Dental Bill gets more drilling

A veteran dentist, Dr R Vijandran, believes the government should retain Dental Act 1971 but with 'some adjustments to meet challenges of modern times'.

PETALING JAYA: More dental surgeons came forward in protest against Dental Bill 2012, as a veteran practitioner from Petaling Jaya voiced his reservation on the proposed legislation today.

Dr R Vijandran claimed that the new Bill would be a bane to private dental surgeons.

“It’s best if the government retains the existing Dental Act 1971, but do make some improvements to it to meet the challenges of current times,” said the veteran dentist of 25 years.

Last week, Dr V Nedunchelian, a former president of the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners Association (MPDPA) urged the government not to table the Bill at Parliament in the current session to allow more time for consultation with stakeholders.

He also said that not many dentists were aware that the Health Ministry had published the Bill on its website in June, especially senior dental surgeons.

Vijandran said that the government should not group dental surgeons and dental nurses, also known as dental therapists in the same law.

“It’s best to have separate laws for them. In some advanced countries, the work of dental surgeons and dental therapists is clearly defined in their legislation,” said Vijandran.

He also said that therapists are supplementary to dentists, and not many dentists really need a nurse in the present day.

Malaysia, Vijandran added, is expected to produce 800 graduates on dental surgery annually, due to the existence of many public and private universities that offer dental courses in the country.

“In the past, the government sector needed dental therapists due to shortage of dental surgeons. But now, we have enough dentists.

“So this new law is going to create new problems to us. Why change things when they are working so well now?” Vijandran asked.

Malaysia currently has about 4,500 dentists nationwide.

Govt must control oversupply

Vijandran pointed out that provisions under Section 47 of the new Bill would affect dental surgeons who have expertise in conducting specific surgeries, but may not have the paper qualifications for it.

“We do go for courses and training to keep tabs on the new procedures in dental surgery,” he said.

When contacted, Nedunchelian concurred with Vijandran’s views, saying that Section 47 of the Bill is ambiguous in its interpretation, particulary Clause 1.

“Dental surgery is a specialisation by itself like optomology and ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist.

“But the Bill is attempting to create specialist within the specialisation, like who can do one particular type of surgery and who cannot. How can you nit-pick on things like that?” asked Nedunchelian.

He also said that it was important for the government to control the number of higher learning institutions that are offering dental courses to avoid an oversupply of dentists.

“Nowadays, education has become a business. I know of one private college that is offering dental courses for a price tag of nearly RM1 million for a twinning programme,” claimed Nedunchelian.

On the government’s move to allow dental therapists to conduct procedures on children, Nedunchelian said the policy is doomed to fail as what happened in Singapore.

“Several years back, a chain of dental clinics did try to get dental therapists to do the same thing but it failed. It’s because patients wanted dental surgeon to cure them, not the therapists,” he said.

As a solution, Nedunchelian said, “it’s best if the government could limit dental therapists’ scope of work after a study and place them under a separate law”.