Sir, I read the editorial by Hew Mathewson, current President of the GDC (BDJ 2007: 202: 297). On the one hand, Hew Mathewson said the GDC protects patients from charlatans pretending to be dentists. On the other hand, he says the GDC regulate dentists to protect patients. Which one is it? It's obvious that the GDC can prosecute its registrants such as dentists, but are almost powerless to prosecute those that are not qualified dentists, but practise some form of dentistry to the detriment of patients/customers.

I do agree with Hew Mathewson that the GDC should represent the diversity of its registrants. However, I think wholly appointing GDC members should not be the way forward. Since membership will be a mixture of lay people and dentists, perhaps appointing lay people and electing dentists should be the preferred approach. Therefore, the mix of GDC membership should be created by a mix of appointments and elections.