Feature header Letters
Chairman of the Scottish Dental Practice Committee challenges Alan MacDonald over a crisis of confidence in the GDC’s ability to be a fair and effective regulator
Alienating the whole profession
A I
lan MacDonald is a GDC member. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when he argues the case for the preventive agenda, nor his
integrity around the need to understand the reasons behind an apparent rise in dental complaints. But sincerity and integ- rity can not, should not and do not mean we can ignore the fact of his membership of the GDC. The GDC has a crisis on its hands. Many dentists have little confidence in its ability to be a fair, transparent and effective regu- lator, as a recent survey of nearly 6,000 BDA members confirmed. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents doubted on the GDC’s ability to perform its regulatory function. The anger felt by dentists is not just
about the outrageous proposal to bump up the annual retention fee (ARF) to nearly £1,000 – more than 30 times the rate of inflation! – but also the fact that we are being asked to bolster a failing system.
The Professional Standards Authority highlighted the GDC’s shortcomings in a damning report earlier this year. Oh, and last year, too. Perhaps they could be sent to a fitness-to-regulate hearing. Mr MacDonald draws attention to the
staggering costs of each fitness-to-practise case and how a change in legislation could help. That takes time when action is needed now: the GDC needs to improve the way it triages complaints. Far too many cases are being inappropriately referred to the interim orders committee and the professional conduct committee. It is a scandal that cases can take years to resolve, which clearly helps neither the unhappy patient nor the dentist under investigation. Alan MacDonald states that good local
resolution would be better for patients and registrants alike, and claims that the GDC actively encourages it. We agree with his intentions (remember, we discussed his sincerity and integrity earlier?), but would have some qualms about accepting how
helpful the GDC is in avoiding the full- scale hearings which are meant to justify the soaring ARF. The failure to mention local resolution
in the GDC's full-page ad in the Daily Telegraph about the Dental Complaints Service is one of the issues which appalled the profession. The attempt to draw public attention to the Dental Complaints Service by using a picture of a woman, with a muzzled mouth was also something less than a PR coup. We have been trying for many years to overcome odontophobia, and our own regulator attempts to terrify potential patients! Thanks, GDC! The image was reminiscent of those used by Amnesty International to highlight brutality and abuses of human rights. It’s no wonder the profession feels so
alienated from the regulator. The BDA has had it up to the back teeth and that’s why we challenged the GDC to provide the basis – any reasonable basis – for the 64 per cent hike in the ARF. If the answers are not forthcoming, we have no fear of taking it to judicial review if necessary. We’re far more frightened of the impact on morale in the profession if we ignore this first step towards despotism. Watch this space.
® Robert Donald, GDP from Nairn and chairman of the Scottish Dental Practice Committee
ARF increase is a kick in the teeth
am appalled at the new level of ARF sought by the GDC. To say it is out of touch with reality is a gross understatement.
It has a responsibility to the profession to be reasonable, which it has forgotten. Its workload has increased specifically because it has encouraged patient complaints, which all cost time and money,
regardless of their veracity. So now we are being charged an extortionate amount to cover their misguided policies. This is a low-inflation era and our recent pay increase high- lights this. Dental budgets are already being squeezed tightly. This new GDC intervention is just kicking our teeth in when we are already down.
Perhaps the GDC should be addressing
the legal profession with their “no win, no fee” approach which, to my mind, is definitely encouraging complaints. Also, if the GDC pushed for the complainant to have to pay redress to a dentist for a spurious complaint, then perhaps the costs, to all of us, would be reduced.
® Gerald Edwards, BDS
Scottish Dental magazine 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92