View report page

186
In view of the fact that you have now failed on two consecutive occasions
to take advantage of the offers of dental treatment made on your child's
behalf, I have to inform you that your child now becomes ineligible for
further school dental inspection and treatment by the Education Authority's
dental surgeons.
A. W. FORREST,
School Medical Officer.
In November, 1937, the Director of Education sent to all Headteachers
in the Borough the following letter drafted by the School
Medical Officer:—
"CASUAL" DENTAL TREATMENT.
The function of the School Dental Service has been defined by the Chief
Medical Officer of the Board of Education :—
"The purpose of school dentistry is not to provide a scheme of extraction
for ' a never-ending stream of casuals, so large that the dental officers
would be employed whole-time alleviating the sufferings of youth and
profiting them nothing in the greater and more far-reaching problem of
good health resulting from a sound dentition.' It is an educational scheme
of conservative dentistry, and that alone is its justification. The school
clinic is not an out-patient dental department, and any casual work should
be deferred or declined in accordance with the purpose of the general
scheme, already enough and more than enough for most Local Education
Authorities."
It has been laid down by the Board of Education that one dental surgeon cannot
deal effectively with the inspection and treatment of more than from 3,500 to
5,000 school children, depending on the rate of acceptance; and that the aim of
the School Dental Service should be to provide for the dental inspection and treatment
of each child once a year.
In the service of Leyton Corporation there are two dental surgeons, of whom
one devotes part of his time to dental work in connection with the dental scheme
of the Maternity and Child Welfare Authority. Under the circumstances it is
impossible to provide effective dental treatment for all children requiring it; and
the interval between two consecutive dental inspections in Leyton elementary
schools varies from 15 to 18 months.
It is therefore obvious that, with the available staff, any treatment of
"casual" dental cases must be at the expense of—and to the detriment of—
children requiring and prepared to have conservative dental treatment (i.e.,
fillings, etc.) by appointment. If parents know their children can have teeth
extracted whenever they cause pain, they are inclined to refuse offers of early
conservative treatment" with an easy conscience." Of course it may be contended
that, from a purely humane point of view, it is unfair to let a child suffer due to
the ignorance or foolishness of its parents. On the other hand, it is manifestly
more unfair that the treatment of " casuals " should interfere with the regular