Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I raise the case of a successful County Longford businesswoman who has endured an unrelenting nightmare since she underwent what was meant to be a root canal procedure in May 2019. It left her with permanent injury that will require treatment and medication for the rest of her life, but that is not the worst of it. The worst is the absolute failure of any regulatory body, in this case the obvious, clear and fundamental shortcomings of the Dental Council. I have debated whether to name the dentist at this juncture but have opted not to do so, pending sight of the Department's response. Suffice it to say the dentist in this case is County Longford based. My constituent has made it her personal mission to highlight the lack of governance and the patent lack of accountability in this sector. It was deeply disturbing for her to find out that the same dentist continues to be involved in several High Court and Circuit Court cases.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to caution the Deputy in respect of identifying somebody who is not here to protect themselves.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did clarify earlier that I was not going to do so. The same dentist is involved in numerous High Court and Circuit Court cases relating to allegations of negligence in the provision of medical care. To date, my constituent and I are unaware of any actions or sanctions by the Dental Council against this dentist. In fact, a letter from the Dental Council of October 2023 clearly stated it cannot do anything to follow up on reports of professional negligence.

My constituent and many others are rightly and passionately pushing for reform of the Dentists Act 1985 and it is very much a commitment of the Government to follow through on this. While cognisance should be given to the views of the Irish Dental Association and the Dental Council, they should not fully inform any reforms. Rather, we should look to and take account of the experiences of my constituent and others like her.

I will paraphrase my constituent’s experience as follows. She contacted the Dental Council in August 2020 seeking its assistance in obtaining missing X-rays the dentist had failed to provide when first requested in November 2019. A letter from the Dental Council of November 2020 advised that it had tried informally to resolve the issue but to no avail, and that she could proceed with an allegation of professional misconduct against the dentist concerning his failure to release her records. It took that dentist 14 months to furnish some, but not all, of the X-rays. The dentist's notes for the patient are incomplete, prescribing three separate courses of antibiotics, and the patient says that by the time the third was administered, she was extremely ill. Had the dentist identified that there was a problem and referred the patient for appropriate treatment sooner, it would have minimised the damage and saved her a lot of pain and suffering. She subsequently took a civil case for medical negligence against the dentist, which was settled out of court in July 2023 for a substantial sum to cover damages, loss of earnings and future treatment.

Ever since then, the patient has valiantly tried to bring the matter to the attention of the Dental Council because she fervently believes it should be the duty of the council to take appropriate action and the necessary steps to safeguard patients. It is evident the Dental Council is not in a position to do this, as demonstrated by this case. Subsequent to her civil action, the council acknowledged it was satisfied to see her case settled and that the outcome, namely, substantial damages, seemed appropriate in this instance. It stressed, however, that the case could not be reopened because the matter had now been dealt with in the courts system and that, from the Dental Council's perspective, the matter is now closed.

It is a source of frustration, annoyance and concern that the council appears to be unable to fully and adequately regulate the profession in respect of fitness to practice and the protection of patients. My constituent feels the Dental Council is not able or willing to address these issues and, consequently, she reached out here in the hope the matter could be raised.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly. As the Deputy outlined, under section 38 of the Dentists Act 1985, the Dental Council or any person may apply to the fitness to practise committee of the Dental Council for an inquiry into the fitness of a registered dentist to practise dentistry on the grounds of alleged professional misconduct. Professional misconduct is defined as a serious falling-short in the standards expected of a dentist, and allegations of professional misconduct must be capable of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Where a registered dentist has been found by the fitness to practise committee, on the basis of an inquiry and a report under section 38 of the Act, to be guilty of professional misconduct, the council may decide the name of such a person should be erased from the register or from the register of dental specialists, as the case may be, or that for a period of specified duration, the registration of the name in the register concerned should not have effect. Alternatively, the Dental Council, under the fitness to practise provisions of the Dentists Act 1985, following an inquiry and a report by the fitness to practise committee under section 38 of the Act, may decide to attach such conditions as it sees fit to the retention in any register maintained under the Dentists Act of a person whose name has been entered into such a register and decide to advise, admonish or censure such a person in respect of professional misconduct.

Under the Dentists Act 1985, only dentists registered with the Dental Council can legally practise dentistry in Ireland. The use of forged documents, impersonation or other illegal methods to enable this practice are serious criminal offences as set out in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. Persons found guilty of these offences are liable on conviction to up to ten years' imprisonment. In addition to this, any suspected cases of such activity should be reported to An Garda Síochána. Under the Dentists Act 1985, it is also an offence for a person who is not a registered dentist to use the title of "dentist" to practise dentistry or to represent themselves or hold themselves out as a dentist. These offences can be prosecuted by the Dental Council under the Dentists Act 1985.

The Dental Council, as a prescribed public body, may also rely on section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. This empowers the Dental Council to apply to the Circuit Court or the High Court for an order prohibiting any trader or person from committing or engaging in prohibited acts or practices.

This includes prohibiting dental practices from trading that may be facilitating illegal dentists on their premises.

More importantly, the Minister for Health is committed to the comprehensive reform of oral healthcare services, including legislative reform, as set out in the national oral health policy, Smile agus Sláinte. The protection of the public and ensuring high oral healthcare standards will continue to be the central focus of this work.

The Minister met the Dental Council on 15 January to discuss the regulatory powers available to it under the Dentists Act 1985 and the potential advancement of interim amendments. Since January, a series of thematic engagements between the Department of Health and the Dental Council to discuss legislative matters in more depth have taken place and any legislative changes will be subsequently a decision for the Oireachtas.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I had hoped for a more robust response from the Department. Given its commitment to the comprehensive review and “reform of oral healthcare services, including legislative reform, as set out in the national oral health policy”, I would have expected the Department to be much more stringent in its terms and specifically set out areas of regulation that it wished to address. I note that the Minister for Health met the Dental Council on 15 January to discuss the regulatory powers available to it under the Act. One of the key requests made by my constituent was for the Minister and Department not to be totally reliant on input from the Dental Council and instead to be cognisant of and engage with the many patients who have been adversely affected to date. I ask that this message be taken back to the Department.

I wish to address a specific point in the response that, ironically, relates to the Minister of State’s Department. As a prescribed public body, the Dental Council may rely on section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007, which empowers the Dental Council to apply to the Circuit Court or High Court for an order prohibiting any dentist or person from committing or engaging in prohibited acts or practices. I do not want to put the Minister of State on the spot, but does he know whether this section has ever been used by the Dental Council or is it just there for window dressing?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would encourage the Deputy to provide the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, with the specific details of the case so that it can be followed through. The Minister is looking at reviewing and updating the legislation in the context of the wider implementation of the new national oral health policy, which envisages a fundamental reform of oral health services. Any new legislation will be informed by this work.

I have referred to the series of thematic engagements. These are important, as they will have an input into the regulatory reform programme the Department is developing. The Department welcomes positive engagement, not just from the Dental Council, but from all stakeholders – the public, the wider dental profession and public representatives – in this regard. The Minister is confident that, informed by this engagement, he will be able to deliver a robust, evidence-based and modern regulatory framework to support the new national oral health policy and the associated reforms.

I do not have to hand the details of the consumer side of matters, but I will get them for the Deputy and forward them to him.