Ed de la Vega, DDSI read with very keen interest, the commentary of Jay M. Hislop, DDS, the President of the San Joaquin Valley Dental Society in the August 1998 CDA Journal. Some of his comments made sense, but a whole lot of what he said about AB 1116, and foreign-trained dentists is absolute nonsense! Following is my response to Dr. Hislop's commentary.
Where was Dr. Hislop when the CDA House of Delegates was discussing this issue? Change has been upon us. And further change is inevitable. Yes, there is a lot of value in this thing called "diversity." CDA and ADA are overly-focused on diversity because of its impact on membership in big urban cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Give it time. Soon it will be in every city throughout California. No matter what is said, and for that matter, whatever barriers are placed, graduates of foreign schools will continue to come to California. These dentists, because of cultural and family values that emphasize hard work and good clean lifestyle will continue to prosper much like the others who blazed the path for them. A lot of them will eventually join CDA and some may even become the leaders who in the next millennium will lead CDA and the profession to a higher level than what it is today.
I advise everyone to become familiar with the AB 1116 legislation. Nowhere does it say that the California Board of Dental Examiners "confers" the title DDS to anyone as was stated by Dr. Hislop. It merely states that the bill will "authorize any person who holds a valid license, unrevoked and unsuspected certificate as a dentist in California to append the letters DDS to his or her name regardless of the degree conferred upon him or her by the dental college from which the licensee graduated." This is not the first time this has been done in California. People with the Doctor of Osteopathy (OD) degree can append the letters "MD" after their names if they pass the State Medical Board. What is in the degree or name anyway? What counts most is not the title or degree, but who you are as a person and a professional, and, what kind of dentistry you deliver!
The CDA and the coalition of ethnic minority dental societies recommended the changes and the State legislature agreed, because some dentists, U.S. graduates included, who practice in California have degrees that directly translate to DDS, although they are not written in English. (Even the old Northwestern dental school diploma is in Latin!) The general idea was to have one common designation so that the public will not be confused, and, the "playing field will be level."
I must take issue with any claim that the dental training of foreign-trained graduates is "nothing more than a technician course in a foreign country." I served the California State Board of Dental Examiners for four years as a member of the Examining Committee and for four years as a Member of the Board. I know what I saw in those eight years. While I respect the values of "accreditation," I do not agree that all graduates of accredited schools are necessarily better than those from foreign schools. Dentists should not be stereotyped simply because of the origin of their dental degrees!
If foreign-trained graduates are inferior, why is it that California schools have secured "special permits" for some of us to teach in their schools? Just browse through the faculty rosters of the dental schools in the state and you will find foreign graduates as department chairpersons. The former Dean of UCLA School of Dentistry, who recently was appointed as a UC Chancellor, is foreign-trained. Furthermore, foreign graduates are authors of a good number of books found in our schools.
I believe that the school deans agreed with the provisions of AB 1116 because it was the best way to clarify the licensing standards. I sensed this when I testified in Sacramento with University of the Pacific Dean Arthur Dugoni in support of AB 1116. As you know, by the year 2003, all applicants for the board exams must have a degree from an accredited school. Schools may be located in Canada, the USA, or in any foreign country as long as California accredits the school. AB 1116 makes the Board of Examiners responsible for approving foreign dental schools, and thus, in the near future, as CDA Past-President Eugene Sekiguchi stated in the CDA Update in February 1997, "We need not worry about this state collecting all the unaccredited dentists in the world." In the year 2003, foreign graduates who have not graduated from an accredited school must complete an approved two year program at a California school of dentistry.
We, the foreign-trained dentists, suspect that the equivalency in training "issue" raised by Dr. Hislop is instead a smokescreen based upon fears of economic impact. We believe that California is a large enough state to sustain all dentists who choose to practice here and meet the state's licensing requirements.
I believe that allowing a few CDA members who are licensed dentists with unblemished records (whose only fault is that they are foreign-trained) to append the letters DDS after their names is a fair exchange for establishing the new standard in the year 2003. Rather than deprofessionalize dentistry, the new requirements should reach for the higher standard that Dr. Hislop seeks.
!-- end WP conversion -->
