As the author of the affirmative position in the Point/Counterpoint article in April JADA entitled, "Should Dentists Become ‘Oral Physicians’?", I feel that the editorial decision to change the title originally accepted for publication was misleading.
The title of the submitted and accepted article was "Should Dentists Become ‘Oral Physicians’ Now?". Repositioning the article as a Point/Counterpoint article retitled, "Should Dentists Become ‘Oral Physicians’?" changes the intent of the article. Without the "Now" in the title, the discussion becomes old hat.
The debate on whether dentists should be called "oral physicians" has been going on for many decades. What I offered was evidence for why dentists should assume a new appellation now. Other professions who have changed their names to some qualification of "physician" have done so recently, and made the curriculum and scope of practice changes as necessary and appropriate. The point/counterpoint argument should have been now versus never or later, not whether or not the name should be changed to "oral physicians."
The fact that many dentists are trained, and may be willing to assume a greater role in health care than other health practitioners who are far less qualified, but are appending the name "physician" to the name of their profession, is being overlooked. Based on a potential public health benefit, legislators, at least in Massachusetts, have begun the legislative process to permissively change the name of "dentist" to "oral physician."
After more than 600 years, it is certainly not an initiative to waste. The argument that some dentists should be satisfied with being identified as a separate health profession, with all the rights and privileges of "doctors," together with public satisfaction with their present role and status, is a stagnant and self-serving one. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, I urge you to attempt to correct the impression that the editors created by focusing on an outdated and incorrect controversy.
