STATE DENTAL SCHEME

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 56, 30 November 1920, Page 7

STATE DENTAL SCHEME

CONDEMNED BY DR. PICKERILL. Bv Teleeranh—Press Association. Dunedin, November 25. Commenting on recent communications which have appeared in the Press with reference to the State dental scheme, Dr. Pickerill, Dean of Dental Faculty, Otago University, said: "It is generally admitted on all sides that there is a danger of fnefliciency. Post-war inefficiency is pervading and infecting many classrs of society, and there is grave danger that the dental treatment, of school children is to be pervaded with the same bugbear of inefficiency. That the exponents and supporters of tho Government scheme, Messrs. Hunter, Rishworth, and Mitchell, should be openly advocating anything less than what they know to be efficient; is almost incredible, for these same gentlemen/ in the past have been stout advocates of 'nothing less than the best* for the State service. At the last dental conference before the. war, in reference to the State dental service, Sir. Rishworth stated: "Will the public, when they are cducatrd in the way wo all desire, be satisfied with men of mean attainments? Will they not want men. who are skilled as high'as the country can make them? I think, that a short course would not he acceptable to the public of New Zealand, and I cannot understand your argument on the score of economy. The New Zealand people do not economise when they are keen for a thing. They will demand the very best services availablo for that particular class of treatment.' The New Zealand people are now being asked to accept something far 'below the 'very best, and Mr. Rishworth supports it. It is stated that tho Government cannot afford to employ fnlly qualified dentists. As I have previously pointed out, under the bursary system tho Government gets the services of a. fully qualified dental surgeon for JE275 per annum, and it proposes to pay the half-trained .women ,£250. Twenty-five pounds per head per annum saved, considerably less work done, and what was done would of necessity bo inefficient. Where is the economy? It is ill reality the most expensive form of State dental service conceivable. As a parent said to me to-day, 'I call it penny wise and pound foolish.' By all means use dental nurses in the school service, but limit their duties to nurses' duties. These should comprise the preparation of patients, the care of drugs, filling materials, and instruments, sterilisation, oral | hvgienc, and prophylaxis (cleaning, polishing, and scaling teeth), and last, but not least, teaching the prevention, of dental caries and toothbrush drill. There would 'be sufficient work of this character and it would boi of a nature, that such training would fit fhem"tor. Train young women in this work and pay them at first, say, 4100 per annum, and devote the .£l5O saved towards a dentist's salary. Tho annual saving" on every 20 women trained would bo .23000. This sum would, with bursaries, pay for nearly '10 . qualified dentists, who would certainly get through vastly more work in a year than 20 lialf-trained women, and moreover, reliable operations would bo done for tho children. . Mr. Hunter has, I believe, suggested 200 of these halftrained young women. On this number the annual saving would be ,£30,000. Thus, by asking the Minister for nn more money, the chicf dental officers would have JC30.000 to spend on employ, ing fully-qualified dentists to treat the school children.. Why then this unfortunate obsession for employing halftrained mid unqualified? As a Christchurch editor has already asked: 'If this svstem of State emplojmcnt of the unqualified is oilcn introduced, H'lioro is U Koing to stop?' Why no employ halftrained 1 medical nurses and medical men?' Why not, indeed, employ unqualified teachers? Why be encumbered with qualifications, university courses, examinations, or any such things, so long as we obtain numbers? It is the oft-heard tale* 'No, we do not stock the genuino article, but wo have something just as good.' The principle is wrong, unsound, and pernicious. The details of the organisation I am not concerned with,-but I do contend that if .you start a. system on an unsound principlo it will ho bond to end in. failure. Why put jerry buildings into the foundations of a national structure, which will have to last for many generations?"