ON reading your article warning of a supposed two-tiered dental regime regarding the regulation of dental practices ("Warning ‘two-tier’ dental regime leaving NHS patients in the dark", The Herald, January 12), I am alarmed at the suggestion by Ross McLelland that some irregularity is evident, when comparing the scrutiny of private-only dental practices with those which are NHS registered.
NHS practices are constantly and rigorously visited and examined by the health boards and the standards which they must meet to be allowed to function, are exacting and explicit, as are our other NHS services. We the stakeholders are thereby assured of a qualitative, hygienic and fair service, for even where charges are applicable, they are prescribed, monitored and justified against the performance and accounting records of the practice. The sole purpose of our public dental service, as part of our NHS, is our oral health and wellbeing, and so we are protected against any unwarranted profiteering within our national system.
On the other hand, the raison d'etre of the private-only sector is profit, therefore in the interests of the public, their individual standards must be arduously checked, controlled and made public.
I had reason to search the market some time ago with regard to possible implant surgery, because of oral problems I was experiencing. My regular dentist suggested that this may be a solution, but since that route was designated as purely cosmetic, it was not available on the NHS.
I identified a highly promoted, advertised and apparently recommended profit-only practice, which offered this service and arranged a consultation. The outcome was less than one would have hoped for and indeed was potentially dangerous. I fully detailed my medical history and current medication, which included treatment for leukaemia complete with its resultant complications, including bone marrow damage requiring many blood transfusions. I willingly paid almost £100 for an MRI scan to be conducted, which was followed by a detailed report and their proposal, that implants were indeed appropriate to my condition and could be carried out for the sum of £17,000. I explained that I would need some time to consider this proposal and that I would get back to them in due course.
A mere two days elapsed before their receptionist/telesales person was on the phone, for the first of many chase-up calls, pressing for a decision. When no decision was forthcoming, credit terms were suddenly introduced along with the offer of a revision of their quotation.
Being very uncomfortable with this unprofessional but purely commercial tactic, I consulted a specialist oral surgeon who specialises in facial restructure, particularly resulting from bone cancer. His assessment was that my condition had almost certainly resulted in my upper jaw bone having become porous and if so, then it would be quite unsuitable to take implants. Although this too was a private practice, he refrained from making any charge for this consultation, since in his words, "it had no positive outcome".
As it transpired, he proved to be correct, for within a fairly short time the roots of my teeth began to detach from the porous bone.
Had I proceeded with the proposal made by the original private-only practice, not only would I have wasted £17,000 but I may have been exposed to other complications. Just to add to my concerns, I have discovered that this practice offers all sorts of introductory incentives to NHS dentists who refer their patients in that direction.
I realise that the entire panoply of private dentistry cannot be condemned purely because of this experience, but perhaps private-only should be redefined as profit-only.
Ian Cooper,
Flat 3/3, 1 Jackson Place, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel