Abstract
Background and Overview. Many state dental practice acts allow for the suspension or revocation of a dentist's license on the basis of a previous conviction for illegal behavior, even if the behavior is not related to the practice of dentistry. Penalizing a dentist twice for the same behavior appears to violate the legal principle "ne bis in idem" - that is, no double penalty for the same socially undesirable behavior. However, disciplinary measures are not intended primarily to penalize the offender but rather to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. In this article, the authors review various cases in which boards disciplined convicted dentists and propose criteria for discerning between situations in which such "double trouble" is fair and unfair. Conclusions and Practice Implications. The authors conclude that such disciplinary actions are fair only if four criteria concerning the following are fulfilled: the relationship between the dentist's illegal behavior and dental treatment or privileges of the dentist; the severity of the crime; the frequency of the illegal behavior; and the balance between crime and punishment.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1249-1255 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Dental Association |
| Volume | 139 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| State | Published - Sep 2008 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
Dentists in double trouble : The (un)fairness of punishing for the same mistake twice. / Brands, Wolter; Welie, Jos V. M.
In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 139, No. 9, 09.2008, p. 1249-1255.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Dentists in double trouble
T2 - The (un)fairness of punishing for the same mistake twice
AU - Brands, Wolter
AU - Welie, Jos V. M.
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - Background and Overview. Many state dental practice acts allow for the suspension or revocation of a dentist's license on the basis of a previous conviction for illegal behavior, even if the behavior is not related to the practice of dentistry. Penalizing a dentist twice for the same behavior appears to violate the legal principle "ne bis in idem" - that is, no double penalty for the same socially undesirable behavior. However, disciplinary measures are not intended primarily to penalize the offender but rather to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. In this article, the authors review various cases in which boards disciplined convicted dentists and propose criteria for discerning between situations in which such "double trouble" is fair and unfair. Conclusions and Practice Implications. The authors conclude that such disciplinary actions are fair only if four criteria concerning the following are fulfilled: the relationship between the dentist's illegal behavior and dental treatment or privileges of the dentist; the severity of the crime; the frequency of the illegal behavior; and the balance between crime and punishment.
AB - Background and Overview. Many state dental practice acts allow for the suspension or revocation of a dentist's license on the basis of a previous conviction for illegal behavior, even if the behavior is not related to the practice of dentistry. Penalizing a dentist twice for the same behavior appears to violate the legal principle "ne bis in idem" - that is, no double penalty for the same socially undesirable behavior. However, disciplinary measures are not intended primarily to penalize the offender but rather to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. In this article, the authors review various cases in which boards disciplined convicted dentists and propose criteria for discerning between situations in which such "double trouble" is fair and unfair. Conclusions and Practice Implications. The authors conclude that such disciplinary actions are fair only if four criteria concerning the following are fulfilled: the relationship between the dentist's illegal behavior and dental treatment or privileges of the dentist; the severity of the crime; the frequency of the illegal behavior; and the balance between crime and punishment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52749088527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52749088527&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
VL - 139
SP - 1249
EP - 1255
JO - Journal of the American Dental Association
JF - Journal of the American Dental Association
SN - 0002-8177
IS - 9
ER -