The Standard of Care: An Ethical Responsibility of Public Health Dentistry

1993 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay W. Friedman ◽  
Kathryn A. Atchison
2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristine M. Gebbie ◽  
Cheryl A. Peterson ◽  
Italo Subbarao ◽  
Kathleen M. White

ABSTRACTThe filing of criminal charges against a group of clinicians in New Orleans for failure to meet expected standards of care following the hurricanes of 2005 made the growing concern among health professionals about care provided during extreme emergencies or disasters all too real. Questions about what may lead to censure, penalties from licensing boards, or lawsuits have come from nurses, physicians, and many other licensed health professionals. A panel convened by the American Nurses Association that included representatives of medical, public health, hospital, and government agencies considered the ethical, professional, and practical aspects of meeting standards of care in such circumstances. Clinicians are reminded that in emergencies, it is only the circumstances that change (perhaps radically); neither the individual’s professional competency nor the basic professional standard of care is different. In making prioritized decisions under such circumstances, the individual’s ethical framework is utilitarian, and there are 3 areas for action, even when some routine tasks are set aside: maintain worker and patient safety; maintain airway, breathing, and circulation; and establish or maintain infection control. Policy recommendations such as state legislation for the adoption of comprehensive immunity for volunteer health care workers, and the establishment of a medical review panel as arbitration board are also suggested. The resulting white paper summarizes the issues and provides guidance to individual professionals, institutions in which they work, and emergency planners. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3:111–116)


Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 4361
Author(s):  
Philippe P. Hujoel

Ignoring evidence on causes of disease such as smoking can harm public health. This report explores how public health experts started to ignore evidence that pediatric vitamin D deficiencies are associated with dental caries. Historical analyses show that an organization of clinical specialists, the American Dental Association (ADA), initiated this view. The ADA was a world-leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies. The ADA scientific council was enlisted in this endeavor and authorized the statement saying that “claims for vitamin D as a factor in tooth decay are not acceptable”. This statement was ghost-written, the opposite of what the ADA scientific council had endorsed for 15 years, and the opposite of what the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Internal ADA documents are informative on the origin of this scientific conundrum; the ADA scientific council had ignored their scientific rules and was assisting ADA governing bodies in conflicts with the medical profession on advertising policies. The evidence presented here suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document