The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
HalakMushareff
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,488 times Debate No: 8262
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (4)

 

bsergent

Pro

ATTENTION:
-=This debate is intended for aphistis from StudentDoctor.net I would politely ask no one else to accept this for at least a month, thank you.=-

While obviously an expert in a given subject is more likely to be qualified to speak on issues relating to that subject, there still exists a clear conflict of interest when those experts fiscally profit off of situations that could arise from faulty or missing advise on that subject.

Dentists being a clear example.

That this conflict of interest is exploited in some cases, if not most, is virtually assured and virtually undetectable.

The preference would be independently funded and run research, but this is rare if it even exists. The ADA for example is hardly an independent source since they literally sell an advertising seal for toothpaste.

If that approved toothpaste were then to fail over time, increased profits would result, resulting in a particularly vicious loop that would eventually result in significant tooth repair and removal expense.

Thus there is a strong motivation to exploit this conflict of interest, coupled with a weak deterrence, since the people we would ask, dental experts, about whether or not this was the case, are the very ones with most reason to lie or divert blame for profit, fiscal and otherwise.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
HalakMushareff

Con

In a free market economy professionals must compete against other professionals for business. If my car breaks down I take it to a mechanic and expect him or her to repair my vehicle. I do not expect that aspect of the vehicle break again for some time. If it does I behave as any consumer would and spread the word that said mechanic is a poor choice for auto repair.
If I have an issue with my teeth I go to the dentist. I have a regular dentist that I have chosen to stasy with because he is "good". All the work this dentist has done to my teeth has been of a satisfactory quality. If it were of a sub-standard quality not only would I have stopeed going to this dentist - I would tell everyone I know what a poor dentist he is. According to your idea the dentist is giving shoddy service because he stands to profit when I come back for further tooth maintenace that could have been avoided if he had done the job right. In reality if the dentist in concern practices this business model primarily he will lose the patients he has, as well as potential patients (word of mouth). Professionals stand to make far more money and increase their business by performing quality work and building a good reputation - this will encourage customer loyalty and attract new business by word of mouth.
Teeth are biological. Without constant maintenance they will fall out long before we die. Cars are mechanical contraptions. No matter how well built they require constant maintenance to prolong their lifespan - and a skilled hand to fix when they inevitably break down. Professionals have no shortage of "work". Bodies decay, machines will break down, computer networks need upgrading (forever, as new technology is introduced), therapists will always have new patients as individuals experience inevitable trauma in their lives etc....
Any professional that is concerned with maximizing profite will do their job to the best of their ability in order to retain customers and acquire new ones - thus growing their business.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

Well obviously you aren't the guy I wanted to debate, but he was too worried about the consequences of neutral territory and felt that simply being a DDS made him right in all things.

I wish debate.com had a select opponent by email option, or maybe a password requirement to accept.

Anyway.

"In a free market economy..."

Given the massive entry fees, intense regulation, organizational demands inherent to all forms of medicine, and the strict prohibition on anyone 'untrained' offering medical services, the entire field can be seen as a state oligopoly at best, or a collusion saturated de-facto monopoly at worst.

Dentistry in this context concerns itself with a truly unique area of the body, and the maintenance of a unique biological substance, enamel, which is the core of this issue since preventative tooth care is 99% about preservation of this material.

Dentists have a unique opportunity to deceive because no other doctors have reason to study this material in depth.

"If my car breaks down ... "

The entire mechanic analogy is flawed in this context because literally anyone can be a mechanic without fear of arrest. The only thing a mechanic has to be concerned with is advertising and skill. A mechanic does not have hardly any of the pressures which push dentists towards corruption. Like the absurdly high pay, which is justified by little more than the cost of training, which is in turn justified by the money to be made being a dentist, a completely separate form of collusion.

The pressure to have your car repaired is nothing like the pressure to have your teeth repaired. A tooth ache can literally be the worst pain a given individual may experience in their life.

Under those circumstances, you will do or say nearly anything to have the pain go away. It's extortion. Yes the supplies are costly, but that is in most cases a function of regulation as well, a third party to the extortion of the suffering.

The cost of supplies is not even remote justification for the fees dentists charge, fees they are only allowed to charge because of the fear of pain and social humiliation in those paying.

And finally, if nothing else I can attempt to repair my own car, which would be a bad idea in the case of a tooth ache, to say the least.

The closest thing to actual competition dentists face is from dentists in other countries via medical tourism. Dental care in Mexico for example is about a 5th the cost as in the united states, and there is ample reason to believe they are just as skilled as American dentists, unless of course you are an elitist, a racist, or an ethnocentrist.

Though they may not have the latest equipment, it must be noted that we're talking about a field that still hasn't gotten past the drill, does the latest version really matter? Dental 'innovation' moves at a snail's pace when it moves at all.

"All the work this dentist has done to my teeth has been of a satisfactory quality."

