Warning: Reading This Can Give You Eye Strain

Inasmuch as I have been warning my patients for over 50 years about the hazards encountered while wielding a stiff-bristled toothbrush in an inappropriate manner -- you could put your eye out, I caution them -- I feel relieved to be excluded as a litigant so far in the current brouhaha now on the court docket. Not so lucky are the ADA, Colgate and various other deep-pocket defendants.

In brief, a gentleman complaining in a peevish threnody says he discovered that after a few decades of conscientiously brushing his teeth as he had been advised to do by the entire dental community, his reward was cervical abrasion. You can imagine his consternation! Here he was, doing the Right Thing, and what does he get -- Class V devastation. Fortunately, he kept his wits about him and -- in the great American tradition embodied in the cry "Sue the Bastards!" -- was able to persuade a member of the bar, with nothing more pressing to do, to plead his case. In this instance, one of the "Illegitimates" is the American Dental Association, which neglected to affix a warning label alongside the Seal of Acceptance on the toothbrush stating that it was a dangerous device capable of destroying that which it was touted to save. This oversight on the ADA's part is regrettable. Reports that warning labels on tobacco products have resulted in a 10 percent increase in cigarette consumption by teenagers should have alerted the association to the wisdom of placing hazard warnings on brushes to attract the very population segment it wanted to addict.

Colgate, taking a cue from the National Rifle Association, has taken the stand that "Toothbrushes don't destroy teeth, people do." Lacking the lobbying clout the NRA enjoys, Colgate may be in for some rocky tobogganing here, particularly when their warning-free toothbrush is coupled to their cleansing paste that contains approximately 65 assorted chemicals plus a mild abrasive.

That leaves the plaintiff's dentist and, by extension, the remaining 100,000 of us who haven't been subpoenaed yet. There is no denying that courtroom drama has captured the attention of the American people, even many of those whose IQ exceeds 100 and thus have other fish to fry. A one-act production we'd give a pretty farthing to witness would go something like this:

The case of Ignatz vs. the American Dental Association et al. has attracted worldwide attention to the extent that the venue has been moved to Madison Square Garden. It has taken eight months to impanel a jury from the pool consisting of most of the adult population of New York not already in Attica. Peremptory challenges by opposing attorneys were exhausted early on, eliminating candidates who could be considered biased because of having one or more teeth of their own.

At curtain rise, the judge, played by Judy Sheindlin, enters to cries of "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" chanted by bailiffs Moe, Curly and Shemp. Judge Judy graciously suggests the spectators "SIDDOWN!" as she smoothes her black Versace robe with the fashionable three-quarter puff sleeves and the Peter Pan collar done in KitchenAid arctic white. Judge Judy, whose reputation for suffering fools gladly has been sorely tested in the past trimester, pats her hair, rearranging an errant strand.

Focusing her benign gaze on the prosecutor's table, she says, "Will the plaintiff and his counsel approach the bench?" It is not a question. Ignatz and Perfidy, his lawyer, do so, whereupon Judge Judy, grasping her gavel with the overlapping grip as taught to her by Arnold Palmer, delivers to each of their foreheads a resounding BONK! that can be plainly heard in the peanut galleries. "Case dismissed," she intones, her mouth unexpectedly taking on the semblance of a steel trap and indicating her disdain for a chicken-hearted social system that forbids euthanasia for people who file frivolous suits of this nature. She directs the pair to endure 200 hours of watching a Sesame Street video on toothbrushing starring Elmo.

As the real case sashays fuzzily into its penultimate phase, we are making certain changes in our office. This is the result of the plethora of litigious nutcases in this country swarming about in a mating frenzy with their LLD counterparts. The manufacturers of the office front door, for example, have given us a warning sign stating that the door has been known to produce painful contusions if entered with the forehead preceding the feet by more than six inches. Woven into the carpet at the entrance is a large hazard sign with instructions for lifting the feet carefully while traversing it. There is a waiver of liability directed at patients who habitually drag their feet rushing in to avail themselves of our services.

Manufacturers of the myriad products we use in the operatory have been quick to appreciate Colgate's plight and are cooperating in issuing warning labels. The label for the handpiece alone is so comprehensive that it has to be unfurled and dangled before the patient's eyes, making it difficult to reach the upper second molars.

Rather than risk a class-action suit by patients who have been ocularly assaulted by an operatory light inadvertently flashed in their field of vision, several dental light companies have folded up shop. In our rooms, we have resolved this hazard by using as an intraoral light a pair of fireflies in a small vial tethered to a doubled length of floss attached to the bracket table. They have been trained to flash out of sync for more or less steady illumination, albeit an unknown Kelvin rating.

We now have what is considered a "restricted practice." We have eschewed diagnoses and recommendations; these can be easily misconstrued, constituting a financial hazard we can ill afford. Any restorative treatments involving the use of instruments or materials with the potential for harm, even though they all have warning labels, have been abandoned temporarily until some precedent in the courts has been established.

The only labels that appear to be working in our favor are those we have placed at the front desk. These warn of the dire consequences of stiffing us on our bill, being habitually late, or failing to give six months notice if they are considering skipping their recall appointment or having their tongues pierced.