> I have found distressing the recent calls for revision of the charter of
> sci.med.dentistry and I would like to explain why.

> Presently there exists a forum for discussing a broad range of issues
> pertaining to dentistry, namely sci.med.dentistry. For reasons that
> I am still trying to understand, some people on this group do not want
> such a few forum to exist and are trying in various ways to eliminate it.

> What has been propsed instead is the modification of the charter of
> sci.med.dentistry as well as the creation of a new newsgroup, alt.dentistry.
> The former would be moderated, partly with the aim of eliminating
> the low signal to noise ratio on sci.med.dentistry caused by innumerable
> messages from patients seeking medical advice. The latter would be a forum
> in which patients could seek advice from dentists who don't mind reading
> and answering their questions.

> The most obvious difficulty with these propsoals is that they do not
> permit the existing freedom of discussion to continue. It is not the
> case that everything which one could discuss on the present sci.med.dentistry
> could be discussed in one or the other of these new groups.

> It seems to me that the concerns of dental professionals, and of myself,
> could be adequately met simply by creating new subgroups of sci.med.dentistry,
> for example:
> (1) sci.med.dentistry.professional
> (2) sci.med.dentistry.advice

> and allow the ambient node sci.med.dentistry to continue to exist as it
> is presently constituted. Group (1) would be the moderated group that Alec
> and others are presently asking for and (2) would be the group where people
> go to ask their questions about dental care. But sci.med.dentistry would
> remain what it is, a broad forum for free discussion of issues pertaining to
> dentistry.

> I fail to see why this was not the first idea that was proposed and the
> more intolerant alternatives have instead been insisted upon. But I have
> a few guesses:
> (i) Many dentists acquire intolerant attitudes towards free discussion as
> a result of years of authoritarian education in dental school. Just
> last night I was reading a book on planning dental treatment, written
> for dentists, in which the author specifically cites authoritarian
> education as one of the reasons why some dentists are unable to
> deal cooperatively with patients in formulating treatment plans.
> (ii) In every profession, one receives a certain amount of social
> conditioning which tends to give one reasons to believe in one's
> superiority over other professions. In the case of physicists,
> I have heard it proclaimed as an article of faith that chemists
> are dumb, while chemists are taught to be proud of their ability to
> visualize the complex geometry of molecules and their symmetry groups.
> Health care professionals undoubtedly take pride in their role in
> the treatment of disease and educators often take pride in their
> role in helping the brain achieve its potential. In spite of this
> propaganda one gets, which also tends to enhance team spirit, the
> fact remains that it doesn't make one any better than anyone else.
> We all have a role to play in the society we live in and it is not the
> case that a group of dentists has the right to say, "Sci.med.dentistry
> is our turf and we will enumerate the possible areas of discussion
> and prescribe the allowable fora for discussing them. Will scum and
> riff-raff please move to their designated areas..." Nevertheless, that
> appears to be what is being proposed. The justification given
> is that many dentists do not find it a suitable forum. But that is
> justification only for creating a suitable forum, not for destroying
> one that already exists and meets needs other than those perceived by
> dentists.

