Article
One of the joys of a (good) UK summer is to attend an outdoor event with friends, be it music, opera, the spoken word or even a simple picnic by the sea or in the countryside. A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending a superb outdoor production by the Globe Theatre of Shakespeare's King Lear, which some readers will recall did not have a happy ending. This also took me back in time, as I studied King Lear for my English GCSE!
Briefly,1King Lear of Britain decided to retire and divide his kingdom between his three daughters, provided that they showed him how much they love him. One, Cordelia, is unable to do this as she feels that it would be hypocritical: she is unceremoniously banished. Lear's principal advisor, Kent, tries to tell him that this is wrong and he is also banished in similar fashion. However, he later disguises himself, and returns to help the King. There is increasing animosity between many of the principal players, with this erupting into a venomous attack by (the disguised) Kent on the steward of one of the other sisters, Oswald, thus:2
‘A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three suited, hundred pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition’.
This must be one of the most scornful condemnations ever written, especially when spoken with the venom of the actor that evening, Bill Nash. I later reflected that there are sometimes people or organizations who we feel deserve such opprobrium, particularly if we consider that they are damaging our profession; especially if we feel that dentistry, or dentists, are being cast as villains, which readers will know that the majority are not – indeed, that the majority are simply trying to treat their patients as well and as ethically as possible, sometimes in difficult clinical circumstances. In that regard, it is difficult to work out why the proportion of dentists proceeding to Fitness to Practice Committees at the General Dental Council is so much higher than the equivalent committees at the General Medical Council. Tolerance is something which was not much apparent in King Lear and he ended up dying of a broken heart. It is something which would not go amiss in some organizations.
Readers will find the usual varied fare in this issue, on a wide variety of clinically relevant topics: I hope that there will be no Kent-type disapproval aimed in my direction! It is, however, worth noting that our lead article differs from the others insofar that it relates to extra-oral lesions – a particular reminder of our overall responsibility towards our patients, given that, with our regular contact with patients who return for their routine dental examinations, we are in an unique position to spot developing and/or potentially suspicious skin lesions.
Lastly, readers may wish to send me, anonymously if they wish, the name(s) of people or organizations that they feel deserve the scorn shown by Kent. I will publish these in a subsequent issue!