Just because you are satisfied doesn't mean you haven't been taken advantage of, no successful parasite unduly harms it's host.

Your entire market and advertising argument hinges on the assumption that market pressures will significantly impact a dentist's income or standing, which I reject as explained above, and the assumption that the basic type of care dentists sell is the best way to go about preventing tooth decay or repairing teeth.

Dentists are insulated from complaint to a large degree by social training. "Everyone knows" going to the dentist isn't fun, just as they know it's probably going to hurt. Sometimes the drugs administered cause you to completely forget what has occurred, that alone has been exploited by particularly unscrupulous dentists quite famously.

Imagine how difficult it would be to prove, or even detect, a dentist simply doing a shoddy job under the same conditions that allowed at least one dentist to impregnate his patient without her knowledge.

They are further insulated by the fact that teeth endure a great deal of wear and tear and how they are used varies dramatically from person to person such that when the potentially shoddy work falls apart the dentist has the tempting option of simply saying "well you need to be more careful" and then having the sand to appear magnanimous in not charging full price for repair.

I believe there could be a slew of wholly different approaches that could be suppressed or rejected due to lack of profit or total market destruction.

Would they at least consider a delay to keep their families fed and their Lexus paid for?

Imagine a hypothetical new type of tooth treatment is developed that once used, tooth decay is halted utterly and irrevocably. Now imagine that in order for the product to reach public awareness dentists have to approve of it. Do you honestly think they would do this in a timely fashion, if ever?

If so I commend your optimism but I do not share it.

"Teeth are biological. Without constant maintenance they will fall out long before we die. "

Who told you that, your dentist? There are many examples in isolated or impoverished societies of elderly persons dieing with all of their teeth intact. Tooth decay is not something that just happens, it has causes, genetic, dietary, and behavioral. Sure American teeth 'need' constant maintenance, but how much of that can be avoided, or reversed with something a little more sophisticated than regularly scraping off the crud?

American dentistry has failed so thoroughly to advance that brushing with salt and baking soda or even plain water is equal to brushing with ADA endorsed toothpaste.

The underlying causes of enamel decay are perhaps not well understood because the people with the expertise to study them are the same people that profit from the lack of information. It's like trusting Monsanto to tell us weather or not their food additives are safe.

"No matter how well built they require constant maintenance to prolong their lifespan.."

Cars do not have self repair ability, yet. Teeth however do to a limited degree. Again, I cite the example of indigenous peoples. The attitude that teeth "just fail" is defeatist and I strongly suspect encouraged for profit.

I find it hard to believe that the whole of medical and materials science has failed to come up with say, a mouth wash that dissolves plaque, annihilates bacteria, and rebuilds enamel without negative innovative pressure. We need an elegant and lasting solution. We have at home whitening treatments, why not at home sealants?

But again if such a thing were developed would it be approved in a timely fashion, if ever?

Who would the FDA employ to determine effectiveness and safety? Dentists?

"Any professional that is concerned with maximizing profite will do their job to the best of their ability"

Even if 'the best of their ability' would result in the near obviation of their profession?

Innovating one's self out of a job happens every day. The only reason it hasn't happened to dentistry is tremendous regulatory pressure against innovation and a total prevention of outside competition.

Realize, I am not saying that they exploit this conflict of interest, I'm merely saying it exists and needs to be discussed. We build social system regularly to rationally answer the question of who watches the watchers, but our efforts are wholly inadequate when it comes to the unique and repeated opportunity for corruption dentistry enjoys.

If you wish to prove the entire industry is on the up and up, and always will be, that is your burden. I simply have to show that such a conflict exists, and suggest reasons why it would be good to understand said conflict.
HalakMushareff

Con

You say that "there are massive entry fees, intense regulation, organizational demands....and a strict prohibitition on anyone "untrained" offering medical services, the entire field can be seen as a state oligopoly at best, or a collusion saturated de-facto monopoly at worst.
- In reality there are Scholorships available that will take a high-school graduate all the way to becoming a dentist for a very small amount of money. Not to mention Pell Grants, student loans, and other forms of financial aid. This is just in the US. In fully socialized countries college (including grad school) is practically free. The strict prohibitions imposed on practicing dentistry (as well as other medical services) are not in place to just to keep people that do not know what they are doing from making money. They are in place for public safety. If there were no regulations I could open "Halak's Tooth Repair" and attempt to provide dental services for a large amount of money. I would be successful for only a very short amount of time until I ruined enough people's teeth/mouths. Then word would begin to spread that instead of a dentist I was in fact a butcher (in-advertantly of course but the results would be the same). No one would come tp purchase their dental services from me because they would know of my "work". You say that the entire field is a state oligopoly at best, or a collusion saturated de-facto monopoly at worst - but it isn't. Let's take a hypothetical man, Sam. Sam is 18 and decides on his own that he wants to be a dentist. He goes to school and becomes a dentist, then returns to the town/city of his birth and opens a Dentist's office. This is not a "collusion saturated de-facto monopoly" - it is the essense of small business.

