THE EDITOR'S CORNER

An event has occurred which has the most profound implications for orthodontists, indeed for all dentists.

The New York Times of April 22, 1969 reported that the United States Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, ruled "that states could not constitutionally deny welfare benefits to poor people because they had recently migrated from other states." The paper quoted Justice Brennan who stated that it is "constitutionally impermissible for a state to enforce a waiting period for the purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons into the state."

Justice Brennan said, "This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."

Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is quoted as stating that the ruling will make national standards for welfare "inevitable."

Chief Justice Warren in writing the dissenting opinion added that "today's ruling may cast doubt on the constitutionality of state residency requirements for the right to vote, to practice a profession, and to attend a state-supported university."

It is coincidental, but significant, that the New York Times of May 6, 1969 reported--"The Supreme Court will rule next term on the constitutionality of state residency requirements that bar millions of citizens from voting in each Presidential election." It seems inevitable that some individual dentist will initiate a suit which will ask the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state dental licensure on the basis that it restricts the free movement of dentists and their free choice of a place to live and to practice. In light of the terms of the welfare decision, it seems likely that such a suit would succeed and that state barriers to freedom of movement of professional men cannot last much longer. If so, the states would probably all recognize a national dental board and dentists would, in fact, be able to live and practice anywhere in the United States that they choose.

There is an understandable fear on the part of dentists in states with a more favorable climate that universal state reciprocity would result in an invasion of their states by retirees who would practice on a part-time basis and others. Some of this would undoubtedly occur. It would affect orthodontists as well as other dental specialties and general dentists.

With the spotlight narrowing on possible changes in the concepts of dental licensure, now might be an appropriate time to explore the possibilities of specialty licensure. There are suggestions here and there that government might be receptive to high standards of specialty qualification. In light of the Supreme Court action it seems prudent for the orthodontic profession to work toward universal specialty licensure. This would at least assure that if someone moves into your state and sets up an orthodontic practice, he will be a qualified orthodontist.

There is no assurance that the concept of specialty licensure might not itself be declared unconstitutional. However, if we have convictions that advanced orthodontic education and limitation of practice contribute to the quality of orthodontic service, then we should have the courage of those convictions and press for an affirmation of quality service.

I am sure that we will all be attentive to the Supreme Court action on state restriction of the right to vote and to the possibility that the constitutionality of state dental licensure may be tested in the Court. The New York Times described the welfare decision as a "Landmark for the Poor." I think it may have been a landmark for dentists and orthodontists as well.