That dentist again - 09-02-2009 07:51 AM
Robs dentist is back in court to have a review of his one year supervision order.I was asked if i would like to comment on him being returned to full practise and i have posted my reply. This man got off way to lightly and he is about to carry on as if nothing happened.I wish it was that easy!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
"When my husband attended Mr. Dhamecha�s dental practice he was entitled too expect the best treatment and advice available from the information he provided.
Despite him telling Mr. Dhamecha that he had had a sore on his tongue for several weeks and his denture being unwearable because it was broken Mr. Dhamecha diagnosed the ulcer as traumatic. When the new denture was fitted Robin was told to return if it gave him any problem. He was not told to return if the ulcer did not heal and he was not given a further appointment for the dentist to check on it, as I believe he should have been.
In the committees ruling it was decided that it was quite acceptable for Mr. Dhamecha to assume the ulcer was traumatic and it was also decided that due to his previous good record and the testimonials of a few satisfied patients it was also acceptable to give him the benefit of the doubt about his version of the story.
Considering that two hours before the hearing was due to start, by his own admission Mr. Dhamecha was proved beyond any doubt to have been lying throughout the 18 month investigation by the GDC and has also been seen to have altered records concerning my husbands visits, I see absolutely no foundation for this decision to give him so much consideration.
Information regarding guidelines for dentists on the early detection of Oral Cancer is freely available to health professionals and the general public and statistics about the importance of early detection and diagnosis are well documented.
My husband�s chances of surviving his cancer were immediately reduced by 50% once his secondary tumour appeared in November of 2006, just 4 weeks after his last appointment with Mr.Dhamecha, and I find the assumption that the six month delay in diagnosis had no direct effect on his chance of survival to show a level of disregard for medical evidence that is beyond belief.
Robin�s primary tumour on his tongue was very small and could have been easily dealt with in June or July of 2006 giving him a good chance of a full recovery. The secondary tumour in his parotid gland, which developed over the following 5 months, was already 5cm by the time it was removed. This was the site of his recurrence just a few weeks after completion of his treatment, and ultimately the cause of the agonizing death he experienced.
Robin and I put our complete faith in the General Dental Council and it was as a result of their long and painstaking investigation that Mr. Dhamecha appeared before you. I would doubt if so much time and money would have been spent if they were not completely satisfied that Mr. Dhamecha had a serious case to answer and I am sure that they feel as strongly as I do that we were seriously let down by your decision.
I personally find it baffling that the committee appeared to attach greater weight to the character references they received on Mr. Dhamecha�s behalf, than to the substandard care my husband received, his poor record keeping and the fact that by his own admission he had lied in his evidence regarding the October appointments.
I am also very concerned that the committee accepted much of Mr.Dhamechas evidence as truthful in spite of the fact that he admitted he had lied.
In light of these issues I believe his fitness to practice continues to be impaired and I do not feel that the sanctions issued by the committee in 2008 reflect the seriousness of the matters raised and the shortcomings in Mr.Dhamecha�s conduct which were identified.
I do not accept that Mr.Dhamecha poses no risk and I note from the GDC decision when considering the issue of impairment and fitness to practice account must be taken of
�The need to protect the individual patient and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding the proper standards of conduct and behavior which the public expect and the public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients and maintenance of public confidence in the profession.
In my opinion Mr.Dhameca�s well documented conduct is likely to reduce public confidence in the profession and this will be further reduced by what I consider to be wholly inadequate sanctions. The fact that Mr.Dhamecha chose at the last minute to �fall on his sword� should have carried no weight in this decision. "
This is the statement of Mrs. Isabella Hamilton Read Dated July 31st 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
"When my husband attended Mr. Dhamecha�s dental practice he was entitled too expect the best treatment and advice available from the information he provided.
Despite him telling Mr. Dhamecha that he had had a sore on his tongue for several weeks and his denture being unwearable because it was broken Mr. Dhamecha diagnosed the ulcer as traumatic. When the new denture was fitted Robin was told to return if it gave him any problem. He was not told to return if the ulcer did not heal and he was not given a further appointment for the dentist to check on it, as I believe he should have been.
In the committees ruling it was decided that it was quite acceptable for Mr. Dhamecha to assume the ulcer was traumatic and it was also decided that due to his previous good record and the testimonials of a few satisfied patients it was also acceptable to give him the benefit of the doubt about his version of the story.
Considering that two hours before the hearing was due to start, by his own admission Mr. Dhamecha was proved beyond any doubt to have been lying throughout the 18 month investigation by the GDC and has also been seen to have altered records concerning my husbands visits, I see absolutely no foundation for this decision to give him so much consideration.
Information regarding guidelines for dentists on the early detection of Oral Cancer is freely available to health professionals and the general public and statistics about the importance of early detection and diagnosis are well documented.
My husband�s chances of surviving his cancer were immediately reduced by 50% once his secondary tumour appeared in November of 2006, just 4 weeks after his last appointment with Mr.Dhamecha, and I find the assumption that the six month delay in diagnosis had no direct effect on his chance of survival to show a level of disregard for medical evidence that is beyond belief.
Robin�s primary tumour on his tongue was very small and could have been easily dealt with in June or July of 2006 giving him a good chance of a full recovery. The secondary tumour in his parotid gland, which developed over the following 5 months, was already 5cm by the time it was removed. This was the site of his recurrence just a few weeks after completion of his treatment, and ultimately the cause of the agonizing death he experienced.
Robin and I put our complete faith in the General Dental Council and it was as a result of their long and painstaking investigation that Mr. Dhamecha appeared before you. I would doubt if so much time and money would have been spent if they were not completely satisfied that Mr. Dhamecha had a serious case to answer and I am sure that they feel as strongly as I do that we were seriously let down by your decision.
I personally find it baffling that the committee appeared to attach greater weight to the character references they received on Mr. Dhamecha�s behalf, than to the substandard care my husband received, his poor record keeping and the fact that by his own admission he had lied in his evidence regarding the October appointments.
I am also very concerned that the committee accepted much of Mr.Dhamechas evidence as truthful in spite of the fact that he admitted he had lied.
In light of these issues I believe his fitness to practice continues to be impaired and I do not feel that the sanctions issued by the committee in 2008 reflect the seriousness of the matters raised and the shortcomings in Mr.Dhamecha�s conduct which were identified.
I do not accept that Mr.Dhamecha poses no risk and I note from the GDC decision when considering the issue of impairment and fitness to practice account must be taken of
�The need to protect the individual patient and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding the proper standards of conduct and behavior which the public expect and the public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients and maintenance of public confidence in the profession.
In my opinion Mr.Dhameca�s well documented conduct is likely to reduce public confidence in the profession and this will be further reduced by what I consider to be wholly inadequate sanctions. The fact that Mr.Dhamecha chose at the last minute to �fall on his sword� should have carried no weight in this decision. "
This is the statement of Mrs. Isabella Hamilton Read Dated July 31st 2009