You say that "The pressure to have your car repaired is nothing like the pressure to have your teeth repaired" - for huge amount of people that drive to work everyday to earn money/recieve benefits so that they may have their teeth repaired I assure you it is. Given the choice between losing one's job because one can not travel there or getting a toothache seen about the logical choice is to have the car repaired and spend the next paycheck on the tooth, or you will have no car and still have the tooth/mouth problem. If you are experiencing a medical emergency involving the mouth/teeth than there are provisions for that. You can go to the emergency room and get payments. You say that "...and finally, if nothing else I can attempt to repair my own car...". Yes, you could. You would most likely not be successful. Need spark plug = Over the counter toothache remedy purchaseable at Wal-Mart. Cracked manifold = Root Canal. Can you fix a cracked manifold. No, you cannot - not unless you are a mechanic.

You say that "Though they may not have the latest equipment, it must be noted that we're talking about a field that still hasn't gotten past the drill, does the latest version really matter? Dental 'innovation' moves at a snail's pace when it moves at all". - there have been a myriad of technical innovations in the field of Dentristry. Take the applications of platelet rich plasma for examplehttp (www.cda-adc.ca/jadc/vol-69/issue-10/664.pdf) or how about Oral and maxillofacial surgury (http://en.wikipedia.org...). These things are light-years beyond "the drill" as you so ambiguously state. Mexican Dentistry may in some cases be on par with US Dentristry - but by and large it isn't as safe, because it isn't as highly regulated. You have no idea the quality or safety of the dentist that you are entrusting to provide you with dental services. In the US you know if the individual was incompetant eventually the government would take away his license or he/she would be sued for malpractice. Have you ever elected to go to a medical professional who has been successfully sued for malpractice? I know I haven't. Most of them lose their right to practice anyway. and when you say that "unless of course you are an elitist, a racist, or an ethnocentrist." - knowing that US dentristry is regulated and safe (more so than less fortunate countries) does not make me an elitist. The place that I am from would frighten you if you could see the dentristry there. In reponse to "a racist or an ethnocentrist" I had no idea that non-whites were barred from practicing dentristry in the US. I suppose I had better inform my good friend Dr. Mendoza that he can no longer practice podiatry here in the US because he is not white. (saracasm) this entire statement is just silly.

To quote you:"All the work this dentist has done to my teeth has been of a satisfactory quality. Just because you are satisfied doesn't mean you haven't been taken advantage of, no successful parasite unduly harms it's host." - Here is how I explain this: I had a problem with my teeth. I went to a dentist. Now I no longer have the problem with my teeth. If dentists did not fix problems with teeth, there would not be any dentists for very long. You say that the "underlying causes of enamel decay are perhaps not well understood". The causes of enamel decay is so well understood and has been for so long that there is a very thourough article on it at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If you take issue with this source simply google "tooth decay" and learn about it. In first world countries it is an irrevocable consequence of the diet we eat. Surely you will not suggest that dentristy is to blame for the types of food we eat? Dentists have been telling us for years not to eat so many sugars and not to drink so many sodas. According to your arguement dentists would not do this because it "would innovate them out of a job". You say that indiginous people do not experience it as much as others - this is true for only certain small populations. They do not partake of the same types of food that we do - and even in these populations are people that have genetically poor teeth. This arguement is only good for tooth decay. What about those born with sever oral problems like tremedous overbites that stop them from being able to speak properly - or cleft palates? They have to go their entire lives like this because in those societies there are no dentists.

When you say that "We build social system regularly to rationally answer the question of who watches the watchers" - the answer is the Government (in First World Countries). The regulating parties at the highest level are not comprised of soley dentists. Finally when you say that "If you wish to prove the entire industry is on the up and up, and always will be, that is your burden. I simply have to show that such a conflict exists, and suggest reasons why it would be good to understand said conflict." Proving that the entire industry is on the up and up has nothing to do with this debate. You cannot attempt to re-define or widen the terms of the debate after you have posted them. Suggesting that I must prove that every single dentist is fair and honest is attempting to alter the scope of the debate. I simply have to prove that a conflict of interest does not exist when dentists as a professional body advise on tooth care.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"Scholarships available"

I am so tired of that argument. Yeah school is free, that why the country is drowning in student loan debt. Besides that ti doesn't matter who's paying for it, the debt still has to be paid. And beyond the cost is the time. Which again even if it's free is extremely limiting.

The restrictions in place contribute to the conflict of interest, why those restriction exist is irrelevant.

Having a broken radiator is not like being in screaming agony from an abscess. They don't put you on narcotics when your fan belt snaps.

There are no tooth repair option at walmart, period. There are stop gaps to delay your dentist appointment and the only reason you would delay something like that is because of the expense or fear.

And even if I have the dental skill I'm still most likely going to have to go to the dentist.

