Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-03-20
BILL REGULATING DENTISTRY
ethical" and advertising" Prac-
titioners Appear-Clash as to
Powers of Proposed Board.

DR.. Emory Bryant and other ethical
dentists present denied this.
Incidentally DIR. Evans and DR.. Nichols
became involved I'm lively controversy
over the possibility OF extracting teeth
without pain. DR.. ETans insisted that
this could be done and DIR. Nichols in
sisted that 1t couldn't.
You can't always pull tooth without
1t hurting the patient" DIR. Nichols in
sisted
1T can be done every time" DIR. Evans
replied
You can't do any such thing. and you
know it," cried DIR. Nichols
Oh" replied DR.. Evans, that is what
you fellows always say. When we come
before the dental board we find you have
your minds already made up
DIR. Nichols remarked he would be very
glad TO have DIR. Evans show HIN how to
pull teeth painlessly.
And I will be glad to show vou." re-
torted DR.. Evans.
Too Much Power for Board Claimed.
DR.. Evans was the only advertising
dentist on hand to speak against the BILL
which would give too much power he
said. to the dental board which the meas
ure proposes to create
He and the other dentists present agreed
that there were some members OF their
fraternity who We're advertising under
assumed names. and who We're daily
promising things i'm their advertisements
which they could not perform. DIR. Evans
several times made the statement that
the power which the bill would give TO
the dental board to issue or revoke
licenses would encourage the formation Of
dental trust. He added that any ad-
vertising dentist or any dentist who sig
nified his intention to advertise would be
refused license by the board which the
bill would create
He asserted, moreover, that the provi-
sion in the bill which gives the dental
board the right to compel dentists to pro-
duce books and papers and to testify as
to their methods would inevitably result
In undue publicity of the secret processes
by which certain dentists are able to do
superior and painless work. He admitted
that amendments to the present dentistry
law were necessary, but insisted they
should be directed against flake" den
lists. who advertised under assumed
names and made promises that could not
be fulfilled.
Favorable Report Urged.
DR.. Nichols urged favorable report on
the bill.
I'VE want to uphold the dignity of our
profession just as lawyers and physicians
uphold the dignity of theirs" he said.
If dentist is guilty of unprofessional
conduct he should be punishsd If the
dental board proposed by this Ml is
granted the power to license dentists 1t
should also have the power to revoke IL
censes. But we do not seek any arbitrary
power. We merely ask the privilege OF
correcting the abuses within ourselves or
through the courts. No legitimate dAntist
would be in danger by this BILL
DIR. Evans, in support of his claim that
there is in the District what amounts TO
dental trust, asserted that the so-called
ethical dentist charged from $40 to so
for work which should be done for from
81 to $1A and that any dentist who adj
vertised to perform work at reasonably
cheap prices Immediately incurred the
enmity of the Dental Society and the
dental board. In this connection he laid
before the committee the printed schedule
of prices of the District of Columbia
Dental Society, which closes with the
following statement:
1.-The foregoing table contains the STAN
dard fees of the District of Columbia
society. All bills shall be rendered in
conformity with the above list. They
may and should be increased in case OF
extraordinarily difficult or prolonged at
tendance They may be diminished at
the discretion Of the practitioner when
he knows the patient cannot afford 10
pay regular fees. 1t shall. however, he
considered unprofessional and dishonor-
able 10 OlnlnlSn the StdHudIu ices With q
view to mercenary competition"
Attacks the Dental Trust.
In his letter to Chairman Johnson DR..
Vaughan says:
Since my talk with you over the tele-
phone Saturday / have decided that it
may be best for me not to appear before
your committee Wednesday next at the
hoo ri unlaSs /
be of real service to the committee or the
public, and / am, therefore, taking the
liberty of writing you. / do not want
to be represented as opposed to any good
measure to protect the people. A new
and better law to regulate the practice OF
dentistry in the District of Columbia Is
badly needed, but we need law which
will protect the people, and not one in
tended solely to protect few dentists,
because they happen to belong to the
dental (society) trust.
I'VE need, in the first place, dental
board appointed by the Commissioners
or the President from an eligible list
obtained by q competitive examination
and not upon the recommendation OF any
faction or clique, or by the dental tso-
ciety) trust. and then we might have
dental board which would not want to
after they had once granted II, simply
because some dentist had happened to
incur the i'll will of a member of the
dental society trust.
True Cost Of Materials.
"We need some method OF teaching the
public the true cost of dental materials
and dental operations. so that one man
will not be permitted to charge SO for
a tooth which only costs him from l.
to 40 cents. while another dentist can
furnish the same tooth, possibly adjusted
with more skill, for So
1--WE need an inspector OF dental oper-
atoms. to whom the people may appeal il
they are not fairly treated. and members
of the dental Society trust should not be-
exempt from this inspection.
II have not the space nor do / wish
to take up your time to discuss the
many bad features of the bill. 1t has
many good points, but a whole II is
so vile that hardly believe your honora-
BILE committee will give it serious consid-
Grafton. If / can be of any help to your
committee In arriving at the facts rela-
tive to the dental situation In the District
of Columbia l shall be glad to serve
YOU"