> (iii) From (ii), one might surmise that the proposed revision of
> sci.med.dentistry arises from reluctance on the part of some dentists
> not to meet on an equal footing with their social inferiors.
> While this is undoubtedly true of many, there is another dimension
> that one should also consider, namely that many dentists feel,
> and with good reason, that they have an adversary relationship with
> the community of receivers of dental care. They would naturally prefer
> a more protected environment in which they can discuss topics such
> as tax shelters, investment plans, office management software,
> protection from malpractice, gossip about patients and occasionally
> honest questions pertaining to dental care (the only question that
> recall seeing that pertained to actual practice was posted anonymously
> from that place in Finnland). However, dentists will not solve this
> problems by excluding care receivers from posting to the group; they
> would have to have a group that health care receivers would not be
> able to READ. For that, a list distributed by email to persons
> with provable health care credentials would be required.
> (iv) There is however another concern that they might have. One of the
> specific objections voiced by the "many" dentists who do not join
> sci.med.dentistry is that they don't want non-providers to answer
> questions posted by other non-providers. It is precisely this objection
> that destroys the credibility of Alec's claim that the proposed revisions
> are aimed at specific topics (not that there is anything really wrong
> with the topics), not at categories of individuals. But let us look
> more closely at what might also be implied by this claim: maybe they
> are afraid of finding themselves on an equal footing with quacks,
> faith healers, homeopathic care givers, some of the {*filter*}one finds in
> health cooking.net">food stores and so on. This may not be simply a personal
> preference. I seem to recall that the American Medical Association
> has a policy of not partipating on any forum in which these alternative
> unapproved treatments are also represented, since that could be
> interpreted as endor{*filter*}t of these alternatives. Perhaps the idea
> that there could be not only a sci.med.dentistry.professional but also,
> perhaps, a sci.med.dentistry.voodoo, is anathema to the ADA membership
> and would exclude them from participating, since it would tend to imply
> that establishment dentistry is only one of many elective forms of
> treatment, all on the same footing. Perhaps that is why it is not
> enough for dentists to have a forum in which they can carry on the
> discussions they propose to have, and why it is that they seem to be
> insisting that they will prescribe the allowable fora. Personally,
> I don't like these quacks any better than the dentists do, but unlike
> the proponents of the revision of sci.med.dentistry, I believe in
> free speech, in free inquiry and in the free exchange of ideas as
> a desirable goal and as a necessary part of education.
> (v) Perhaps I am mistaken in (iv). Perhaps Alec really doesn't want to
> allow non-providers to talk to each other, for whatever reason. The
> conceptual model is that the only legitimate use of a forum on dentistry
> is for dentists to answer questions. If they answer questions of patients,
> that is alt.dentistry. If they answer questions of dentists and
> dental students, that is sci.med.dentistry. There will be no discussion
> of issues among patients.
> (vi) One other possible reason is ignorance and chauvinism. After all,
> USENET is read by people in many countries and in many of these countries,
> the medical profession is run quite differently. In Paris, for example,
> the medical bookstores sell standard medical textbooks but also sell
> books on alternative treatments, including homeopathic medicine. There
> are {*filter*}tores which look indistinguishable from the usual {*filter*}tores
> but which sell homeopathic medicine. There is a global medical
> community and it is not within the province of a handful of American
> dentists to decide for the rest of the planet what model to adopt for
> discussions of dentistry. The comparison of dental experiences in various
> countries is a valid topic for dicussion but is not adequately provided
> for in the procrustean proposals that have been offered for revising
> sci.med.dentistry.

> It is unfortunate that the paucity of detailed discussion of these proposals
> makes it necessary to speculate as I have just done. For some reason,
> few dentists have been willing to come forward and explain what exactly
> they are concerned about and to try to arrive at a solution cooperatively.
> Instead, we see rumors about what prevents unsubscribed dentists  from
> subscribing, with the implication being that if the free forum is
> not quashed, the ADA is going to take its marbles and go home.

> This is the behavior one observes in individuals who know they are
> doing something which is wrong, assuming that they possess this concept,
> but which they perceive to be in their interests and will pursue for
> that reason alone. It is the fruit of their entire education, which
> has always pitted their survival against their idealism with no quarter given
> to the latter, which has never rewarded them for expressing themselves
> honestly, which, in short, has never prepared them to participate in
> a free forum such as USENET.

> I note that none of the proposals, which pretends to enumerate the possible
> forms of dentally related discussion, provides for critical discussion of
> dental schools as educational institutions, nor the undergraduate preparation
> of dentists. Similalrly, dismissing criticisms from care receivers as
> "gripes" contains within it the complacency of
> those who have no reason to desire reform and whose education has given them
> no

>> Subject: mental floss View: Complete Thread (2 articles)
>> Original FormatNewsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
>> Date: 1994-04-19 13:33:07 PST

>> I have found distressing the recent calls for revision of the charter of
>> sci.med.dentistry and I would like to explain why.

