Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1907-01-21

pIeSiueHl.
The fourth charge is the employing
of an unlicensed dentist in the office
OF the president of the board" This
might or might not involve the whole
board; it is certainly a direct charge
against its president. ana If knowledge
of the fact could be imputed to the
other members the board as a whole
would be involved. None of them deny
it nor attempt to explain il. Drs.
Lentz. Stiles, Sims and Rhone simply
say. in their answers. that it is not
a charge against the dental board DR..
Roper's answer is Refer to president"
These answers are hardly candid; they
may be in strictness true, but a de-
sire to be entirely frank would have
suggested a direct denial of the charge,
or knowledge of the fact. This, the
fourth charge. is not sustained by di-
rect evidence-that is the evidence
was hearsay. but it was such that it
ought to have elected a categorical de-
NAL, if in fact it We're untrue. from
the president of the board.
The fifth charge is that the conduct
of the board has been productive of
popular rumor that dental trust"
y.
does not establish this charge yet there
was enough evidence Of it to warrant
criticism of the board. l appreciate
that IL is somewhat difficult TO differen-
tiate between the rumors originated by
unsuccessful candidates or professional
rivals and persistently circulated by
them. and discussions of these matters
by candid and disinJerested persons. /
regret to say, however, that there has
been too much Of irregularity in the
proceedings of the board to wholly
avert a suspicion or discrimination in
awarding licenses.
The sixth charge that several ex-
aminations have been illegal because
of no quorum being present" is admit
ted to be true but It is sought to eX-
plain the fact by circumstances at
tending the instances of examinations
without the presence Of a quorum. The
explanation is that OF the convenience
OF the candidates; it seems. however,
that the convenience of the members of
the board was the more consulted. 1
am disposed TO believe that these de-
partures from the rule were the result
of a desire to accommodate applicants
Q
condemnable. but they were departures
and unwarranted by the law and can
not be approved. The law requires that
the examinations be conducted by the
board. This means by a quorum (at
least - of the board in session. The
individual members Of the board can
not conduct an examination except as
they act as Constituent members of a
board actually in session.
The seventh charge Is: Because no
quorum was present the first time l
was examined / was compelled to pass
a second examination" This is not
sustained-an examination was begun
in one instance without the presence Of
a quorum and this was irregular. and
is subject to criticism.
The eighth charge is: "All members
OF the board have not always been
notified to attend the different examin-
ations." This charge Is not sustained.
The ninth charge: THE questions
asked on purely medical subjects are
such that but few physicians can an
swer." II is sot sustained.
Under the tenth charge Failure to
furnish copy of the law to dentists in
other states who have written for
same and who desire to be examined
for license" there was evidence of only
one omission to send a copy of the
dental law in compliance with a request
for it-and that seems to have been an
oversight
The eleventh charge is: Alteration
of records" There was an alteration
OF the records but nothing more than
an improperly can be imputed to the
board on account of II. The alteration
was made to make the record compOrt
with a subsequent ract but it should
have been done by making a new and
not by changing an old entry.
/ find nothing to criticize on account
of the twelfth charge which is can
didates not examined on all subjects"
Aside from the specific charges, it
appeared in evidence that in at least
two instances dentists were allowed to
practice without having obtained Ii
censes and this, il not with the express
permission of the board, was under
such circumstances as to have charged
them with a knowledge of it and a duty
to have discountenced 1t. This is of
course reprehensible and detracts from /
the dignity and the usefulness of the
board.
There was also evinced throughout F.
this investigation considerable personal I.
i'll feeling amongst members of the pro- !
fession. Whatever the cause-Or if
there be no just cause-this is to be /
deprecated. The ethics of any profess !
sion while not encroaching upon the |
exercises of the right TO a fair criti |
cism. and the presentment OF just COM !
plants, should operate to restrain its !
members i'm their intercourse with each |
other or with others from lapses in per- |
sonal courtesy and professional dignity. |
1t may be true that not all Of the |
members of the board may have parti- |
cipated in these irregularities but even |
so, they are subject to criticism for |
not knowing of them and dscounten- |
ancing them. That these Irregularities |
could have gone on without the know I
ledge of the board as a board betrays |
a lack OF that cooperation amongst |
its members which is necessary to the |
of the purposes of the |
law which are expressed to be - to in
sure the better education of practitiOn-
ers of dental surgery and to regulate
the practice of dentistry in the terri
tory.
paGV fs4 fNa1