Sir, I read with interest the recent series of articles on the GDC. The final paragraph of the instalment (BDJ 2008; 205: 153–155) was possibly one of the most important and perhaps bravest in the whole series, inviting the reader to consider whether, if the GDC didn't exist, would we have to invent it? The opinion submission in the article was a positive one that we would, but I wonder...

If John Tomes and the separatists hadn't moved dentists away from mainstream medicine then we would probably now be a speciality within medicine with its own sub-specialties and looked after by the General Medical Council (GMC). In the list of functions of the GDC given in the series, I wondered how any was different to the current functions of the GMC on behalf of the patients and professionals within any other medical speciality in contemporary healthcare? This I feel is a valid question and comparison espcially as we almost inevitably follow templates, mandates and protocols set through the GMC for the wider medical profession.

The GDC states 'whilst it is universally acknowledged that dentists subscribe fully to the core values of the doctor, certain features of the practice of dentistry have ensured that the identity of a separate profession has been maintained'.1 Really? These 'features' are nowhere defined. Can they mean perhaps the iniquitous NHS patient charges that inexplicably apply to oral healthcare but no other part of the person; if not, then what? It's not really part of mainstream healthcare, but some sort of indefinable add-on? Not a 'medical' doctor/surgeon, but certainly expected to behave as one, be a sort of specialist and work alongside colleagues of all specialities especially in hospital trauma departments, the armed forces, reconstructive and restorative practice etc etc? A frankly ludicrous thesis.

Does it make much sense to train dentists as a specific profession (not speciality) through the medium of a parallel training programme? If we were asked today to set up training programmes from scratch for medical professionals to manage specific areas such as obstetrics and gynaecology, radiology, dermatology, dentistry and so forth, I do not think we would do so for each of them and their sub-specialties as entirely separate professions. Yet this is what has been done and continues for dentistry and oral healthcare. The GDC are of course not the cause of the above, but a product of the circumstances.

There is a far from clear mandate for the longevity of the GDC. Were in due course such changes as above to be made, the role of a GDC would be unclear and the validation process for its continuity should then be pan-professionally rigorous and lengthy in the interests of both patients and dentists. Having now been a registrant for more than 44 years in many areas of healthcare I have been privileged to experience much of what is inspiring in oral healthcare. The pathway we have taken nevertheless seems quintessentially wrong. Eventually, perhaps we will see fewer numbers of a new breed of dentist, more therapists and the mouth put back into the body.