Chu Tien-Min Gabriel, Makhoul Nicholas M, Silva Daniela Rodrigues, Gonzales Theresa S, Letra Ariadne, Mays Keith A
Dr. Chu is Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Biomedical and Applied Sciences, School of Dentistry, Indiana University; Dr. Makhoul is Assistant Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University; Dr. Silva is Chair, Section of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles; Dr. Gonzales is Associate Dean for Curriculum and Strategic Communications Professor, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina; Dr. Letra is Associate Professor, Department of Diagnostic and Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston; and Dr. Mays is Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota.
J Dent Educ. 2018 Mar;82(3):246-251. doi: 10.21815/JDE.018.023.
This Point/Counterpoint article addresses a long-standing but still-unresolved debate on the advantages and disadvantages of using live patients in dental licensure exams. Two contrasting viewpoints are presented. Viewpoint 1 supports the traditional use of live patients, arguing that other assessment models have not yet been demonstrated to be viable alternatives to the actual treatment of patients in the clinical licensure process. This viewpoint also contends that the use of live patients and inherent variances in live patient treatment represent the realities of daily private practice. Viewpoint 2 argues that the use of live patients in licensure exams needs to be discontinued considering those exams' ethical dilemmas of exposing patients to potential harm, as well as their lack of reliability and validity and limited scope. According to this viewpoint, the current presence of viable alternatives means that the risk of harm inherent in live patient exams can finally be eliminated and those exams replaced with other means to confirm that candidates are qualified for licensure to practice.
这篇“正方/反方”文章探讨了一个长期存在但仍未解决的争论,即牙科执照考试中使用活体患者的利弊。文中呈现了两种截然不同的观点。观点1支持传统上使用活体患者,认为在临床执照考试过程中,尚未证明其他评估模式能够成为实际治疗患者的可行替代方案。这一观点还认为,使用活体患者以及活体患者治疗中固有的差异体现了日常私人执业的现实情况。观点2则认为,鉴于执照考试存在将患者暴露于潜在伤害的伦理困境,以及缺乏可靠性、有效性和范围有限等问题,应停止在执照考试中使用活体患者。根据这一观点,目前存在可行的替代方案意味着活体患者考试中固有的伤害风险最终可以消除,并且这些考试可以被其他方式取代,以确认候选人是否具备执业执照资格。