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

MrHeisenberg

welshdent wrote: »

Fwiw. Digital and non digital radiography- the advantage of digital is you can play with levels to alter contrasts but In terms of quality - standard wet films are better. Plus there can be significant inter operator variation in interpretation too. Basically one is not particularly superior to the other unless you have dodgy eyesight and like to be able to blow the image up to the size seen in the mr bean visits the dentist sketch.

I!!!8217;m curious how you know for sure you were discriminated against though?
Given there is no registration all the dentist needs to do really is show they are on target with udas and they can legitimately claim they are at capacity even without a breakdown in relationship. If those are their reasons then discrimination won!!!8217;t be a part of it imho

Apparently digital x-rays are generally better:

http://www.checktb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189%3Aanaloguevsdigital&catid=44%3Adigital-imaging&Itemid=135&lang=en

I have been booted out of the practice - it's about as discriminatory as it gets! To use a simple analogy, all disabled people are banned from a certain restaurant by owner A but restaurant owner B has a restaurant just round the corner. Is restaurant owner A behaving lawfully because of the existence of restaurant B?

MrHeisenberg

fairy_lights wrote: »

No, it isn't. Honestly you sound like you've got an axe to grind.

Maybe to a layman and someone who doesn't understand equality law.

MrHeisenberg

martinsurrey wrote: »

As a new comer to this tread can I get something clear?

You think the dentist discriminated against you because of your disability?

Is your disability your dental pain?

Yes, chronic facial pain, depression and other health problems (all form one disability).

MrHeisenberg

welshdent wrote: »

I work it out because you haven!!!8217;t seen their clinics notes. So you have no idea what they have said.

I plan on making a subject access request today but, as I have said, where are the written reasons to me justifying their decision?

welshdent

As a daily user I can assure they aren!!!8217;t better. They are easier and have lower dose. Not better.

And you are assuming you have been booted out because of disability. I!!!8217;d hazard a guess you are assuming wrongly and the reason for it is very different.
Your analogy is false because you are making out that practice or restaurant A has banned disabled patients. That is hardly likely to be the case. You aren!!!8217;t all disabled people.

welshdent

Incidentally I’ve no idea why ‘ is being printed out as !!!8217;t

MrHeisenberg

welshdent wrote: »

As a daily user I can assure they aren!!!8217;t better. They are easier and have lower dose. Not better.

And you are assuming you have been booted out because of disability. I!!!8217;d hazard a guess you are assuming wrongly and the reason for it is very different.
Your analogy is false because you are making out that practice or restaurant A has banned disabled patients. That is hardly likely to be the case. You aren!!!8217;t all disabled people.

It seems to me you are making an assumption too - you've not seen the medical records, the reasons for ending the relationship and you weren't present when I last met the dentist in question.

Let me ask you this, why did the dentist end the relationship and how can you be so sure it had absolutely nothing to do with any of my health problems? You do realise that discrimination could be driven by subconscious thought processes?

You have also not properly addressed the analogy I created (it was purely an analogy).

MrHeisenberg

welshdent wrote: »

Incidentally I’ve no idea why ‘ is being printed out as !!!8217;t

Yeah, that is odd.

welshdent

To be fair I don!!!8217;t need to address anyone. I!!!8217;m a user on a forum.

Maybe I am making assumptions. But I!!!8217;m looking at it from the perspective of a dentist who would be well aware they can not unilaterally discriminate on grounds of disability. I know of a grand total of zero dentists that would this but I know of plenty that have experienced a break down in their relationship. We ideall would contact the individual to explain this but there is no law that says we must. We aren!!!8217;t part of the nhs machine. We are independent contractors working to a framework. I and many others don!!!8217;t agree with this but we have zero obligations following completion of a band 1 or band 1 urgent course of treatment.

Following a band 2 or 3 we must guarantee individual items for 12 months and provide continuation of care for 2 months. That!!!8217;s it.

I can not for 1 second imagine that any sane dentist that plans on continuing to work for their livelihood would say something in their notes like !!!8220;do not book them with me again they are disabled !!!8220;.

They may have said something along the lines of !!!8220;patient was rude and stated !!!8220;xyz !!!8220; to me. I feel there is a break down in my relationship with this patient and feel threatened by them. No more apts with me. Will contact health board/lat to reassign them!!!8221;.

p00hsticks

MrHeisenberg wrote: »

To use a simple analogy, all disabled people are banned from a certain restaurant by owner A but restaurant owner B has a restaurant just round the corner. Is restaurant owner A behaving lawfully because of the existence of restaurant B?

That's not necessary an accurate analogy though - owner A may have 'banned' a particular person (who just happens to be disabled) because they have been rude and disruptive.