The plasma innovation is a surgical one and is not related to conflict of interest because that innovation only applies after the teeth have failed to the point of surgery. And Oral surgery is not dentistry, its oral surgery, hence the alternate name. Oral surgeon are not dentists, they are surgeons that specialize in the mouth, surgeons have no conflict of interest like dentists, if at all.

The assumption that regulation equals safety is a debate in and of itself, one could easily argue intense regulation is a blight on safety in the long term by inhibiting innovation.

Did you not state that dentist have a free market? So which is it? They are totally regulated and safe or the market weeds out ones that are not. Mexico has laws against incompetence in the field of medicine just like every other developed country. It's not a desert full of mud huts and savages you know.

I don't know, usually when I'm in excruciating pain I don't stop to run a back ground check. Being poor I don't have many "elective" procedures done.

Assuming the American way is the best way does make you ethnocentric and elitist. Prove that the Mexican system is less effective. If anything I'd say it's more effective against incompetence because the Mexican judicial system is quite harsh compared to ours. you screw up someone's face you might get harsh jail time there, not a law suit.

I'm ignoring your weird tangent on racism, I was speaking to the potential claim that Mexicans make lousy dentists.

"If dentists did not fix problems with teeth, there would not be any dentists for very long."

Do you know that having teeth pulled was once done at your local barber, along with blood letting? Even tribal villages have someone that would pry teeth out if needed. People put up with what they have available, because to do nothing is torturous, and they have no concept of what the alternative could be. Dentists tell us "sorry, this is just the way it is" and we have to trust them. Compared to the advance of medicine dentistry is hardly advancing at all as judged by change of basic approach.

We recently transplanted a whole face. What dramatic advances have happened in dentistry recently? Virtually every medical field except density has had remarkable visible progress in the past 10 years.

So if tooth decay is so well understood why can't it be cured or utterly prevented? You know what else we understand? Polio. Small pox. Leprosy. Yellow fever. Malaria. I respect Wikipedia as a source. If tooth decay is well understood which I grant, then the lack of a cure could indicate a lack of interest in a real cure.

I mean really, tooth care amounts to poison baths and scraping. I think we should be able to do better. I don't blame dentists for causing tooth decay I blame dentists for not presenting better alternatives of prevention and repair.

Yeah they've told us not to eat sugar, and heart doctors tell us not to eat fat, but they still go right on increasing the quality of heart care, so effectively in fact that the life expectancy continues to rise.

I don't think you understand the word innovate. Telling me not to crash on my bike to prevent head injury is not an innovation. A helmet is.

"This arguement is only good for tooth decay."

Yeah, and that's the topic of this debate.

(Spell check man, I'm not stabbing, seriously, I spell SO badly unaided, it'll cost you votes. People are stupid generally and think lack of spelling skill equals a lack of intellect which is as absurd as using Japanese fluency as an intelligence indicator.)

The government watching, is not good enough, they are politicians and bureaucrats, they know about as much about dentistry as I do, they have to hire people, dentists. Even if those dentists are completely honest and doing their level best, which I suspect they are in the vast majority of cases, that's only a prevention of negative pressure.

The nature the this conflict of interest can be equally exploited by inaction. So long as everyone agrees to not innovate the money will flow in, this is not a crime, or incompetence, it's just shady. The government sets no regular goals for innovation.

"Proving that the entire industry is on the up and up has nothing to do with this debate. You cannot attempt to re-define or widen the terms of the debate after you have posted them."

I've already won the original debate, we're arguing about whether or not dentists have exploited the conflict of interest, not that the conflict exists. By arguing that they do not exploit it you already have implied that the conflict is there. By noted the need for regulation you note the conflict's existence.

"I simply have to prove that a conflict of interest does not exist when dentists as a professional body advise on tooth care."

That's not what you've been arguing.

Can a dentist profit from failing to innovate, yes or no?

Can a dentist convince a patient that an improper course of action is the proper one, yes or no?

Can a dentist blame his patent convincingly for his own failure, yes or no?

Do dentists make money from tooth decay, yes or no?

There is a conflict, and you know it.
HalakMushareff

Con

You say - "Scholarships available" I am so tired of that argument. Yeah school is free, that why the country is drowning in student loan debt.
Truth - Scholarship's are free.

You say - "There are no tooth repair option at walmart, period. There are stop gaps to delay your dentist appointment and the only reason you would delay something like that is because of the expense or fear."
Truth - I need to go to the dentist I call Dental offices until I find one that can schedule me an appointment for that afternoon.

