Orthodontic stimulus

Abstract

Sir, the letter No to BDA (BDJ 2010; 208: 379) raises some very important points and I am grateful to the authors for so candidly expressing the views of their collective memberships. I have listened to much debate in the BDA’s Executive Board and Representative Body on the subject of broadening the membership of the Association. These discussions generate strong feelings on both sides, but the one feature that is common is the total respect and recognition of all the members of the dental team. The BDA is very supportive of the DCP organisations and is on record as encouraging all professionals to join their own professional body. Whether or not the BDA opened its doors to other groups, I think this would remain our position as we recognise the important individual needs of particular groups. So, given that broader membership would merely give DCPs the freedom of choice to join, in addition to their own body, I am rather surprised by the fervour of this broad rejection of such a move even before it has been offered. Still it is very helpful to have this information. From the mandated leaders and spokespeople of 50,000 dental care professionals, the message to the BDA is received and understood. I hope the individual dental care professionals who have expressed slightly different views will understand why this issue has been so complex. On a point of clarification, the BDA does not offer professional indemnity cover and has no intention to do so. We believe that it is an important and complex field of activity that is better delivered by specialists in that area with a proven track record. P. Ward, BDA Chief Executive DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.452 not the argument

DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.454

Cite this paper

@article{Moskowitz2010OrthodonticS, title={Orthodontic stimulus}, author={Elliott M Moskowitz}, journal={BDJ}, year={2010}, volume={208}, pages={439-439} }