Open wide, but not the wallet

Two major pieces on dentistry in two days (Could adult dentistry be free, Jan 28; Must we grin and bear the cost of dentistry?, Jan 29). This far exceeds the usual quota – a biennial tirade about fees. More unusual is that both articles focus on the serious issues which bring about unmet treatment need.

The right questions were asked of the appropriate people, including the minister, David Clark. I commend Dave Armstrong’s insight for suggesting that the Government look at part-funding dental treatment in the form of copayment or a ‘‘no-frills’’ level of primary adult dental care and including treatment in employment packages.

However, I think that he is wrong in hearing dentists’ screams about government getting involved in dental care. In my 50 years in dentistry, it has been the dental profession which has brought about any modest improvement in access for treatment.

I am sure the Dental Association would welcome the chance to design a co-payment scheme with the Government. It would not be the first time such discussions have taken place.

Worthy of mention is that in several cities such as Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton dentists treat patients who have no other options, for free, in facilities which they have established with help from sponsors and the dental supply industry.

Thank you for bringing some research and perception to this longstanding problem.

Jeff Annan, Karori

Some tired practices

I note the hospital doctors are going on strike. I support them. Forty-three years ago I was a hospital doctor and all I recall was chronic exhaustion and I am sure I missed things and made mistakes.

The worst was in the operating theatre, where I had given anaesthetics from eight o’clock the previous morning, with two half-hour breaks for meals, until half past three the next morning when, lulled by the hiss of the ventilator on the anaesthetic machine, I went to sleep and woke up on the floor, having fallen off my stool.

I finished the anaesthetic and said ‘‘I was dangerous’’ and refused to do the next case.

I also received a black eye from a man who had had alcohol, LSD, and cannabis, was hit over the head with a vacuum cleaner, and had a radio thrown at me.

I was paid $100 a week.

I became unwell and did not stay in medicine.

David Loeber, Maupuia

Proper tribute to Phillis

I fail to see how behaving like a bogan and tooting through the Mt Vic Tunnel ‘‘honours’’ poor, murdered, little Phillis Symons (Why I toot in Mt Vic Tunnel, Jan 29). Surely it’s more appropriate to have a minute’s silence?

I happen to have been on a tour of Karori cemetery and seen where Phillis’ lover/abuser/murderer lies forgotten in a gloomy, blackberry-clad ravine in an unmarked grave – a perfectly appropriate end for him. Spitting on his grave would be a very fitting tribute to him.

Meanwhile little Phillis and her unborn child lie in another unloved, unmarked grave, her family too poor or too ashamed to put a headstone up for her.

Perhaps those genuinely wishing to ‘‘honour’’ Phillis’ memory could, instead of tooting, do something more positive like taking a trip to Karori, finding her grave, placing a flower or two on it, weeding it, raising money to put up a headstone or, if generosity allows, raising a shrine for murdered, unwed mothers in Ruahine St – and stop your bloody tooting!

Bryan Johnston, Hataitai [abridged]

Putting the world at risk

It was noted during the global financial crisis that many of the ills that caused it go back to the removal of protective legislation that originated during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

That legislation acted as a future buffer against excessive capitalist zeal and ensured the prudent operation of the economy. It served America well because that country thrived in the postwar years on a sensible mix of bold market economics but with, generally, intelligent government oversight. Its eventual removal was a disaster for the world.

Now we see President Trump bringing the same ‘‘rip it down’’ myopia to the defence area. Many will recall the huge sighs of relief in the 1970s when the US and the Russians wisely took a path of de-escalation through more rational control of nuclear weapons.

Now all those gains are at risk with the US curtly withdrawing from a key arms control treaty. This is made all the worse by the insane development of new war systems aimed at making battlefield use of nuclear weapons "less unthinkable".

The GFC was bad enough but this recent failure to heed pivotal history may shortly have far more dire consequences for humanity. Has there ever been a more ignorant, destructive and negative occupant of the White House?

Dave Smith, Tawa [abridged]