You say - "The plasma innovation is a surgical one and is not related to conflict of interest because that innovation only applies after the teeth have failed to the point of surgery. And Oral surgery is not dentistry, its oral surgery, hence the alternate name. Oral surgeon are not dentists, they are surgeons that specialize in the mouth, surgeons have no conflict of interest like dentists, if at all."
Truth - Oral Surgery is a recognised international specialist training course in Dentistry. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

You say - "The assumption that regulation equals safety is a debate in and of itself, one could easily argue intense regulation is a blight on safety in the long term by inhibiting innovation."
Truth - Innovation does not equal safety. RJ Reynolds Tobbaco recently introduced Camel Crush cigarettes. These innovative new cigarettes feature a capsule of menthol in the filter that you crush with your teeth to add menthol flavor at will. Innovative, yes. Safe, no.

You say - "Did you not state that dentist have a free market? So which is it? They are totally regulated and safe or the market weeds out ones that are not. Mexico has laws against incompetence in the field of medicine just like every other developed country. It's not a desert full of mud huts and savages you know."
Truth - Mexico's safety regulation is not near as strict as safety regulation in the US. Google it. The bit where you speak of mud huts is very irrelevant? Perhaps you are attempting to paint me as a racist by speaking down to me in such a fashion? I do not know. Your muddled thinking is not easy for me to follow.

You say - "I don't know, usually when I'm in excruciating pain I don't stop to run a back ground check. Being poor I don't have many "elective" procedures done."
Truth - Your poverty or ignorance that commiting crimes will cause a dentist to lose their license has no bearing on your assertation that there is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

You say - "Assuming the American way is the best way does make you ethnocentric and elitist. Prove that the Mexican system is less effective. If anything I'd say it's more effective against incompetence because the Mexican judicial system is quite harsh compared to ours. you screw up someone's face you might get harsh jail time there, not a law suit."
Truth - I never said that the American way is the best way. Why must you try to make me look like a racist? You state the "American way". America is a mixture of all races, yes? Believe me. I am no racist, and even if I was it would have no bearing/context in this debate. What bearing on "There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care" does this have? Also - malpractice in Mexico does not result in jailtime. Google that as well. You would do well to verify your claims.

You say -"If dentists did not fix problems with teeth, there would not be any dentists for very long."
"Do you know that having teeth pulled was once done at your local barber, along with blood letting?"
- Did you know that once once 1 in 4 women died in childbirth? You say there has been no innovation in Dentristy but the fact that I know longer go to the barber to have my teeth pulled after I drink a bottle of whiskey is definately an innovation....

You say - "So if tooth decay is so well understood why can't it be cured or utterly prevented? You know what else we understand? Polio. Small pox. Leprosy. Yellow fever. Malaria. I respect Wikipedia as a source. If tooth decay is well understood which I grant, then the lack of a cure could indicate a lack of interest in a real cure."
- We understand AIDS. There is no cure. There is a global effort. Allow me to point you here (http://www.iadr.com...) - this is a link to the International Association for Dental Research. There is not sufficient space for me to publish all of the innovations and scientific advances that have come from this institute. Go and read for yourself. and - the cure for tooth decay is to stop eating things that decay the teeth. As virtually every food decays the teeth to SOME degree...

You say - I mean really, tooth care amounts to poison baths and scraping. I think we should be able to do better. I don't blame dentists for causing tooth decay I blame dentists for not presenting better alternatives of prevention and repair.
- Do you watch TV? Dentists reccomend preventative care products constantly. Have you ever been to a dentist? Every time I go I am listening to the Dentist chide me for 30 minutes about my smoking and the effect it has upon the mouth. He talks of it the entire time I am there.

You say "I don't think you understand the word innovate. Telling me not to crash on my bike to prevent head injury is not an innovation. A helmet is."
- Innovation as defined by Merriam Websters: the introduction of something new

Some Dental Innovations: taken from http://www.simplyteeth.com...

"Remarkable advances in human molecular genetics are developing therapeutic approaches to many oral health diseases, ranging from passive immunization for dental caries, induction of new bone and cartilage tissues, to the artificial synthesis of saliva for patients suffering from xerostomia."

"Additional scientific progress in the neuro-sciences will have broad implications for the diagnosis of ...neuromuscular related conditions e.g. facial and dental trauma, bruxism, Bell's palsy, temporomandibular joint disorders and the management of facial pain."

"Innovative developments in biotechnology are to design and fabricate bioceramics to be used in the replacement of human enamel or dentin on the surface of teeth." - U.S. Surgeon General's Report

We review some of the current advanced technologies and procedures used in dentistry.

Treatment of decay with air abrasion
Treatment of decay and gum problems with the dental lasers
Digital x-ray imaging
Intra-oral computer camera
Tissue engineering

These things that you adamenly state do not exist, in fact, clearly do. The fact that Dentistry is coming up with all of these innovative new ways to prevent and treat difficulties of the mouth and teeth prove that there is no conflict of interest. If there were a conflict of interest Dentists would not be so quick to announce these things that they have innovated that will prevent problems of the teeth. It is also clear that Dentristry has come along way from "scraping" as you so un-informedly put it. It is clear from your ramblings that you have something against dentists. Despite this, there is NO conflict of interest when a dentist advises on tooth care. That is - in fact, what Dentists do. If they fail to advise properly they will be sued and lose their right to be Dentists at worst. At best they will have no business and be poor and have no standing or prestige in their profession. It is because of this that even the morally unscrupulous individuals who practice dentristry do the best that they can. No one goes through all of the things that are required to become a Dentist becase they want to be bad at their profession or get sued or even lose their right to practice (6-8 years of school thrown away). Because of these things the potential for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly.
Debate Round No. 3
bsergent

Pro

The whole of your post is off topic, but hey, I'm having fun. So here we go.

