“Friendly Fire” – coping with being critical of a fellow professional

In military terms the relevant phrase is “blue on blue”, describing incidents where soldiers are inadvertently attacked by their own forces. In broader usage outside of the military, this can also be used metaphorically to describe clashes within the same group or organisation. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it probably does.

If you follow dental groups on social media, it generally doesn’t take very long to read a post about how one dentist has been somehow critical of another – either their clinical ability or perhaps something else unrelated to our work. A recent thread about a dentist who had posted something online to then be reported to the GDC anonymously by another dentist was met with a large number of comments, almost universally condemning the dentist who had contacted our regulatory body. Replies generally centred around how within dentistry we see this type of thing far too often, and the despair of many dentists at how an individual considered such a reaction to be proportionate and appropriate was plain to see.

When one dentist takes aim at another either in practice or on social media, is this the same as a dental professional being critical of another when acting as an expert witness? Plenty of ideal candidates sadly steer clear of expert witness work purely on the basis of not wanting to ever be put in the position where formally considering another’s standard of care is necessary, and the fear of a similar backlash as that described above might only strengthen those concerns.

That this should be the case is a problem, and to the detriment of our profession. In order to represent realistic expectations and standards within the realm of civil law, we need honest and ethical dentists to perform this expert witness work and to consider the work of others in an impartial and objective manner – something that no solicitor or barrister will ever be able to achieve no matter how highly qualified they are.

The role of an expert witness is highly respectable, and criticism of them – when performing their role properly – is extremely rare for the following reasons:

• Firstly, as an expert witness you must strictly apply the appropriate legal principles that have been clearly established for many years. You do not judge or condemn, but offer a balanced and reasoned opinion as to whether the standard of care met that of any responsible body of dentists acting with reasonable skill and care (the Bolam test). In other words, when providing an opinion on whether an allegation can be defended or supported you are doing so using a standard set by the Courts, not your own. Applying such logic and reasoning is rarely seen elsewhere, and doing so is a skill in itself.
• Secondly, you are required by law to be honest and truthful – this is declared in every court-compliant report you will ever write. It is your responsibility and your job to avoid doing any favours to either the patient (the Claimant) or the dentist (the Defendant) by deviating from this fundamental principle.
• Thirdly, whilst you will never have the benefit of “being there” at the time the treatment in question was done, you will however have access to all of the relevant records and base you opinion on those – a privilege that no other dentist is ever likely to have the benefit of. If the records are insufficient to support or defend an allegation then you must say so – you do not speculate as what might be the case.

Where your opinion is supportive of allegations in breach of duty, you will present that opinion with logic and reasoning and in an unbiased manner. If you conclude that a standard of care was not that of a responsible body of dentists acting with reasonable skill and care (breach of duty), and this had consequences for the patient (causation), then the legal system exists to put that right financially (quantum). It is always worth remembering that if something similar happened to a member of your family you would hope that this system was in place, and guided by ethical professionals.

In summary, it can occasionally feel uncomfortable effectively concluding that a fellow dental professional has not performed their job to a high enough standard. But if that is necessary, it is not personal and should be done with respect and courtesy – and in doing so you help uphold the standards of the profession. There is absolutely no place as an expert witness for unwarranted criticism of another dentist, and similarly there should be no place for criticism of an expert witness when they have acted in line with their duties to the Court.

Working as an expert witness is a fascinating and rewarding role that generates respect and praised from legal and dental professionals when done well. If you want to become involved, book your place now on The Dental Expert Witness Course.