Divided opinion

27 September 2013
Volume 29 · Issue 9

Opinion towards the month of September is divided. The pessimists might see it as the end of summer and the joys that that season brings, whilst the optimists prefer to look on it as a fresh start; being fully refreshed from a holiday they are fighting fit and ready to face the challenges work has to bring. It all depends on whether the glass is half empty of half full.

So how does one measure the contents of a dentist’s glass? On page 16 Alexander Holden suggests that (currently at least) the glass is half full. Of course there is increasing regulation on practices, so perhaps the glass is half full but previously it was closer to two-thirds full. If you look ahead to the challenge hygienists and therapists might present to the traditional role of the dentist, then perhaps the glass is half full but there is a leak in the bottom of the glass so it will soon be almost empty. People say you can take these expressions too far, read them too literally but I disagree… as with most things, opinion is divided on the subject.

For those who do view a dentist’s lot pessimistically, what is the solution? With the traditional business model of a local dentist under-threat some believe specialisation is the way forward. Moving roles within dentistry is certainly one option, but those wanting an easy life might consider leaving the profession. After all, why struggle trying to persuade people of the importance of their oral health and the benefits of brushing twice a day. Despite the potential of a healthier mouth, fresher breath, whiter teeth and possibly even improved general health, dentists still face an uphill battle asking patients to floss. Instead just start marketing cigarettes. Stained teeth, poor oral health, gum disease, a constant cough and the increased chance of mouth or lung cancer (as well as many other serious conditions) is a breeze, the secret is in the snazzy packaging apparently.

The Government recently put on hold plans to introduce standardised packaging on tobacco products, Jeremy Hunt explained “…in light of the differing views, we have decided to wait until the emerging impact of the decision in Australia can be measured, and then we will make a decision in England.”

So the Government is waiting for evidence to prove whether the scheme would achieve its aims or not. That seems fair enough. But the decision was criticised by many. The news headlines proclaimed how effective plain packaging was in curbing smoking, but that fact isn’t universally accepted. As the NHS website states, the research which started the debate, “cannot tell us whether a change in packaging achieves the desired outcomes of an increase in actual quit rates or preventing people from starting smoking.”

So where is the evidence? If you took a poll among patients and ask them why they smoke, I wonder how many would reply that it was because of the attractiveness of the cigarette packet. I am not a smoker, and never have been, and no colour, design or advertising will make me want to start.

Of course younger people may be more easily swayed by packaging than adults, but to buy cigarettes in Great Britain you have to be 18 years old. That’s the same age people get the vote. If the suggestion is that these people are impressionable and will not look at the long term implications of their decisions, then shouldn’t we do more than just look into tobacco packaging? We could increase the voting age, or better still standardise all party-political broadcasts, posters and speeches. Perhaps then more people would vote at elections, we might get a better government… we might even get one strong enough to back plans enforcing standardised plain packaging on tobacco products. (Do you ever feel like you’re going around in circles?)