Letter: Don’t take teeth out of dental licensing laws

Tuesday, May 8, 2001 | 9:28 a.m.

As someone who has practiced primarily in a dental specialty here in Las Vegas for over 20 years, I find Senate Bill 133 a truly fascinating work of legislative legerdemain. SB133 will allow dentists to move to Nevada and begin practice without taking the state board examination. I have successfully taken some tough licensure examinations for different professions all across the country, most recently a California Bar Examination that had a 38 percent pass rate.

The main proponents of SB133 are massive corporate health insurance companies. Some of these same conglomerates are the very ones the federal government has protected for years against lawsuits. Can anyone guess why this protection has been federally mandated? Hint: It's not because of outstanding service.

Opening up the Dental Practice Act will allow any dentist anywhere in the country to "get out of town," head for the hills (Nevada), and continue doing whatever it was that he was doing when the move took place. Unbelievably, as originally proposed, this bill would have allowed any dentist anywhere in the world to come to Nevada with essentially no questions asked.

State boards are in place for a purpose. That purpose is to protect the public from incompetent practitioners. However, if we citizens of Nevada would like to see the Dental Practice Act opened up in such a manner, why should we limit it to just dentists? Why don't we include accountants, acupuncturists, physicians, chiropractors, attorneys, cosmetologists, plumbers, homebuilders, insurance salesmen, etc.? That is, why should we license anybody?

SB133 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly on Wednesday. Give your representative a call and let your opinion be heard.

DANIEL L. ORR Editor's note: The writer is an oral & maxillofacial surgeon who lives in Las Vegas. Orr also teaches at the University of Nevada School of Medicine.