ASA Ruling

I have to admit I thought that this matter had now faded into obscurity and had not intended to make additional posts on this blog since the last one, which was almost a year ago.

The fact that the ASA has upheld it's own previous ruling is of no consequence whatsoever. Clearly the GDC did not want a confrontation with the profession - the same as the one it sought to avoid in 1995 by removing it's prohibition on dentists using the title 'Dr.' It would have been better if it had had the courage to come to a decision rather than duck the issue and let it fade into oblivion. No matter, the GDC's decision as set out in the letter sent to all dentists in 1995 - and which I have reproduced in the previous post - still stands.

The ASA states:
"We understood that, since 1995, the GDC had allowed dentists to use 'Dr' as a courtesy title, providing they did not otherwise imply that they were qualified to carry out medical procedures"
- of course this is not what the GDC said. They pointed out that dentists should not use the title in a way as to mislead the public or patients into thinking they are anything other than dentists - and particularly not imply they were registered medical practitioners.
I have seen nothing on Dr. Stowell's web site that could be argued to have breached the GDC's guidelines.

The ASA seems to have misinterpreted the GDC guidelines to mean that dentists should not use the title in advertising "unless it was made clear that it was a courtesy title only and that the practitioner did not hold a general medical qualification".

I understand the ASA ruling is likely to be challenged in the courts but, in the meant-time, including something as reproduced below would seemingly satisfy the ASA's position:

Dentists may continue using the title 'Dr'

On 1st. March the GDC published its Guidance on Ethical Advertising with no mention of use of the title Dr. by dentists. In that it appears this matter is no longer on the agenda for future meetings of the Council, the guidance given by the Council in 1995 that Dentists can henceforth use the title 'Dr' remains in force.

The Final Chapter

In previous posts I have been outlining the dilemma the GDC has unwittingly brought upon itself by asking its Standards Committee to consider use of the title 'Dr.' in its deliberations on ethical advertising.

I have been arguing that the GDC needed to find a way to accept the reoprt on ethical advertising, whilst rejecting the recommendations regarding use of the title 'Dr.' It seems that with the arrival of Kevin O'Brien as Chair of the GDC comes also a degree of common sense! In December the Council ratified the guidance on ethical advertising, whilst deciding not to debate and vote on the 'Dr.' issue at that time. On 1st. March the Guidance on Ethical Advertising was published - containing no mention of the 'Dr' title. It may be that the Council intends to consider this matter when it meets later this month, but one poses the question "does it now really need to consider this matter at all?"

Perhaps the way forward for the GDC is now to neither accept nor reject the Committee's recommendations on this issue, rather instead let the matter quietly fade away. So hopefully this will then be the final chapter in what has been a wholly unnecessary debate.

A new Chair and a new way forward

In December the GDC once again ducked the issue by failing to vote on whether dentists should continue to use the title 'Dr', whilst ratifying its guidance on ethical advertising. The GDC is aware that, in asking  its Standards Committee to consider the use of the title 'doctor' by dentists as part of its investigation into the Principles of Ethical Advertising, it has unwittingly put itself in a dilemma that it has hitherto be unable to resolve, in that included in its recommendations, the Standards Committee concluded that dentists in the UK should no longer be permitted to use the title 'Dr'.

The GDC is now intending to consider the matter when it meets in March. It realises that it is in danger of inflicting immense damage on itself, over an issue which is entirely of its own making, if it votes to implement a ban it will be unable to enforce. Consequently it needs to find a way of accepting the recommendations of the Standards Committee on advertising, whilst rejecting its recommendations on use of the title 'Dr'. In a previous posting I outlined reasons why the GDC should have no difficulty in so doing.

The Council now has a new Chair in the person of Kevin O'Brien. He points out that the role of the GDC is not to represent registrants but to "take considered decisions on matters which may affect the standards of care patients receive". Let us hope he encourages the Council to realise that, in taking those decisions, it cannot act as some medieval Star Chamber and not consider the impact a decision to implement a ban would have on the status of the profession, as dentists try to explain to their patients why they should no longer be called 'Dr'.

A way out for the GDC

The first thing one needs to say is that there are glaring factual inaccuracies in the Standards Committee's report. It is stated that when dentists were first registered as a separate profession they wanted to be recognised alongside surgeons rather than general practitioners and so did not use the title 'Dr'. The truth is that, at that time, dentists were considered little more than licensed tooth-wrights and not worthy of the title.
Secondly the report states quite erroneously that until 1999 the Council took action against dentists using the title 'Dr'. This was never the case. In fact in November 1995 the Council had to admit that, due to the fact that so many dentists were using the title in defiance of its guidance, it had little choice but to remove the prohibition.

The Standards Committee relied heavily on opinion polls when producing its recommendations. We all know it is possible to conduct an opinion poll to produce the result desired:

The Committee used an opinion poll  which seems to me to be a perfect example of where a predetermined result has been decided and a poll to produce that result conducted.

An example of a question posed:


"The use of the title doctor is in fact a courtesy title and they are not necessarily qualified medical doctors. Do you think it is OK for them (dentists) to use the title doctor?"

- now if that isn't a leading question I don't know what is. There is a clear implication in the question that dentists using the title 'Dr' are somehow implying they are medically qualified. In fact later on the report states "....only 17% of people understood what a courtesy title meant." - and of course it appears it was never pointed out that medical practitioners use the title as a 'courtesy' as well.

The Focus groups who conducted the poll  stated that  ".....it is important to note that dentists' use of the term 'doctor' was not a 'top of the mind' issue amongst respondents " - and a shift from indifference to objection apparently occurred only after detailed, facilitated discussion. In other words if the respondents were initially indifferent on the issue, it seems they were in essence provoked to give the response required.

I think it is clearly the case that the data used in the report is so flawed as to make that whole section invalid and the GDC should have no hesitation in rejecting the Standards Committee's recommendations on use of the title 'doctor'.

Monday morning is homeopathic dentistry.........

Click on image to enlarge

The other cartoons including this one can be found by following this link

The GDC's dilemma

As a result of one complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority that a dentist was using the title 'Dr' in a way that was misleading, the GDC asked its Standards Committee to consider the use of the title 'doctor' by dentists as part of its investigation into the Principles of Ethical Advertising. In doing so the GDC appears to have unwittingly put itself in a dilemma that it has hitherto be unable to resolve, in that included in its recommendations on ethical advertising, the Standards Committee concluded that dentists in the UK should no longer be permitted to use the title 'Dr'.

The GDC needs to issue guidance on ethical advertising but realises that it is in danger of inflicting immense damage on itself, over an issue which is entirely of its own making, if it votes to implement a ban it will be unable to enforce. Consequently it needs to find a way of accepting the recommendations of the Standards Committee on advertising, whilst rejecting its recommendations on use of the title 'Dr'.

In the next posting I will outline serious flaws in the data the Committee relied on in reaching its conclusions such as to make that part of its recommendations invalid.