A cursory reading of Dr. Christensen’s article, "Elective vs. Mandatory Dentistry" (October JADA), reveals it was published in the wrong journal. The article is definitely more suited to any of the numerous "throw-away" journals whose interest is the promotion of the use of dental restorations in areas where no pathology exists.
The author urges dentistry to adopt "mandatory and elective" over "dental needs and wants" and thereby presents a Clintonian false choice. Such terms have no precise meaning and will only serve to confuse patients more and, more importantly, further corrupt the fledgling dental-businessman’s thinking.
I suggest that the proper choice of descriptive terms should clearly illustrate the real difference in needed versus wanted and mandatory versus elective dentistry to patients. The chosen terminology should be precise and have measurable distinction relative to restoring and/or preserving dental health.
For example, iatrogenic dentistry is disease-inducing dentistry or that which reduces natural resistance to disease. Pathologically driven dentistry is dentistry required to halt, slow or prevent a disease.
It is obvious that the use of these terms would require further explanation to the average patient. It is equally obvious that once a cogent explanation of the term and phrase was clarified, the patient would have a greater understanding of the additional biologic costs involved in all dental restorative procedures that are not pathologically driven.
More importantly, each time, a dentist in the ethical-semantic quandary of how to fairly "educate" a patient while "selling" dental restorations in the absence of a disease would be reminded of what it really means to be a professional.
Up until now, I always thought that might be JADA’s goal.
