A Lesson in Diversity

Copyright 1998 Journal of the California Dental Association.

Last month, the Journal published an opinion by CDA member Jay M. Hislop, DDS, entitled, "Losing control -- The Deprofessionalization of Dentistry." A portion of that commentary linked AB 1116 legislation to the theme of the commentary and generated significant negative reaction from many members of the association. It also elicited concern within leadership ranks of the association because the discussion was contrary to CDA policy which was instrumental in the support and passage of AB 1116. I will return to these issues shortly.

Two points must be made initially. First, every member of the Association has the freedom or right to express his/her point of view in the CDA Journal or Update publications. Second, this does not mean that publication of a member opinion, feedback letter, or commentary represents the position of the association, the editor, or editorial staff. Publication does not imply that any of these entities is sympathetic to the opinion or to any side of a controversy that results from its dissemination. To be succinct, I quote an excerpt from the disclaimer which is published under the title "Contributions" on the masthead page of every issue of the CDA Journal:

"Neither the editorial staff, the editor, nor the association are responsible for any expression of opinion or statement of fact, all of which are published solely on the authority of the author whose name or initials are indicated."

Returning to the issues at hand, feedback received has demonstrated that there really are two issues in this controversy rather than one, and that is why we have a controversy with some angry members. To be specific, the usual discussions in this publication involve philosophical debates on dental science and technique issues such as TMD or cosmetic dentistry, or matters of dental policy or politics of the association. In this instance, the matter of conflict with association policy on AB 1116 was recognized immediately. The review process resulted in an Editorial Note that was appended to the article in an effort to clarify the legislation and CDA's stance. In retrospect, even that effort, while well intended, was probably not adequate to manage that issue.

The other issue that emerged from this controversy is not normally part of the discussions that appear in the Journal and failed to attract our attention when the material was reviewed. It is really at the heart of the controversy that has angered many loyal CDA members who have foreign training. I have learned from this experience that degrees earned and the skills and knowledge they represent are very "personal," and any opinion that deals with personal matters should be handled with great sensitivity. To the extent that we fell short of that standard in this case, we certainly apologize to any and all who were offended. No insult was intended.

Nonetheless, we must protect the right of members to be heard, and, at the same time do our best to provide a balanced perspective on controversial matters. While the process is intended to encourage member dialogue, it will always place contributing members at some risk in that others may oppose their view. It is not the position of the editor or other leadership to side for or against the position of an individual member, except to very clearly educate the membership to the adopted association positions and/or legislative initiatives.

In the space that follows, we offer some presentations that will hopefully place the controversy into careful focus and address the other side of the issue raised by the commentary. Central to our purpose is the objective of achieving a complete and accurate understanding of the AB 1116 legislation by every member of California Dental Association. CDA President Kenneth E. Lange will address the historical perspective and association position in detail, followed by member commentary and feedback.

It is my hope that this presentation will fully carry out our responsibilities to resolve the controversy that has arisen this month and will help to restore the understanding that is so important to our profession in this era of diversity.