§ 43. Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Health what recent advice he has sought on the use of chrome cobalt alloy dentures in special cases of patients who suffer from continual fracture of plastic dentures; and in what circumstances dentists axe authorised to provide them under the National Health Service instead of stainless steel.
§ Mr. BraineThat of the Ministry's consultant adviser in prosthetics; where clinically necessary.
§ 44. Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Health why the Dental Estimates Board, in the case of a Northfield dentist about whom he has received details, has not informed the dentist why it refuses to authorise chrome cobalt alloy dentures for three patients for whom the dentist thinks they are clinically necessary as exceptional cases; and whether he will ask the Board to help to avoid waste of time and public money on appeals by giving their reasons for refusal in such cases.
§ Mr. BraineThe Board has now approved these dentures for these patients. It does give reasons.
§ Mr. ChapmanThe Board did not give reasons in the first place for refusing them. Is not an apology and an explanation owed to this dentist? Is it not the case under the National Health Service that what a dentist thinks clinically necessary for a patient should be provided? Why was it not allowed to be provided by the Dental Estimates Board in this case? Is it not quite wrong that the dentist should have to raise all this publicly before his clinical requirements for patients are allowed?
§ Mr. BraineThe hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The onus rests on the dentist to satisfy the Board—which is composed, in part, of dentists of very high standing—that the treatment is clinically necessary. I am advised that in the case in question the Board originally refused approval because the information furnished by the dentist did not clearly indicate that stainless steel was not suitable.
§ Mr. ChapmanBut is the Minister aware that when the Ministry asked for the papers to be sent back, the Board reversed the decision, on exactly the same paper, without any explanation being given? Is not this a case of over-hasty consideration in the first place?
§ Mr. BraineNo, Sir. The onus is clearly on the dentist. Of course, the advice of my right hon. Friend's advisers in these matters is always available to the Board. This is a matter of resting, finally, on clinical judgment, and I should think that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied that approval has been given in this case.