>> Presently there exists a forum for discussing a broad range of issues
>> pertaining to dentistry, namely sci.med.dentistry. For reasons that
>> I am still trying to understand, some people on this group do not want
>> such a few forum to exist and are trying in various ways to eliminate it.

>> What has been propsed instead is the modification of the charter of
>> sci.med.dentistry as well as the creation of a new newsgroup, alt.dentistry.
>> The former would be moderated, partly with the aim of eliminating
>> the low signal to noise ratio on sci.med.dentistry caused by innumerable
>> messages from patients seeking medical advice. The latter would be a forum
>> in which patients could seek advice from dentists who don't mind reading
>> and answering their questions.

>> The most obvious difficulty with these propsoals is that they do not
>> permit the existing freedom of discussion to continue. It is not the
>> case that everything which one could discuss on the present sci.med.dentistry
>> could be discussed in one or the other of these new groups.

>> It seems to me that the concerns of dental professionals, and of myself,
>> could be adequately met simply by creating new subgroups of
>> sci.med.dentistry,
>> for example:
>> (1) sci.med.dentistry.professional
>> (2) sci.med.dentistry.advice

>> and allow the ambient node sci.med.dentistry to continue to exist as it
>> is presently constituted. Group (1) would be the moderated group that Alec
>> and others are presently asking for and (2) would be the group where people
>> go to ask their questions about dental care. But sci.med.dentistry would
>> remain what it is, a broad forum for free discussion of issues pertaining to
>> dentistry.

>> I fail to see why this was not the first idea that was proposed and the
>> more intolerant alternatives have instead been insisted upon. But I have
>> a few guesses:
>> (i) Many dentists acquire intolerant attitudes towards free discussion as
>> a result of years of authoritarian education in dental school. Just
>> last night I was reading a book on planning dental treatment, written
>> for dentists, in which the author specifically cites authoritarian
>> education as one of the reasons why some dentists are unable to
>> deal cooperatively with patients in formulating treatment plans.
>> (ii) In every profession, one receives a certain amount of social
>> conditioning which tends to give one reasons to believe in one's
>> superiority over other professions. In the case of physicists,
>> I have heard it proclaimed as an article of faith that chemists
>> are dumb, while chemists are taught to be proud of their ability to
>> visualize the complex geometry of molecules and their symmetry groups.
>> Health care professionals undoubtedly take pride in their role in
>> the treatment of disease and educators often take pride in their
>> role in helping the brain achieve its potential. In spite of this
>> propaganda one gets, which also tends to enhance team spirit, the
>> fact remains that it doesn't make one any better than anyone else.
>> We all have a role to play in the society we live in and it is not the
>> case that a group of dentists has the right to say, "Sci.med.dentistry
>> is our turf and we will enumerate the possible areas of discussion
>> and prescribe the allowable fora for discussing them. Will scum and
>> riff-raff please move to their designated areas..." Nevertheless, that
>> appears to be what is being proposed. The justification given
>> is that many dentists do not find it a suitable forum. But that is
>> justification only for creating a suitable forum, not for destroying
>> one that already exists and meets needs other than those perceived by
>> dentists.

