The "Ethical Moment" column in May JADA, "May I list my nonhealth degree in advertisements?" (
JADA 2006;137:670[Free Full Text]
), suggests that including a "nonhealth [read non-science] degree" in advertisements "may be a representation which is misleading."
If "nonhealth" means nonscientific, then I respectfully take philosophical issue with Dr. Antoon’s answer in the column. Freud, paraphrasing the classics, distinguished the state of civilization according to three basic categories: art, science and religion. Similarly, American dentistry, in its largest sense, embodies all three in its art, its science and its ethics.
I respectfully suggest that ethical advertising does, indeed, subsume all these dimensions, and advertising a degree (for example, an MFA or PhD) that suggests artistic or philosophical scholastic achievement is not necessarily nonhealth. This is especially true where cosmetic principles are used to achieve "esthetic harmony" with veneers, or the doctor employs operant conditioning to improve home care or allay anxiety.
Technical expertise and scientific (that is, "natural philosophy") knowledge are quite necessary, but hardly sufficient, in the contemporary clinical milieu; we treat human beings, not teeth. Ergo, I hope Dr. Antoon will consider that it is indeed ethical to advertise appropriate, but "nonhealth" (his definition), degrees by those colleagues who see our profession as more than a collection of technical protocols, mechanical devices and gadgets. Take the long view, please. Dentistry subsumes more than technical expertise, I hope.
