IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v19y1984i2p117-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To protect the public: Professionalism vs competence in dentistry

Author

Listed:
  • Jago, J. D.

Abstract

This paper uses evidence from reports in the British Dental Journal from 1958 to 1979 of disciplinary charges against dentists in the United Kingdom to question the General Dental Council's (GDC) claim that it is protecting the public in relation to the competence of dental practitioners. In that 20-year period only one charge out of 86 heard by the GDC Disciplinary Committee had to do with a possible lack of professional competence, whereas 47% of the charges were for fraud and other criminal offences, 18% were for drug-related offences, 18% were for sex offences and 16% were for breaches of professional ethics or discipline. The paper argues that the GDC has been much more concerned with developing a professional image and style for dentists than it has been with assuring an adequate level of dental care for patients by dentists once they graduate. Although the data used to support the argument are from Britain and from dentistry, the argument may be extended to all professional occupations and countries where there is a State-enforced medical monopoly in relation to clients.

Suggested Citation

  • Jago, J. D., 1984. "To protect the public: Professionalism vs competence in dentistry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 117-122, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:2:p:117-122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90277-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:2:p:117-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.