HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rock, W. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rock, W. P.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

The Editorial on Orthodontic Speciality Training appeared in the UK in the same week that the last appeal was heard by the GDC Specialist List Appeals Panel. I cannot but feel that its timing is, therefore, particularly unfortunate.

Those who have appealed successfully via the experience route may not possess the M.Orth., but they have endorsements provided by an altogether more protracted and rigorous scrutiny from patients, referring dentists and consultant colleagues. As a representative of the SAC in Orthodontics on the Appeals Panel I did not serve on Orthodontic Appeals, but the process was similar for all specialities. Candidates who appealed successfully against the first GDC decision came armed with letters of unreserved recommendation from as many as 30 referring dentists and six consultants, some of whom may have been serving academics. In many ways, the outcome of orthodontic treatment is easier to assess than that of other types of dental treatment. It would be patronizing in the extreme to suggest that our general practitioner colleagues cannot recognize a good occlusal correction when they see one or fail to appreciate feedback from the parents of a successfully treated child. The candidate may also have been accompanied by one or more supporters of national, indeed, international repute who themselves were on the appropriate specialist list. Such supporters would state their complete confidence in the abilities and character of the appellant, and recommend that they be recognized as a specialist on the basis of personal knowledge that they had of their work.

To ensure absolute probity, the GDC engaged the services of a senior judge of great experience. Consequently, the appeal process has been handled with the fairness and impartiality for which British Justice is renowned, free from sectarian interests and with the public interest firmly in mind.

The argument has been put forward that no appeals should have been entertained. I believe that with greater forethought and common sense in drafting the regulations many would have been avoided. What is clear to me is that those who have appealed successfully have survived a process of peer review more searching than any postgraduate examination. All specialist practitioners are, by whatever route, there by right and deserve to be recognized as equals by everyone else on the list. Surely it is now time to welcome them as specialist colleagues and to move forward. Bitterness rarely does much good.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rock, W. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rock, W. P.