A State Board Told Dentists to Sign Away Their Ads — One Seattle Man Refused

The dentists of the state are much interested in the work of the state board of dental examiners now in session in Tacoma, from the fact that for the first time in the history of the state applicants are asked to subscribe to a code of ethics before making their examination. Thirty-nine of the forty applicants have signed the agreement agreeing to abide by the code of ethics, but Edwin J. Brown of Seattle flatly refused, and both ethical and unethical dentists are watching to see if the refusal of Mr. Brown to sign a contract will result in the board refusing him a license.

The two principal points covered in the code of ethics, which was drawn up at the fifth annual session of the National Dental Association at Milwaukee, August, 1901, are that no dentist shall advertise his business other than by a card inserted in a newspaper giving his place of business, and that prices shall be maintained. It is to the advertising feature that Mr. Brown takes exception. The new rule under which the board of examiners is now working makes it necessary for a man to be a graduate of a dental school before he can appear before the board of examiners. A further provision is that no man who has been licensed can practice with an unlicensed assistant, which makes it impossible to learn the business as an apprentice in this state. If a man undertakes to learn the profession under a preceptor, he is amenable to the law for practicing without a license.

PRESIDENT CONDEMNS IT.

Mr. M. D. — of Spokane, president of the examining board, condemns this particular requirement, for if a man has the knowledge required and can pass the examination, he says, he will have a diploma from some dental school. Mr. Brown has no diploma, but he believes in advertising his business. The contract, which binds him to the code of ethics, was signed by the other applicants. It is expected that within a day or two it will be known whether a license will be issued.

Some time ago three men working for the dental company and in the employ of the New Dental Parlors were arrested for practicing dentistry without a license. They are now in the courts, and the managers of these two institutions think they will win out on the ground that the law is unconstitutional.

A. Froom, manager of the New Dental Parlors, says it is little more or less than intimidation for the board to ask the applicants to sign the contract before they take the examination.

In part, the agreement read: "The party of the first part makes application for examination under the act to regulate the practice of dentistry, and is desirous of being admitted to practice dentistry in said state. It is herewith agreed by the said party of the first part that, in consideration of his being permitted to take said examination, he will, if a license is issued to him by the party of the second part, as a condition precedent, practice dentistry with full regard for the code of ethics which has been adopted by the National Dental Association at its fifth annual session held in Milwaukee, Wis., Aug. 6, 1901, and will furthermore practice said profession in full accord and under all rules and regulations or code of ethics that may be adopted by the Washington State Dental Association, or by the party of the second part, and herewith expressly agrees that for any violation of any of the provisions of the said code of ethics, his license may be immediately revoked, and he will cease the practice of dentistry within the state of Washington, and to that end he herewith empowers the party of the second part, or its proper representatives, to secure an injunction preventing his practicing dentistry in any of the branches within the state of Washington."