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.