You appear to have ignored my suggestion of spell check. I'll help out. Note the words of your I put in parenthesis.

"Truth - Scholarship's are free."

It's called opportunity cost and scarcity. Scholarships are limited, and competition for them is fierce. They hardly add up to school being free, in fact thats why scholarship funds were invented in the first place.

"I find one that can schedule me an appointment for that afternoon."

Try that in the bible belt on a Friday at 4:30pm, you wont see a dentist till 8am Monday at the earliest. Assuming you can afford one. Most dentists require pay or insurance information up front, there is no such thing as a dental clinic for most Americans. Pro bono and aid programs require application and scheduling, which of course acute tooth pain makes rather difficult.

"Oral Surgery is a recognized international specialist training course in Dentistry."

Oral surgeons may be dentists as well but not all dentists are oral surgeons, in any case that's off topic, we are talking about preventative maintenance and non surgical repair.

"Innovation does not equal safety."

Innovation is the progression of a given field. Therefore innovation in any medical field is by definition safer because it saves lives or improves existing care. If it does not then it was either experiment ion or outright failure. You might as well bring up weapons innovation.

"Mexico's safety regulation is not near as strict"

Again, I reject the notion that increased regulation always equals increased safety. Excessive regulation can even inhibit innovation.

"Your poverty or ignorance that (committing) crimes will cause a dentist to lose their license has no bearing on your (assertion) that there is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care."

A failure to innovate or adopt the latest methods is not a crime.

"I never said that the American way is the best way. "

You said "Mexico's safety regulation is not near as strict as safety regulation in the US." What exactly were you trying to imply by that, if not superiority of the American system?

"malpractice in Mexico does not result in (jail time)"

Nor does it in America.

"You say there has been no innovation in (Dentistry) but the fact that I know longer go to the barber to have my teeth pulled after I drink a bottle of whiskey is (definitely) an innovation..."

I said "Dental 'innovation' moves at a snail's pace when it moves at all."

"We understand AIDS. "

No we don't that why we pay for research.

"International Association for Dental Research. "

That is a great resource.

I don't see a list of innovations, but I did find the 75K$ "IADR/GlaxoSmithKline Innovation in Oral Care Awards" which is laughable in the face of multi-billon dollar tooth paste industry.

No does that doesn't remove the conflict of interest.

"the cure for tooth decay is to stop eating things that decay the teeth. "

One of the suggested areas of interest for the award is "inhibition of tooth surface loss and gingival recession, and amelioration of their effects" which would be a cure.

As of this moment the field claims that such repair is impossible. Check out the Wiki on enamel. I say again, why not home sealants?

"As virtually every food decays the teeth to SOME degree..."

Wiki says milk and cheese actually aids in remineralization. But I suppose a negative degree is still a degree.

"Do you watch TV? "

No. I watch shows online, Hulu is your friend. :) Advertising is hardly a reliable source of information.

"Dentists (recommend) preventative care products constantly. "

Yeah. But could they theoretically profit from either failing to release a far more effective method, or promoting products they knew worked only to an extremely limited degree?

Which is more profitable, costly continuous prevention, or cheap long term prevention?

Keep in mind that Colgate revenue was $15.12 billion as of 5/20/2009 4:50 PM

(http://www19.wolframalpha.com...+)

"Have you ever been to a dentist? "

Rarely. I brush twice a day. I have a calcium rich diet. I don't smoke. I don't drink excessive amount of, of soda. (maybe 3 cans a week) I've had one cavity so far. I'm 29. My experiences with dentists were universally good, when I still had insurance. That is despite a crushing phobia of needles and drills.

"Some Dental Innovations: taken from http://www.simplyteeth.com...;

Again, slow innovation, not absence of. When I see any of these as a regular dentists office and not buried in some lab somewhere, then we can talk.

"If there were a conflict of interest Dentists would not be so quick to announce these things "

An announcement is not a release. How quickly are these innovations adopted? How many of these innovations are so absurdly expensive thanks to tactical patenting that that not even a dentist can typically afford them? How many require additional costly training? How can you be sure there is not an infinitely better way buried somewhere?

We have no way of knowing.

I'll ask again, which is more profitable? A one time prevention that butchers the need for dental repair, or constant ineffective prevention that results in eventual costly dental repair anyway?

