TOOTH EXTRACTED

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 32311, 10 September 1943, Page 6

TOOTH EXTRACTED

WAIHI DENTAL TECHNICIAN ' REGISTRATION QUESTION MAGISTRATE DEFERS PENALTY Documentary evidence by leading medical men in Auckland as to defendant’s ability was produced in the Waihi Magistrate’s Court last week, when Selwyn Moananui Hovell, dental technician, of Waihi, was charged that, on or about August 6, not being a person registered as a dentist or the holder of a provisional practising licence, he did carry on business as a dentist. The prosecution was brought under section 26 (1) (2) of the Dentists Act, 1926, and defendant, for whom Mr H. L. Boughton appeared, pleaded guilty. Sergeant A. Bisset, who prosecuted, said that as a result of a complaint by a local resident defendant had been interviewed by Detective A. Moore, of Hamilton, and had admitted that he had extracted a tooth, and that he had no licence to do so. Defendant had been in practice in Waihi as a dental technician since 1919.

Professional History

Counsel stated that in this case he had a two-fold duty, firstly a duty to the defendant to place the facts adequately before the court and secondly to the public inasmuch as a matter of public health was involved. For that reason any submissions he might make had been the subject of careful consideration. He proposed to deal with two matters, firstly the defendant’s professional history and secondly with his ability. Dealing with defendant’s professional history counsel stated Hovell had come to Waihi in 1912 after studying dentistry for 12 months and had continued his studies until the outbreak of war when he enlisted and saw two years’ service on the hospital ship Maheno. On that vessel he had assisted in major dental operations. The Great War period had thus caused a break in his career. After the war he had continued with his studies but had failed in the subjects of bacteriology, anatomy and physiology. Counsel was instructed by the defendant that these subjects were nqt essential in the work he was now doing. Magistrate and Counsel

Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M.: Would not the knowledge of those branches of the study of dentistry have an important bearing on the dentist’s understanding of reaction on other parts of the system, so that risk to the patient could be minimised?

Mr Boughton submitted that the practical knowledge gained by defendant would enable him to gauge such risks. Defendant had demonstrated at Otago University, and had been considered by the professor of the faculty as one of the ablest men at tooth-extracting that the university had seen. Then followed the extraordinary fact that the Rehabilitation Board had made him a grant to help purchase a dental practice in Waihi.

The Magistrate: The board may not have known that he was not registered.

Mr Boughton: That would indicate negligence then on the part of the department. The Act of 1921 realised that there were men who were qualified to carry out dental work, but for a reason defendant had. not applied for registration. The magistrate agreed that there were practical men who had perhaps not qualified from an academic point of view.

No Suggestion of Quackery

Counsel said was no suggestion that defendant was a “quack,” and he had performed dental operations at which some of the bestknown medical men in the Auckland 'Province had given the anaesthetic. The purpose of the Act, he maintained, was to see that proper attention was given, and that life was not endangered. That aspect, he respectfully thought, should be considered when the magistrate was fixing the penalty. Counsel then produced certificates from medical men, one of whom said he hdd known defendant for 25 years, ahd had had every reason to be satisfied with his skill in even major operations. Mr Boughton added that defendant had not held himself out as a dentist, and that his rooms were equipped for carrying out dental repairs which he could lawfully do. To the magistrate, counsel said representations were being made to the Minister of Health about defendant’s status and the possibility of his registration. Mr Freeman convicted the defendant and said he would look into the matter of penalty and defer his decision in the meantime.