Arizona republican., 1919-03-24

of Arizona 1913, relating to the prac- tice of dentistry"
 The general object of dental laws is to protect the public against incom- petent dentists. That the necessity of this protection is generally recognized is proved by the existence of dental laws in all states and possessions of the United States. Dental laws and the dental standards established thereun- der have been a matter of growth. and from a universal low standard of years ago, when laws first went into effect, and qualifications were few, have evolved standards of varying degrees of excellence. according to legal re- quirements placed upon statute books. At one time, when laws first went into effect, any one making a pretense at the practice of dentistry could secure licenses. Later on examinations were required or a dental college diploma. Still later, certain dental qualifications became necessary to entitle an appli- cant to an examination, until finally even diploma from a college not only does not entitle the holder to a license, putin many states is absolutely a pre- requisite to taking the examination With an exception to be presently noted
 
 states, requires an examination of all candidates in theory and practice. but, whereas some states make a dental de- gree an da high school degree a pre- requisite to an examination, Arizona not only examines candidates with a dental degree, but also those with license from any other state. Very few states give even such recognition to a mere license, because a license in itself IS not generally regarded as a suffi- clent credential for even an eXamina- tion, not to mention a license. but in any event. an examination from every candidate has been proven the only safe rule and is universally adopted
 Present Law Not Heeded in Bill Evidently not recognizing the provi sion of the present law in permitting the board to count the practical work as tWo-thlrds in case of d five-year practitioner. or not considering this provision adequate, the legislature in this proposed amendment provides that
 If the applicant holds and presents to the board of dental examiners. a properly authenticated license to prac- tlce dentistry in full force and effect at the date of making such applica- 'ASiiS' anu lSSueu Dy lHc uuly cOnStl- tuted authorities of any state in the United States under laws regulating the practice of dentistry equivalent to such laws of the state of Arizona, and mas been engaged in the active practice Of dentistry for not less than two years l lrnmedlately proceeding the date of such application it shall be the duty of i the board of dental examiners to cer- 1 t1fy to the secretary of state that the i applicant is entitled to a licenses to i practice dentistry In other words the provision which is practically non ex- lStant in other states, and is applicable only at the discretion of the board in cases presenting unusually meritorious credentials is made compulsory in case of anyone with two-year license, which would not entitled the holder to even an examination in any state in the union except two or three, includ ! ing Arizona
 Another objection to this proposed amendment is the requirement of only 8 per cent grade in theory The present law handles the grading of the theoretical examination very satisfac- torily, as to an old practitioner in al. lowing him two-thirds for practica work, and one-third for theory. As tc a recent graduate, a 8 per cent is nc test at all. This could be an advantage to persons applying under claim ol practicing five years under a licensed dentist. and who, with practically nc necessary fundamental theory. could become licensed in Arizona, wher barred by his own state.
 The matter of appealing purely dental matters to an appeal board O
 two laymen and one physician is nei
 ther reasonable nor just. With al
 these objections before me. and be
 lieving that more harm will come iron
 what may possibly be lilly advised. ant
 hastily considered amendments to tn
 old law than will follow from con , tinuance of that old law pending sucl
 time as all parties interest in the whol matter may be fully advised and hay ' full opportunity to present the differen phases of the whole matter l feel it m duty to disapprove the bill.
 Respectfully yours,
 THOMAS E. CAMPBELL.