investigations about a possible problem which might have been seen on an x ray taken by another dentist, however you were also seeing a consultant who has taken ct scans of the area, spotted nothing and discharged you.

It is frustrating not to get a resolution to your pain, but that resolution is not going to happen by trying to bombast a general dentist into seeing you who will not even be a tenth as able to help you as the consultants you have seen.

You say you have been assigned another dentist so your general dental care needs are being met. Dentistry is a very personal service and sometimes it is in everyone’s interest if there is no understanding between a dentist and patient that they both move on.

mollycat

Hello again.

Ile try and explain my previous post, (#135), although why you would think I now have a "bruised ego" after interacting with yourself I have no idea

The content within the thread that bothers me, (and provokes my reluctance to stay involved), is your fervour to exploit disability legislation, (the links you posted for me), and your conviction of its appropriateness to you.

I work with disabled people every day, disabled through mental health issues, lifelong conditions such as Schizophrenia etc.

I have never met you obviously, so have no objective information regarding your health, only your account throughout the thread.

Depression is treatable and many people make a full recovery. Someone who has had an episode of depression and is recovered would be unlikely to consider them "disabled". We would not encourage someone who is currently depressed to regard themselves as "disabled", a more positive mindset focussing on a return to normality will aid recovery.

Over my career I cant recall someone suffering from depression using that as a reason to justify irritability and "grumpiness". In your case from what Ive read here, sounds more like an entitlement that certain personality traits of yours are accepted carte blanche by others.

Similarly, I find it unusual that "facial pain" can be a credible descriptor for disability; I had a headache yesterday, (before I found this thread folks, honest ), was I "disabled" at that point?

Further down the continuum, do persons with lifelong medical conditions such as athsma and hypertension, regard themselves as "disabled"?

I dont think so.

The reason I left the thread is that I think there is a genuine debate to be had regarding access to services and rights for disabled people, I dont want to read or be involved in something that trivialises the issue with spurious "discrimination" due to facial pain and grumpiness.

Im with baza; this thread should be ignored, there's not a shred of usefulness or positivity within it.

MrHeisenberg

baza52 wrote: »

perhaps if you just post facts rather than your assumptions you would get more favourable replies.

Why did the dentist not carry out their general duties?

How was the dentist not mindfull of the condition?

Failure to notify you has been mentioned and that it is NOT a reqirement to do so but is advised. Advised does not mean it has to be done.

I'm giving up here I'm afraid - you're either not bothering to read my posts/replies or certain things just aren't registering.

They had to notify unless there were exceptional circumstances. What were the exceptional circumstances? :wall:

MrHeisenberg

brook2jack wrote: »

Actually according to the GDC scope of practice a dentist is advised to step away if they feel a problem is beyond their competency , quote

You should only carry out a task or type of treatment or make decisions about a patient’s care if you are sure that you have the necessary skills and are appropriately trained, competent and indemnified. If a task, type of treatment or decision is outside your scope of practice or you do not feel that you are trained and competent to do it you must refer the patient to an appropriately trained colleague.

You have obviously seen many dentists over the years and this one only once. You have been discharged from at least four consultants. You are considering treatment eg a sinus lift and implants which will not be maintained , repaired or replaced in NHS general Dental practice.

With your diagnosis any dentist attempting any treatment in the area knows they risk the possibility of making things worse. You have been asking for a bridge which would be inadvisable even for someone without your problems. You have then asked for investigations about a possible problem which might have been seen on an x ray taken by another dentist, however you were also seeing a consultant who has taken ct scans of the area, spotted nothing and discharged you.

It is frustrating not to get a resolution to your pain, but that resolution is not going to happen by trying to bombast a general dentist into seeing you who will not even be a tenth as able to help you as the consultants you have seen.

You say you have been assigned another dentist so your general dental care needs are being met. Dentistry is a very personal service and sometimes it is in everyone’s interest if there is no understanding between a dentist and patient that they both move on.

Okay, what was the treatment decision here? There was no treatment decision, as to treat something you need to have identified a problem.

I'm not getting a sinus lift. I am getting a bone graft though.

You do realise consultants plead ignorance when it comes to dental issues? I've been down that road before.

I think the "no understanding" is a far stretch.

k3lvc

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

I'm giving up here I'm afraid - you're either not bothering to read my posts/replies or certain things just aren't registering.

They had to notify unless there were exceptional circumstances. What were the exceptional circumstances? :wall:

You and your attitude are the exceptional circumstances - you're not seeming to grasp that


There's still some debate whether your selective trawling/quoting of legistation proves any of what you're saying

I'd genuinely love to hear the other side of the story :rotfl:

Comms69

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

A NHS dentist I saw a few months ago has covertly ended the professional relationship. She claims this is because I was allegedly not happy with her services – an allegation that is simply untrue. I only met her for a check-up where I discussed triggers for my chronic facial pain and the possibility of getting a bridge fitted (my denture seem to be triggering the pain).

I only found this out today after it recently come to my attention that I have been mysteriously transferred from one practice to another and after a routine check-up appointment was mysteriously cancelled.

The decision, which could well be discriminatory, has not been set out in writing to me, contrary to GDC guidelines (page 16).

https://www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/NEW%20Standards%20for%20the%20Dental%20Team.pdf

Moreover, neither have any of the following steps taken place (thought this is GMC guidance):

a. warn the patient that you are considering ending the relationship

b. do what you can to restore the professional relationship

c. explore alternatives to ending the professional relationship

What I suspect has happened here is the dentist was at a loss as to what was causing my chronic pain and decided she could do without the headache, therefore removing me from her practice.

No, that's not discrimination.