I enjoyed Dr. Terri Tiersky’s August JADA Ethical Moment column, "What Ethical Considerations Arise From Acting as a Mediator?" (
JADA 2008;139[8]: 1128–1129[Free Full Text]
). I thought it was well-thought out and well-written. And I liked her analysis of our Code of Ethics.
I have been on my dental society’s peer review committee for over 10 years and enjoy that, too. We get more complaints yearly than the rest of the state combined. I tell both parties that, essentially, I act as a mediator.
I feel strongly that treating patients after the process is over sets a poor precedent, and it seems unprofessional to me. From time to time, peer-review patients have asked me to see them since they are leaving their dentist anyway. I tell them I cannot do that, because I met them through the mediation process, and my colleagues might become upset if I violate their trust.
There are two other reasons I disagree with Dr. Tiersky. On occasion, a case will reopen months after I have sent it back for storage. Also, many of the patients who cannot resolve an issue with their dentist, and then ask me to intercede, may be demanding. Why would a mediator want to enter into a relationship like that, when he or she knows the patient may have unrealistic expectations?
