Friedland B, Valachovic R W
J.D., Suffolk University School of Law, Newton, MA.
Am J Law Med. 1991;17(3):249-70.
Current state laws regulating the licensure of dentists place severe restrictions upon the freedom of movement of practitioners. Most state laws were enacted during a period when a strong rationale for regulating public health and welfare existed. Today, these laws hamper the free movement of dentists and are anachronisms in an era of national standards and practices. The authors contend that the extant laws rest upon outdated assumptions and serve economic and protectionist goals rather than public health and safety. This Article examines the history and application of the traditional justifications for state licensure and their present ramifications. The authors suggest that replacing the current regulatory system with a national clinical examination and a national licensure program will best serve the interests of the public and the dental profession.
当前规范牙医执照颁发的州法律对从业者的流动自由施加了严格限制。大多数州法律是在存在强有力的公共卫生和福利监管理由的时期制定的。如今，这些法律阻碍了牙医的自由流动，在一个有国家标准和做法的时代里已不合时宜。作者认为，现行法律基于过时的假设，服务于经济和保护主义目标，而非公共卫生与安全。本文考察了州执照颁发传统理由的历史与应用及其当前影响。作者建议，用全国临床考试和全国执照颁发计划取代现行监管体系将最符合公众和牙科行业的利益。