"It is also clear that (Dentistry) has come along way from "scraping" as you so un-informedly put it. "

You tell me one active oral hygiene action that does not boil down to mechanical removal of detritus via scraping or a toxic attack.

Brushing. Scrape.
Floss. Scrape.
Tooth paste. Scrape lubricant, abrasion, toxic.
Mouthwash. Toxic.
Interdental brushing. Scrape.
Tongue cleaning. Scrap/toxic.
Gum care. Scrape.

What else is there that I can actively do?

"It is clear from your ramblings that you have something against dentists. "

Oh yes, and all atheists hate god. Apart from being a personal attack that has no impact whatever on the topic at hand, even if it were true is has no impact on the factuality of my other statements.

How do I know that's not just motivated by self interest? At the end of the day its as irrelevant as your favorite color. For all I know you're a Colgate stock holder. Your motives are irrelevant as are mine.

Learn to debate.

"Despite this, there is NO conflict of interest when a dentist advises on tooth care. "

Then why the efforts to negate what supposedly does not exist? Why bother with third party independent research? Why bother with certification? Why bother with investigation? Why have dental boards?

The conflict is clear, and so are the efforts to reduce it. They may even be largely successful, in the cases of eliminating gross misconduct or incompetence, but there is absolutely no way to detect or prevent a lack of innovation, or misdirected innovation.

None of these efforts has any impact on the conflict's existence in the first place other than to make clear that it exists.

"That is - in fact, what Dentists do. If they fail to advise properly they will be sued and lose their right to be Dentists at worst. (etc)"

In order to bring suit or initiate complaint you must first recognize error. As I said, cases of profoundly negative treatment can be detected, cases of failure to innovate can not, especially if that failure is system wide.

We have nothing to compare dentists to except other dentists, does that honestly not present a potential problem in your mind?

"Because of these things the potential for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly."

So, you admit that a conflict of interest exists to be negated. Then we agree.
HalakMushareff

Con

HalakMushareff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bsergent

Pro

I have nothing additional to say at this time.

Perhaps you would like to contact the original target of this debate for tips for your next round or commiseration? Aphistis is his username.
HalakMushareff

Con

"Because of these things the potential for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly."

"So, you admit that a conflict of interest exists to be negated. Then we agree."

"POTENTIAL for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly." POTENTIAL. If you cannot be bothered to read the debate than perhaps you should not waste everyone's time with you circular logic and lack of factual information.

The above error by my opponent is a good summary of the entire debate. I have no further points to make as my opponent will simply ignore them - or draw fantasical and far feched illogical conclusions. A careful study of the debate reveals his blatent refusal to acknowledge any facts whatsoever. The only thing remaining that I can possibly say is that for someone so rabid to point out minor mis-spellings and grammatical errors my opponent makes quite a few himself.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
confused ftw
Posted by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
I have clearly pwnt this confised child.
Posted by bsergent 8 years ago
bsergent
I can't even vote on my own debate without giving them my phone number.

Pathetic. Well that shatters the whole concept since anyone could claim silent majority and disenfranchised voting block.
Posted by bsergent 8 years ago
bsergent
Alright, good we're getting somewhere, now justify why you'll put your name on the line but not your ideals.

Your claim is convincing and specific so I'll take it as fact that you are indeed, what you claim to be.

But that does not change the fact that you are a coward.

I still don't see why you would be involved with an open fracture of the leg, beyond standing there watching.

The fact remains you know there is a conflict and rather than admit it like an adult you continue your evasion and justification there of. I was once told that doctors often act like spoiled little children, and I frankly thought it was a few rare instances leading to a rash generalization, but given the behavior of you and your cohorts, I'm starting to accept it.

But if you really want to see me, and my camera, so I can film your laughable non answer to whether or not a conflict of interest exists exists, pay for my plane ticket. Being poor does not make me a coward.

armorshell, beyond that fact that each of the words I used have clear definitions and that each of you meet those definition making them attributes not insults, is the fact that this is not a debate, this is a conversation, your best friend over there has refused to engage me in debate, if he ever steps up, you'll not see me calling names as I crush each of his pathetic attempts at argument and blame shifting.

It never was a debate, none of you know how to debate, you couldn't tell me the steps of a logical deduction if your lives depended on it without googles help.

Is hearing from me once per day in the toothpaste thread insufficient for you kids? I've never had dentist stalkers before.

What a vindictive cloying and petty lot you've turned out to be.
Posted by armorshell 8 years ago
armorshell
"Petty, spineless childish coward"

Well, at least you didn't degenerate to the level of an "ad hominem fest."
Posted by aphistis 8 years ago
aphistis
https://extranet.in.gov...
Indiana dental license #12011007A.

My name is William Allen Johnson, DDS, and I am a licensed general dentist in the state of Indiana. Under Indiana state law, I am either telling you the truth or committing a felony.

