Letter: Cash squeeze on the NHS
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It has been clear for a long time that a great deal of the dentistry which is possible today is way beyond the means of a state service. ("Ministers study cut in free dentistry on the NHS", 15 August; Letters, 20 August). It is also true that dental undergraduate education is expensive. I am delighted to learn therefore that a new look is at last being taken at the funding of dentistry. It is to be hoped that the review will be comprehensive.
With a limited budget it is vital that the money which is made available for dentistry is spent as effectively as possible. The calculations must start with what the state can afford in the provision of dental care and the cost of undergraduate dental education. It should finish with what patients and undergraduates must be prepared to pay. Proper provision must also be made for the dental needs of those truly unable to afford basic dental care.
In recent times there have been two Nuffield inquiries into dentistry, one into dental education and the other into the use of auxiliaries in dentistry. Although each body had lay representatives, the committees were dominated by members of the dental profession, academics and practitioners. The reports were good but not surprisingly were dentist- rather than patient- orientated.
Perhaps now is the time to commission a third Nuffield-type inquiry. This should look into what the general public wants from the profession. rather than what dentists think they want or what they think is good for them.
The proposed committee should take as broad a view of dentistry as possible. It should undoubtedly have a predominance of lay members and a minority of dentists.
RICHARD JOHNS
Winchester
The writer is Emeritus Professor of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sheffield
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments