Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I did clarify earlier that I was not going to do so. The same dentist is involved in numerous High Court and Circuit Court cases relating to allegations of negligence in the provision of medical care. To date, my constituent and I are unaware of any actions or sanctions by the Dental Council against this dentist. In fact, a letter from the Dental Council of October 2023 clearly stated it cannot do anything to follow up on reports of professional negligence.

My constituent and many others are rightly and passionately pushing for reform of the Dentists Act 1985 and it is very much a commitment of the Government to follow through on this. While cognisance should be given to the views of the Irish Dental Association and the Dental Council, they should not fully inform any reforms. Rather, we should look to and take account of the experiences of my constituent and others like her.

I will paraphrase my constituent’s experience as follows. She contacted the Dental Council in August 2020 seeking its assistance in obtaining missing X-rays the dentist had failed to provide when first requested in November 2019. A letter from the Dental Council of November 2020 advised that it had tried informally to resolve the issue but to no avail, and that she could proceed with an allegation of professional misconduct against the dentist concerning his failure to release her records. It took that dentist 14 months to furnish some, but not all, of the X-rays. The dentist's notes for the patient are incomplete, prescribing three separate courses of antibiotics, and the patient says that by the time the third was administered, she was extremely ill. Had the dentist identified that there was a problem and referred the patient for appropriate treatment sooner, it would have minimised the damage and saved her a lot of pain and suffering. She subsequently took a civil case for medical negligence against the dentist, which was settled out of court in July 2023 for a substantial sum to cover damages, loss of earnings and future treatment.

Ever since then, the patient has valiantly tried to bring the matter to the attention of the Dental Council because she fervently believes it should be the duty of the council to take appropriate action and the necessary steps to safeguard patients. It is evident the Dental Council is not in a position to do this, as demonstrated by this case. Subsequent to her civil action, the council acknowledged it was satisfied to see her case settled and that the outcome, namely, substantial damages, seemed appropriate in this instance. It stressed, however, that the case could not be reopened because the matter had now been dealt with in the courts system and that, from the Dental Council's perspective, the matter is now closed.

It is a source of frustration, annoyance and concern that the council appears to be unable to fully and adequately regulate the profession in respect of fitness to practice and the protection of patients. My constituent feels the Dental Council is not able or willing to address these issues and, consequently, she reached out here in the hope the matter could be raised.

See this speech in context