I invite you to come to Wishard Memorial Hospital in Indianapolis Monday morning at 6:30AM, and ask an information desk attendant to have Dr. Johnson in Anesthesiology paged, so I can show you firsthand what I do, how & why I do it, and why I've spent the last two days laughing at you and the self-impressed narcissism that you can't seem to stop from pouring out of your fingertips. Until then, I invite (but hardly expect) you to simply be silent.

You asked me to put up; you got it. If we ever speak again, it will be in person; if not, it'll put a twofold smile on my face; first to be rid of you, and second to have proven which of us is truly the "petty spineless childish coward." I expect to see you bright and early Monday morning.
Posted by bsergent 8 years ago
bsergent
What anyone but you wants matters as little to you as can be imagined.

It takes a special kind of evil to profit off of raw suffering and the exploitation of the ignorant. I mean at least professional torturers think they are serving their country, at least serial killers are driven by a psychotic compulsion. What's your excuse? Greed?

I love it when people try to tell me how little they care. Logic flash, if you didn't care you'd not have signed up to post snide childish remarks about me. The people who don't care, aren't here.

I also STRONGLY encourage everyone to go read that thread, apart from my total shredding of your inane insulting self serving babble Ad Hominem fest, it's a pretty informative thread before you came in and sucked down the average quality of content with your pompous BS.

I have invited you to a debate when you are refusing to participate in! How is that telling you you never should have come here? What I said was accept the debate and leave these comments alone, you're not commenting on the debate you're the Internet equivalent of a heckler with about as much dignity and maturity.

I'm disappointed that you refused, I think I would enjoy humiliating a monster such as yourself, but at the same time its nice to have a so called DDS (which I now no longer believe for a microsecond) completely back down and therefor implicitly support, my contention. You have made it obvious that there is a conflict of interest with your refusal.

The fact is you're amoral, but you're not totally dim, you know it's a debate you simply can not win, as so you'd rather bicker in comments.

Seriously, contribute something useful or go back to your clubhouse, I may come back and see you.

I grow weary of liars in short order. I hope you're lying because if someone of your maturity can reach your claimed level of academic achievement I must admit a deep sadness at the quality of our education and medical professional selection system.
Posted by aphistis 8 years ago
aphistis
3. What you want matters as little to me as what you think.

2. I invite anyone reading this to visit http://forums.studentdoctor.net... and decide for themselves. Register and comment, if you like.

1. None of what you've said changes the fact that you're the one who asked me to come here in the first place, and now you're trying to tell me I should never have come, except you still want me to go accept the same debate prompt I've already declined. That's the second superb example, in as many posts, of why I'm (still) not interested.
Posted by bsergent 8 years ago
bsergent
1. the only reason you came here now is because I soundly thrashed you on your home turf and since I publicly predicted you'd kick me you suddenly lost the option of kicking me. don't pretend like you have the courage of your convictions all of the sudden, accept my other debate if that's the case.

2. And that's the type of excuse you have to use to avoid being soundly thrashed again and have people see and vote on it. You know damn well there is a conflict of interest and I Strongly suspect you exploit that conflict but you're too prideful to admit the former and far too deceitful to admit the latter.

3. What do cataracts and open fractures of the leg have to do with Dentistry? You know what, I want your real name, and proof it's you. I call Bravo Sierra. Notice my contention is that DENTISTS have a conflict of interest, not medical doctors generally.

4.Save the Gandhi routine for someone that doesn't understand motive or psychology.

Enjoy your paycheck parasite. And I still note that I had the sand to go back and make my rebuttal, quit turning your nose up at debate when you're right here debating.

Again, put up or shut up.
Posted by aphistis 8 years ago
aphistis
1. By "following me to continue your harassment," I assume you mean "click on the link in the e-mail you sent, asking to come read the debate prompt you directed at me with an explicit request that nobody except me respond."

2. For the edification of anyone interested, #1 is a representative example of why I declined to respond to his challenge.

3. "Run along, I'm sure you have someone ignorant who is in pain to exploit." I spent today keeping watch over five surgical patients today, ranging from an simple cataract repair on an elderly woman to a young man who sustained multiple fractures to both legs after being hit by a car last night.

I kept them healthy and comfortable while other people were cutting them open, manipulating fragmented bones, placing orthopedic plates secured with screws drilled into their skeleton, extracting damaged lenses and replacing them with prosthetic implants, removing inflamed abdominal organs, cauterizing tissues with heat and electricity, and stitching them closed again.

In the face of the deep personal and professional gratification I get from having the opportunity to help people in this fashion *in addition* to the services I'm able to provide as a dentist, I struggle to articulate the utter insignificance of your negative opinion to me. Have a nice day.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
bsergentHalakMushareffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by aphistis 7 years ago
aphistis
bsergentHalakMushareffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by squirlypumpkin 8 years ago
squirlypumpkin
bsergentHalakMushareffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bsergentHalakMushareffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40