Letter


British Dental Journal 196, 513 (2004)
Published online: 8 May 2004 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4811252

Fees for the retired

T S Longworth1

  1. Dartmoor

Send your letters to the editor, British Dental Journal, 64 Wimpole Street, London W1G 8YS or by email to e-mail: bdj@bda.org

Priority will be given to letters less than 500 words long. Letters should be typed. Authors must sign the letter, which may be edited for reasons of space

Sir, I will re-enter the debate on GDC fees for the retired. Increasing the fee for those already fully retired, retrospectively, from £40 to £388 at a stroke is nothing but the manipulation of a thousand or so registrants from the register.

Those council members who voted for this should be ashamed. This unconstitutional, retrospective, un-British action against those of us who would eventually depart, yet never be replaced by the fallacy of coupling 'lifelong' learning with the necessary image improving CPD.

To make a point; if a Chancellor of the Exchequer was stupid enough to reduce the state pension by nearly 900% Parliament would throw it out. Also I question the President's letter to us that we are subsidised by all other registrants.

The Council's own 'pie' diagram in their winter gazette shows only 20% of the expenditure is down to 'registration' and at 18% an 'education' expenditure.

The same 'pie' diagram reveals that 55% is partially dealing with fraud by a few. I cannot see how CPD will affect this substantially. The increasing compensation culture may even put it up. I wonder if the GDC consulted a professional actuary? I know, at the age of 79, what my expectancy is. How long will it be before the ARF is doubled?

I do not need assurance, but I would have liked some common sense from the GDC. It might have been easier, if the pejorative 'lifelong' had never been used.


Extra navigation

Subscribe to British Dental Journal

Subscribe

Search PubMed for

BDJ Jobs

ADVERTISEMENT