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'.