DENTISTRY FEES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 67, 11 December 1937, Page 12

DENTISTRY FEES

Our Own Correspondent.I

Danger of Increase

(From

AUCKLAND, Last Niglit. The danger that an attempt would be made to prohibit advertising by dentists in New Zealand was voiced today by representatives of a number of the large dentists in Auckland, who said that any endeavour to enforce an immediate ban on advertising by obtaining the Government's sanction to restrictive regulations represented a breach of faith. A definite pledge, that there would be no interference with advertising for a pencd of at least three years after the passing of the Dental Bill was given in 1933, when a Bill was proinoted by the New Zealand Dental Association, and this pledge had been repeated before the Health Committee of the House on at least two occasions. When the Committee last heard evidcnce, ciuring 1936, the repetition of the pledge was particularly noted by the large advertising dentists who opposed the Bill. In the latest i«sue of the oflicial journal of tho Dental Association, however, it was stated that the dental council had at its September meet ing discussed advertising and had bxought forward a petition sigued by 51 advertising dentists, which asked tho Oovcrnment to provido regulations to put an immediate end to all advertising by dentists. "If regulations to give expression to this request are brought down there will be a clear breach of faith," said an Auckland advertising dentist. It was further declarcd that the petition did not include the signatures of any ,of the leadiug advertising dentists in the Dominion. It was therefore a sectional movement, and was aimed against the dentists who were keeping down fees while giving an excellent service. There could be no doubt, it was stated, that if advertising were stoppej the prices charged for dentistry would be immcdiately increased. It was well known by the general public that the uon-advertising dentist charged higlier fees than the advertising dentist. If Ihe advertising dentist were coinpelled to become a non-advertising dentist he would then liave to cliargc fees on a much higher seale. Wonid tlie Government cuunlcnarco a breach of the pledge gi\en by the Dental Assoeiation before tho Health Conunitlee of tho House ' li' regulations uero imposed as suggcsted in the petition the Government would be. a partv to tho movement to raiso dentistry prices, and this would especially afi'ect those people who could iii alford to pay the liigli fees required by the non-advertising dentists. It should "be clearly ajipreciated by the public that this was an aspect of the general trend towards higher prices and a higher cost o£ living.