>> (iii) From (ii), one might surmise that the proposed revision of
>> sci.med.dentistry arises from reluctance on the part of some dentists
>> not to meet on an equal footing with their social inferiors.
>> While this is undoubtedly true of many, there is another dimension
>> that one should also consider, namely that many dentists feel,
>> and with good reason, that they have an adversary relationship with
>> the community of receivers of dental care. They would naturally prefer
>> a more protected environment in which they can discuss topics such
>> as tax shelters, investment plans, office management software,
>> protection from malpractice, gossip about patients and occasionally
>> honest questions pertaining to dental care (the only question that
>> recall seeing that pertained to actual practice was posted anonymously
>> from that place in Finnland). However, dentists will not solve this
>> problems by excluding care receivers from posting to the group; they
>> would have to have a group that health care receivers would not be
>> able to READ. For that, a list distributed by email to persons
>> with provable health care credentials would be required.
>> (iv) There is however another concern that they might have. One of the
>> specific objections voiced by the "many" dentists who do not join
>> sci.med.dentistry is that they don't want non-providers to answer
>> questions posted by other non-providers. It is precisely this objection
>> that destroys the credibility of Alec's claim that the proposed revisions
>> are aimed at specific topics (not that there is anything really wrong
>> with the topics), not at categories of individuals. But let us look
>> more closely at what might also be implied by this claim: maybe they
>> are afraid of finding themselves on an equal footing with quacks,
>> faith healers, homeopathic care givers, some of the {*filter*}one finds in
>> health cooking.net">food stores and so on. This may not be simply a personal
>> preference. I seem to recall that the American Medical Association
>> has a policy of not partipating on any forum in which these alternative
>> unapproved treatments are also represented, since that could be
>> interpreted as endor{*filter*}t of these alternatives. Perhaps the idea
>> that there could be not only a sci.med.dentistry.professional but also,
>> perhaps, a sci.med.dentistry.voodoo, is anathema to the ADA membership
>> and would exclude them from participating, since it would tend to imply
>> that establishment dentistry is only one of many elective forms of
>> treatment, all on the same footing. Perhaps that is why it is not
>> enough for dentists to have a forum in which they can carry on the
>> discussions they propose to have, and why it is that they seem to be
>> insisting that they will prescribe the allowable fora. Personally,
>> I don't like these quacks any better than the dentists do, but unlike
>> the proponents of the revision of sci.med.dentistry, I believe in
>> free speech, in free inquiry and in the free exchange of ideas as
>> a desirable goal and as a necessary part of education.
>> (v) Perhaps I am mistaken in (iv). Perhaps Alec really doesn't want to
>> allow non-providers to talk to each other, for whatever reason. The
>> conceptual model is that the only legitimate use of a forum on dentistry
>> is for dentists to answer questions. If they answer questions of patients,
>> that is alt.dentistry. If they answer questions of dentists and
>> dental students, that is sci.med.dentistry. There will be no discussion
>> of issues among patients.
>> (vi) One other possible reason is ignorance and chauvinism. After all,
>> USENET is read by people in many countries and in many of these countries,
>> the medical profession is run quite differently. In Paris, for example,
>> the medical bookstores sell standard medical textbooks but also sell
>> books on alternative treatments, including homeopathic medicine. There
>> are {*filter*}tores which look indistinguishable from the usual {*filter*}tores
>> but which sell homeopathic medicine. There is a global medical
>> community and it is not within the province of a handful of American
>> dentists to decide for the rest of the planet what model to adopt for
>> discussions of dentistry. The comparison of dental experiences in various
>> countries is a valid topic for dicussion but is not adequately provided
>> for in the procrustean proposals that have been offered for revising
>> sci.med.dentistry.

>> It is unfortunate that the paucity of detailed discussion of these proposals
>> makes it necessary to speculate as I have just done. For some reason,
>> few dentists have been willing to come forward and explain what exactly
>> they are concerned about and to try to arrive at a solution cooperatively.
>> Instead, we see rumors about what prevents unsubscribed dentists  from
>> subscribing, with the implication being that if the free forum is
>> not quashed, the ADA is going to take its marbles and go home.

>> This is the behavior one observes in individuals who know they are
>> doing something which is wrong, assuming that they possess this concept,
>> but which they perceive to be in their interests and will pursue for
>> that reason alone. It is the fruit of their entire education, which
>> has always pitted their survival against their idealism with no quarter given
>> to the latter, which has never rewarded them for expressing themselves
>> honestly, which, in