There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

Well obviously you aren't the guy I wanted to debate, but he was too worried about the consequences of neutral territory and felt that simply being a DDS made him right in all things. I wish debate.com had a select opponent by email option, or maybe a password requirement to accept. Anyway. "In a free market economy..." Given the massive entry fees, intense regulation, organizational demands inherent to all forms of medicine, and the strict prohibition on anyone 'untrained' offering medical services, the entire field can be seen as a state oligopoly at best, or a collusion saturated de-facto monopoly at worst. Dentistry in this context concerns itself with a truly unique area of the body, and the maintenance of a unique biological substance, enamel, which is the core of this issue since preventative tooth care is 99% about preservation of this material. Dentists have a unique opportunity to deceive because no other doctors have reason to study this material in depth. "If my car breaks down ... " The entire mechanic analogy is flawed in this context because literally anyone can be a mechanic without fear of arrest. The only thing a mechanic has to be concerned with is advertising and skill. A mechanic does not have hardly any of the pressures which push dentists towards corruption. Like the absurdly high pay, which is justified by little more than the cost of training, which is in turn justified by the money to be made being a dentist, a completely separate form of collusion. The pressure to have your car repaired is nothing like the pressure to have your teeth repaired. A tooth ache can literally be the worst pain a given individual may experience in their life. Under those circumstances, you will do or say nearly anything to have the pain go away. It's extortion. Yes the supplies are costly, but that is in most cases a function of regulation as well, a third party to the extortion of the suffering. The cost of supplies is not even remote justification for the fees dentists charge, fees they are only allowed to charge because of the fear of pain and social humiliation in those paying. And finally, if nothing else I can attempt to repair my own car, which would be a bad idea in the case of a tooth ache, to say the least. The closest thing to actual competition dentists face is from dentists in other countries via medical tourism. Dental care in Mexico for example is about a 5th the cost as in the united states, and there is ample reason to believe they are just as skilled as American dentists, unless of course you are an elitist, a racist, or an ethnocentrist. Though they may not have the latest equipment, it must be noted that we're talking about a field that still hasn't gotten past the drill, does the latest version really matter? Dental 'innovation' moves at a snail's pace when it moves at all. "All the work this dentist has done to my teeth has been of a satisfactory quality." Just because you are satisfied doesn't mean you haven't been taken advantage of, no successful parasite unduly harms it's host. Your entire market and advertising argument hinges on the assumption that market pressures will significantly impact a dentist's income or standing, which I reject as explained above, and the assumption that the basic type of care dentists sell is the best way to go about preventing tooth decay or repairing teeth. Dentists are insulated from complaint to a large degree by social training. "Everyone knows" going to the dentist isn't fun, just as they know it's probably going to hurt. Sometimes the drugs administered cause you to completely forget what has occurred, that alone has been exploited by particularly unscrupulous dentists quite famously. Imagine how difficult it would be to prove, or even detect, a dentist simply doing a shoddy job under the same conditions that allowed at least one dentist to impregnate his patient without her knowledge. They are further insulated by the fact that teeth endure a great deal of wear and tear and how they are used varies dramatically from person to person such that when the potentially shoddy work falls apart the dentist has the tempting option of simply saying "well you need to be more careful" and then having the sand to appear magnanimous in not charging full price for repair. I believe there could be a slew of wholly different approaches that could be suppressed or rejected due to lack of profit or total market destruction. Would they at least consider a delay to keep their families fed and their Lexus paid for? Imagine a hypothetical new type of tooth treatment is developed that once used, tooth decay is halted utterly and irrevocably. Now imagine that in order for the product to reach public awareness dentists have to approve of it. Do you honestly think they would do this in a timely fashion, if ever? If so I commend your optimism but I do not share it. "Teeth are biological. Without constant maintenance they will fall out long before we die. " Who told you that, your dentist? There are many examples in isolated or impoverished societies of elderly persons dieing with all of their teeth intact. Tooth decay is not something that just happens, it has causes, genetic, dietary, and behavioral. Sure American teeth 'need' constant maintenance, but how much of that can be avoided, or reversed with something a little more sophisticated than regularly scraping off the crud? American dentistry has failed so thoroughly to advance that brushing with salt and baking soda or even plain water is equal to brushing with ADA endorsed toothpaste. The underlying causes of enamel decay are perhaps not well understood because the people with the expertise to study them are the same people that profit from the lack of information. It's like trusting Monsanto to tell us weather or not their food additives are safe. "No matter how well built they require constant maintenance to prolong their lifespan.." Cars do not have self repair ability, yet. Teeth however do to a limited degree. Again, I cite the example of indigenous peoples. The attitude that teeth "just fail" is defeatist and I strongly suspect encouraged for profit. I find it hard to believe that the whole of medical and materials science has failed to come up with say, a mouth wash that dissolves plaque, annihilates bacteria, and rebuilds enamel without negative innovative pressure. We need an elegant and lasting solution. We have at home whitening treatments, why not at home sealants? But again if such a thing were developed would it be approved in a timely fashion, if ever? Who would the FDA employ to determine effectiveness and safety? Dentists? "Any professional that is concerned with maximizing profite will do their job to the best of their ability" Even if 'the best of their ability' would result in the near obviation of their profession? Innovating one's self out of a job happens every day. The only reason it hasn't happened to dentistry is tremendous regulatory pressure against innovation and a total prevention of outside competition. Realize, I am not saying that they exploit this conflict of interest, I'm merely saying it exists and needs to be discussed. We build social system regularly to rationally answer the question of who watches the watchers, but our efforts are wholly inadequate when it comes to the unique and repeated opportunity for corruption dentistry enjoys. If you wish to prove the entire industry is on the up and up, and always will be, that is your burden. I simply have to show that such a conflict exists, and suggest reasons why it would be good to understand said conflict.