4 Comments
User's avatar
Frederick Wright's avatar

Hi Matt, Yes, the issue has a degree of controversy. Having reached the age where I now know all the answers (over 70) but are no longer are asked any questions - I appreciate the apprehension my fellow senior colleagues may have to mandatory health checks for continuity in practise certification. There is a creeping degree of both discrimination and ageism in regulatory authorities using an arbitrary age - 65, 70, 75 - to determine a professional’s capacity to provide a professional service. Statistics, as you are well aware, only paint part of the physical and cognitive abilities of the life-cycle. Individual recognition of declining capacity - in relationship to the senior section of the life-cycle, is probably the most critical element of deciding when and how to limit one’s professional practice. And it is this issue which all professions should be turning their attention to, rather than the regulatory approach. What quantity and quality of continuing professional education programs are directed to promoting a better understanding of ageing and its impact on professional and social issues? What processes do organised dental professions have for advice to older practitioners - provided in a non-threatening fashion? The professional “boomers” are increasing in numbers, and as these ageist issues impact on us, we are becoming increasingly aware of the need to walk warily through introducing further restrictions on our end of the life-cycle. On the other hand, as clearly illustrated in the recent US presidential scenario, some tests-of-capacity, are needed.

Clive Wright, Emeritus Professor and retired practitioner.

Expand full comment
Matt Hopcraft's avatar

Thanks Clive, some useful points as always.

Agree to an extent about the arbitrary nature of an age cut-off to impose something like this - but combining what we know about the increasing prevalence of cognitive and physical decline with age, and the data on notifications, there has to be a point where an age has to be set. The other alternative (to remove the suggestion of ageism) would be to have regular competency assessments (every 5 years) - but that is probably overkill.

I've had comments from others about the need for professional associations to pick up the baton here, so it will be interesting to see their response (if any).

Expand full comment
Michael Jonas's avatar

And you did not mention the PI providers. They have a view and data on practitioners who have over 40 years experience. I believe the risk is higher!

Expand full comment
Matt Hopcraft's avatar

It's a good point Michael - I'm sure there are a few data sources out there that would be useful to this debate. From memory I think some insurers have an increased premium for older practitioners that links back to this increased risk of notifications.

Expand full comment