LETTERS TO THE JOURNAL
THE JOURNAL devotes this section to com m ent by readers on to p ics of current interest to dentistry. The m anaging ed itor reserves the righ t to edit all com m unications to fit available space and requires that all letters be signed. Printed com m unications do no t necessarily reflect the op in io n o r o ffic ia l po licy of the Association. Your pa rticipatio n in this section is invited.
Let the user beware m American Endodontic Society’s Newsletter (Fall 1977) asserts that “ The A D A Council on Dental Mate rials and Devices has released its re port including N2 as a routine of endodontics.” This claim is completely contrary to the stated position of the Council. In the Guide to Dental Materials and Devices, 8tli Edition, N2 is men tioned, but is neither endorsed by the Council nor considered as a routine of endodontics. The AES statement ig nores the Council’s warning of “ the severe postoperative complications that not infrequently accompany those (N2) types of materials, particularly when inadvertently extruded through a tooth apex.” 1 The Association should set the rec ord straight when other publications brandish its imprimatur without au thorization. When an untoward result occurs, either Association approval or general acceptance of a drug by pru dent practitioners may constitute a de fense to a suit for professional negli gence. On the other hand, customary usage of a drug that is not consonant with due care is not legally sufficient
proof that a dentist met the standard of care.2 The AES article concedes that N2 remains unapproved by the FDA. N onetheless, the article concludes that “ It can be prescribed and sold by pharmacists without question.” This bold assertion ignores the California Department of Health and the FDA which have both, in the past and cur rently, taken the position that distribu tion of N2 and its various progenies is illegal. Accordingly, cease and desist letters have been sent to various drug manufacturers, as well as dispensing pharmacies. Drug promoters, whether dentists or lay persons, who deceitfully prop agandize a drug’s safety or mislead practitioners regarding drug agency approval risk personal liability.3 Un less AES corrects this error, it is con ceivable that the ADA NEWS may one day report litigation alleging fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of these drug promoters serving in their corporate executive capacity. ED W IN J. Z IN M A N , D DS, JD SAN F R A N C ISC O , C A L IF 1. Guide to Dental Materials and Devices, 8th ed. Chicago, American Dental Association, 1976, p 187.
2. Helling vs Carey, 519 P. 2d (1974). 3. Toole vs Richardson-Merrill, Inc., 251 Cal. App. 2d 689, 60 Cal Rptr. 398.
You can change the patient ■ “ Patient susceptibility limits to the effectiveness of preventive oral health education” (The Journal, December 1977) was a disservice to den tistry ... . Basically the author viewed people as “ susceptible” or “ not susceptible,” as though they were fixed and incapa ble of further growth. . . . This is characteristic of the negative ap proach. A positive approach is to see what can be done to change the patient’s susceptibility. . . . A humanistic pre ventive dentist helps people get in touch with their strengths and values and grow out of their problems. . . . We help patients by leading them from what is probable to what is possible. N ext, we help them develop a percep tion of what future is preferable. A vision of what they want to have hap pen makes them better learn ers.. . . It sometimes takes people three or four years to come around to jumping from belief to commitment. Consequently, prevention can be a long-range grow JADA, Vol. 96, March 1978 ■ 381
THE JOURNAL devotes this section to com m ent by readers on to p ics of current interest to dentistry. The m anaging ed itor reserves the righ t to edit all com m unications to fit available space and requires that all letters be signed. Printed com m unications do no t necessarily reflect the op in io n o r o ffic ia l po licy of the Association. Your pa rticipatio n in this section is invited.
Let the user beware m American Endodontic Society’s Newsletter (Fall 1977) asserts that “ The A D A Council on Dental Mate rials and Devices has released its re port including N2 as a routine of endodontics.” This claim is completely contrary to the stated position of the Council. In the Guide to Dental Materials and Devices, 8tli Edition, N2 is men tioned, but is neither endorsed by the Council nor considered as a routine of endodontics. The AES statement ig nores the Council’s warning of “ the severe postoperative complications that not infrequently accompany those (N2) types of materials, particularly when inadvertently extruded through a tooth apex.” 1 The Association should set the rec ord straight when other publications brandish its imprimatur without au thorization. When an untoward result occurs, either Association approval or general acceptance of a drug by pru dent practitioners may constitute a de fense to a suit for professional negli gence. On the other hand, customary usage of a drug that is not consonant with due care is not legally sufficient
proof that a dentist met the standard of care.2 The AES article concedes that N2 remains unapproved by the FDA. N onetheless, the article concludes that “ It can be prescribed and sold by pharmacists without question.” This bold assertion ignores the California Department of Health and the FDA which have both, in the past and cur rently, taken the position that distribu tion of N2 and its various progenies is illegal. Accordingly, cease and desist letters have been sent to various drug manufacturers, as well as dispensing pharmacies. Drug promoters, whether dentists or lay persons, who deceitfully prop agandize a drug’s safety or mislead practitioners regarding drug agency approval risk personal liability.3 Un less AES corrects this error, it is con ceivable that the ADA NEWS may one day report litigation alleging fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of these drug promoters serving in their corporate executive capacity. ED W IN J. Z IN M A N , D DS, JD SAN F R A N C ISC O , C A L IF 1. Guide to Dental Materials and Devices, 8th ed. Chicago, American Dental Association, 1976, p 187.
2. Helling vs Carey, 519 P. 2d (1974). 3. Toole vs Richardson-Merrill, Inc., 251 Cal. App. 2d 689, 60 Cal Rptr. 398.
You can change the patient ■ “ Patient susceptibility limits to the effectiveness of preventive oral health education” (The Journal, December 1977) was a disservice to den tistry ... . Basically the author viewed people as “ susceptible” or “ not susceptible,” as though they were fixed and incapa ble of further growth. . . . This is characteristic of the negative ap proach. A positive approach is to see what can be done to change the patient’s susceptibility. . . . A humanistic pre ventive dentist helps people get in touch with their strengths and values and grow out of their problems. . . . We help patients by leading them from what is probable to what is possible. N ext, we help them develop a percep tion of what future is preferable. A vision of what they want to have hap pen makes them better learn ers.. . . It sometimes takes people three or four years to come around to jumping from belief to commitment. Consequently, prevention can be a long-range grow JADA, Vol. 96, March 1978 ■ 381
