Regarding the January 2008 special supplement article, "An Updated Legal Perspective on Antibiotic Prophylaxis," (American Dental Association Division of Legal Affairs. JADA 2008; 138[suppl 1]:10S), it appears to me that the American Dental Association (ADA) has dropped the ball when it comes to endorsing a position on the new American Heart Association guidelines for infective endocarditis.
While agreeing that the new guidelines "will be cited as some evidence of the standard of care in any malpractice litigation," the failure to wholeheartedly support the findings is troublesome. While I agree that professional judgment is always warranted, the next statement—"It is the American Dental Association’s recommendation that a dentist exercise independent professional judgment in applying these ... guidelines"—makes the ADA’s position on this matter ambiguous. Should the guidelines be followed or not? You have ensured that the latter statement is what will be cited in any malpractice litigation.
How are you serving our members, who look to the ADA for advice and guidance, with this position? Has the legal climate grown so bad that our disclaimers prevent us from taking a stand on an issue?
