Skip to main content
  • 2774 Accesses

Summary

Endodontic procedures are both challenging and technically demanding resulting in treatments that may have fallen short of acceptable guidelines. Occasionally the dentist may be open to litigation on the basis of clinical negligence. Failure to communicate with patients about the procedure and not obtaining consent for treatment is a key area of complaint, as is inadequate record keeping. When treatment is undertaken within the framework of accepted guidelines, it would be very difficult for a patient to open a claim for clinical negligence should a failure occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lim HC, Tan CB, Goh LG, Ling SL. Why do patients complain? A primary health care study. Singapore Med J. 1998;39(9):390–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL. The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction: a review of the literature. Santa Monica: Rand Corp; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rattan R, Tiernan J. Risk management in general dental practice. London: Quintessence Publishing; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. DiMatteo MR, Hays RD, Prince LM. Relationship of physicians’ nonverbal communication skill to patient satisfaction, appointment noncompliance, and physician workload. Health Psychol. 1986;5(6):581.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. D’Cruz L. Risk management in clinical practice. Part 1. Introduction. Br Dent J. 2010;209(2):19–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Collier A. The management of risk part 1: why complaints happen and how to prevent them. Dent Update. 2014;41:168–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dym H, Ogle OE. Risk management techniques for the general dentist. Handbook of dental practice. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Collier A. The management of risk part 2: good consent and communication. Dent Update. 2014;41:236–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Collier A. The management of risk part 3: recording your way out of trouble. Dent Update. 2014;41:338–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Cruz L. Off the record. Dent Update. 2006;33:390–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edelstein L. The Hippocratic oath: text, translation and interpretation, Bulletin of history of medicine. Supplement 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Council GD. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for dental care professionals. London: General Dental Council; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dental Board of Australia. Communique March 2014. http://www.ada.org.au/dentalboardofaustralia.aspx

  15. Nash DA. Ethics in dentistry: review and critique of Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct. J Am Dent Assoc. 1984;109(4):597–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) I WLR 582

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sidaway v Board of Governers of Bethlem Royal and the Maudsley Hospital (1985) 2 WLR 480

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997) 39 BMLR 1: (1998) I Lloyds Rep Med 26

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 67 AWR 47

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirby M. Patients’ rights – why the Australian courts have rejected “Bolam”. J Med Ethics. 1995;21:5–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schloenforff v Society of New York Hospital 211 NY 124; 105 NE 92, 93 (1914) (NYCA)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Canterbury v Spence 464 F 2d (1972) (USCA)

    Google Scholar 

  23. King JS, Moulton B. Rethinking informed consent: the case for shared medical decision-making. Am J Law Med. 2006;32:429–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA (1985) 3 All ER 402–437

    Google Scholar 

  25. Children’s’ Act 1998 and 2004

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mental Health Act 1983 (Amended 1995 and 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1990) HL

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mental Capacity Act 2005

    Google Scholar 

  29. The Medical Defence Union Ltd. Confidentiality. London; MDU 1997

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nehammer C, Chong BS, Rattan R. Endodontics. Clin Risk. 2004;10:45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Webber J. Risk management in clinical practice. Part 4. Endodontics. Br Dent J. 2010;209(4):161–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Patel, B. (2015). Ethics and Law. In: Endodontic Diagnosis, Pathology, and Treatment Planning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15591-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15591-3_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15590-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15591-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics