Teeth whitening case causes a stain on businessman’s reputation
A business man who was prosecuted for selling teeth whitening products has told the General Dental Council (GDC) that it needs to clarify the law which he believes is unclear.
Graeme Pattinson pleaded guilty when he appeared before Teesside Magistrates’ Court for breaching dentistry rules following a complaint from a customer, and although he accepted that he had made what he believed were technical breaches of the guidelines, he states that the law is not clear cut.
Pattinson claims that he did not administer the treatment to the patient, as alleged, but only sold the product. He stated that such products were ‘sold over the counter on chemists on every high street and in thousands of beauty salons up and down the country. If what I did is illegal there must be hundreds of other people breaking the law’.
He went on to say that he’d conducted research before buying the product for the company, which included consulting trading standards officers, and was given the impression that by ‘not actually putting the treatment into a customer’s mouth’, he was following the law. ‘I believe that the GDC needs to clarify the legal position to ensure other people don’t end up being prosecuted’, Pattinson continued.
The GDC argued against Pattinson’s claims, saying that the law was quite clear following a ruling in the High Court in May 2013 when it was decided that tooth whitening is a practice of dentistry rather than a cosmetic procedure.
A spokeswoman noted that there was a ‘misconception’ that when tooth whitening is offered via self-administration after signing consent forms, the law did not apply, but this is certainly not the case.
The GDC successfully prosecuted Mr Pattinson after he sold the ‘self-administered’ system of tooth whitening treatment even though he is not a registered dental practitioner, resulting in him pleading guilty to a second offence of unlawfully carrying out the business of dentistry. Mr Pattinson received a two year conditional discharge. He was also ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £1,000 towards the GDC’s costs.
