In message 485d19b0@qaanaaq, at 16:09:36 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
On 2008-06-21 15:36:34 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message , at
13:57:37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, John Rumm
remarked:
That's more a symptom of a bad dentist.
It takes a great deal of time to do a root canal treatment
properly. This should not be governed by time and cost but by
doing a proper job.
Like I said, if the treatment isn't done properly, that's a bad dentist.
So if the procedure takes two hours to do properly and with due
care but the NHS only provides adequate funding for 20 minutes,
what do you suggest the dentist does?
In the long term try to ensure that there's not such a big gap.
There must be some sort of trade association to deal with that. In
the mean time I'll take the view that while there may be some gap,
one of the size you postulate is simply a debating point rather than
reality.

How on earth could a trade association deal with such a thing?

By negotiating with the "management" - the people setting the rates for
the job.

Improvements to measurements and technology might make a reduction in
the time taken but are going to cost money to implement. Having
had a root canal treatment done once, and having discussed it in
detail with the dentist and read around what's involved, it's a
complicated procedure to get right to make sure that there isn't
infection, mechanical damage to the bottom of the root canal (which is
extremely thin) plus other steps to maximise the probability that the
tooth, at least mechanically can be saved. It involves working
accurately to a fraction of a millimetre and and great care over the
use of fairly toxic chemicals to sterilise the work area in the tooth.
This procedure took over two hours and then there were follow up visits
for the work to implement a crown. That's the clinical reality, and
no trade association is going to be able to make a difference to it.

You have the wrong end of the stick. This isn't about helping the
dentist do the work quicker, but getting him paid a proper fee.

Take the money and bodge it?
Decline that patient?
Do the job well enough and make a loss?
Most do the second (ie they decline all NHS patients).

As they should/

A conscientious one will do the third.

Why? Why should any dentist treat some patients at full price and
others at a loss - assuming that he does exactly the same for all?

Because they have a pride in their work.

It isn't reasonable for the patients who are paying full price to
subsidise those who are not.

I suspect the dentists secretly believe that the mugs who are paying to
go private are paying a "voluntary subsidy" to the others.

And bad dentists the first.

Which is why one should clear of NHS dentists.

Of bad ones, yes.
--
Roland Perry