I feel that the response in the June JADA Ethical Moment feature to the ever-important question regarding the ethics of justifiable criticism to be a bit of a punt (
Drs. Charles Squire, Rickland Asai and Beverly Largent, "Is It Ethical to Criticize Other Dentists’ Work?", JADA 2005;136:812–3
).
While it is indisputable that "uninformed or unjustifiable criticism ... can lead to unpleasant consequences," it may, as the article says, "be best to let state dental boards and the ethics committee [of local and state dental societies] ... determine the true competency of our peers."
The real question is not "unjustifiable criticism" but rather "justifiable criticism." The American Dental Association’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct, or the Code, says that the dentist is "obliged to report" instances of gross or continual faulty treatment. How do such peer-review committees get to review such cases? Do dentists meet this obligation as dictated by the Code and file reports, or do we elect not to involve ourselves, perhaps at the patient’s peril? Or rather, do we regard the burden of proof of apparent mistreatment to be too stringent to make a claim?
Justifiable criticism is a very high standard to meet. And it should be. However, a more penetrating question is, are we ethically committed to following the Code’s edicts when the situation arises, or do we avoid this messy scenario, not because of this high standard, but because of concern for fallout from making an otherwise justifiable critique?
