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: