Cosmetic dentistry is a divisive discipline. Within discourses that raise questions of the purpose of the dental profession, cosmetic dentistry is frequently criticised on the basis of it being classified as a non‐therapeutic intervention. This article re‐evaluates this assertion through examination of ethics of care of the self, healthcare definitions and the social purpose of dentistry, finding the traditional position to be wanting in its conclusions. The slide of dentistry from a healthcare vocation towards being a predominantly business‐focused interaction between (...) clinician and consumer conflicts with traditional notions of dentistry as a profession. Whilst it is undeniable that cosmetic dental treatment particularly lends itself to the commercial paradigm, this is not exclusive to this area of professional practice. The cultural basis of dental appearance and the potential of the dental profession to exert coercive pressure upon the public to undergo treatment that is based upon social norms is discussed. This essay concludes that cosmetic dentistry is undeniably part of the professional purpose of 21st Century dentistry. However, the caveat that may be placed upon this, is that this status is conditional upon the professional conduct of dental practitioners remaining resilient to commercial practices not compatible with professional obligations. (shrink)

Commercialisation and consumerism have had lasting and profound effects upon the nature of oral health and how dental services are provided. The stigma of a spoiled dental appearance, along with the attraction of the smile as a symbol of status and prestige, places the mouth and teeth as an object and product to be bought and sold. How the dental profession interacts with this acquired status of the mouth has direct implications for the professional status of dentistry and the relationship (...) between the profession and society. This essay examines the mouth’s developing position as a symbol of status and prestige and how the dental profession’s interaction and response to this may have important effects on the nature of dentistry’s social contract with society. As rates of dental disease reduce in higher socioeconomic groups, dentistry is experiencing a reorientation from being positioned within a therapeutic context, to be increasingly viewed as body work. This is not in of itself problematic; as a discipline dentistry places a very high value upon the provision of enhanced or improved aesthetics. This position changes when the symbolic exchange value of an aesthetic smile becomes the main motivation for treatment, encouraging a shift towards a commercialised model of practice that attenuates professional altruism. The dental profession should not welcome the association of the mouth as a status and prestige symbol lightly; this article examines how this paradigm shift might impact upon the social contract and dentistry’s professional status. (shrink)

BackgroundWhat can the analysis of the evolution of a code of ethics tell us about the dental profession and the association that develops it? The establishment of codes of ethics are foundational events in the social history of a profession. Within these documents it is possible to find statements of values and culture that serve a variety of purposes. Codes of ethics in dentistry have not frequently presented as the subjects of analyses despite containing rich information about the priorities and (...) anxieties within the profession’s membership at the time that the code was written.Main textThis essay uses critical discourse analysis to explore the 2012 and 2018 versions of the Code of Ethics produced by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Dental Association. This method of discourse analysis examines contradictions between the discourses within the codes and how these relate to broader social realties that surround the dental profession in New South Wales. By analysing the 2012 and 2018 codes together, it is possible to understand how the dental profession views its commitments to society as established through the social contract. Through this assessment, it will be demonstrated that both codes suffer due to their failure to consider the public as a key stakeholder in the creation and curation of the Code of Ethics and how this this relates intimately with the social contract between the profession and the public.ConclusionWithout the public being the central consideration, both codes amount to declarations of professional privilege and dominance. Although the more recent 2018 Code of Ethics demonstrates insight into the changes in public trust placed in the professions, this analysis shows that that the current code of ethics is still reluctant to recognise and engage with the public as an equal stakeholder in the planning and provision of oral health care and the development of the profession’s values and cultural trajectory. (shrink)

Bioethics, Volume 35, Issue 7, Page 646-651, September 2021.