Who is responsible for taking care of children’s teeth?

I agree with NotSpaghetti, some dental problems can be genetic, my Dad brushed his teeth every day, didn’t eat sugary foods nor did he ever drink fizzy juice, but still need his teeth to be removed at the age of 38. My eldest DB and I share the same problem whilst our middle DB has amazing teeth and he’s in his late 69’s

How hard is it for parents or parent to initiate a teeth cleaning habit from very early childhood? Are there really parents of children who don't brush their own teeth.

greenlady102

I'd like to point out that while tooth care by parents is important, there is also a genetic aspect to tooth and gum health. Its like having thick hair into old age, you have to choose the right parents.

Exactly Greenlady

Choose your parents wisely, as they say.
We are 60 to 70% a product of our genes, inc teeth.

When we were at school dentist came and give us blue teeth we all thought it was great but unfortunately some kids are lucky to even have a dentist nowadays my grandkids are all under private dentists with their parents. I’m lucky to have just moved to the area and got a dentist within 10 months I did travel to my old dentist 300 miles away until I got a place here. I had my first tooth extracted when I was 12 not because my parents let my tooth go bad b because I was sliding on the ice and fell flat on my face when I was about 9 cracked a couple of my front teeth dentist said couldn’t do anything until they died so I guess ppl probably looked at my parents thinking that they had let them go bad. Also kids eat more sweets now than we did for us it was a weekend treat but I watch high school kids pass my house everyday with family bags of chocolate.

Of course, taking onto account the other FACTS about causes of decay.

Plenty on here who talk about implants and dental work.

Guess they all had lazy parents.

lazy parenting again

All to easy to give a child a lollypop while pushing the pram and being on the mobile at the same time and later on can after can of fizzy sugary rubbish

Of course it is down to parents to show responsibility for child health and that includes tooth care

East Sussex - no NHS dentists available to adults. Dentists will only see (as NHS patients) the children of their adult customers. So of course those already handicapped by - illness, unemployment, ignorance - also cannot get any help or advice on how to keep their childrens teeth good. Third world already here in the 'affluent' south east.

I know the nursery and school my grandchildren go /went to all doing brushing as part of the school routine, fear it may become bit like discipline has - the teacher will sort you out when you start school....so many more working parents now who don't have the leisure of time we did when raising our children as stay at home mums, although i feel bath/teeth/ story time is essential to every child every night regardless

As a child of the fifties, I was subjected to the dreaded school dentist. Lots of sweets and lax dental care. I made sure my own children looked after their teeth and went to the dentist. Today it is very difficult to access NHS dentistry even for children. I have to pay privately now. Some parents can’t look after their children’s needs due to their own difficulties but that doesn’t mean those children shouldn’t be cared for by society when they are suffering. Poor dental health can cause infections elsewhere in the body so a false economy to keep cutting back everything. Hope Keir Starmer can do something to halt the decline in health provision. Some people turning up at A and E because they can’t get to a dentist.

Why would anyone NOT think it's the parents responsibility? It's like potty training, that's certainly NOT up to teachers/minders in schools and nurseries.

Farzanah

Thank goodness for the NHS. Long may it last……….if there is the will to fund it.

I think people hugely underestimate the feeling of security and safety they have knowing that the NHS will look after them.. I can't imagine the fear of knowing that if you become unwell you might lose your home... just when you really need it..

This is America.

My son and daughter-in-law have told me about paying for someone's prescription charges. The other person was in front of them in a queue and speaking to the pharmacist about which drug from the prescription it was least dangerous not to take.

Whilst this was undoubtedly helpful as a one-off it is not a solution long term as chopping and changing drugs - or choosing based on price which happens a lot - is not great for best outcomes.

Thank goodness for the NHS. Long may it last……….if there is the will to fund it.

Farzanah

There are plenty of instances of people going bankrupt in USA paying for medical treatment because their health insurance has reached the limit. That’s the ones WITH insurance.

Oh yes. I was an 'internet friend' with one such - back in the day before Facebook. I 'met' him on a health-board site. A family man who ran his own successful business, diagnosed with bowel cancer and, later, his teenage son with the same disease. Ultimately, the insurance for both ran out and he had to sell both his business and his home in order to continue the treatments. The whole family (there were two other younger children) ended up living in rented accommodation, father and son too ill to work and the mother holding down a job in order to feed the family and pay the bills but unable to earn enough, so relied on charity as a top up. The son died and later, I heard through the grapevine, the father also.
You can have the best insurance there is (and I believe he did) but, bad luck and complex medical conditions mean it is not limitless. I understand his wife inherited expenses from his and her son's various treatments - all the 'co-pays' and extras. I don't know how that works, but assume as it was family insurance she became liable.

So a well-off family goes from riches to rags; a mother loses her son and her husband and ends up in debt.

I would say it’s down to the parents. Having said that, I made sure they did all the usual stuff with cleaning etc , but there were plenty of NHS dentists to take them to for their regular check ups.

Kids used to have sugar, but I suppose problems were sorted out early.

School dentists were often awful. Many, of my generation, were left with dentist fear for years.

There are plenty of instances of people going bankrupt in USA paying for medical treatment because their health insurance has reached the limit. That’s the ones WITH insurance.

Farzanah

Yes I’ve read something similar on Skyhistory Dickens.
Part of the conclusion reads should a country be defined by its military standing in the world and how strong it is in global markets, or should it be defined by how it looks after the health and well-being of its citizens?

The answer will probably depend upon one’s political point of view, but I know where I stand, and many who could not have afforded expensive treatments for themselves or loved ones, such as cancer treatments but for the NHS may well feel, the same.

Yes I’ve read something similar on Skyhistory Dickens.

... I'll research that, out of interest.

I truthfully am not well-read on the matter - also, there's a huge amount of literature on the subject, too. Obviously, from different view points.

Re your final paragraph. I remember reading a comment made by the author Bill Bryson about the UK. I do not remember the exact words but it was to the effect that here, at least, a father does not have to watch his child die from a brain tumour because he does not have the money for its treatment. Words to that effect anyway. It might be overly dramatic, but the point is made.

Yes I’ve read something similar on Skyhistory Dickens.
Part of the conclusion reads should a country be defined by its military standing in the world and how strong it is in global markets, or should it be defined by how it looks after the health and well-being of its citizens?

The answer will probably depend upon one’s political point of view, but I know where I stand, and many who could not have afforded expensive treatments for themselves or loved ones, such as cancer treatments but for the NHS may well feel, the same.

M0nica

Dickens After the war, Britain, like most countries received Marshall Aid from the US to help rebuild and update our industrial base that had suffered so badly during the war.

This is exactly what Germany and other European countries did - and is why Britian became uncompetitive in this country and overseas. german goods,for example were better made, and cheaper than british products. We are still suffering from this.

Britain chose to use the money to nationalise the health service. That is where the money to establsih the NHS came from.

Whether the right decision was made is still contentious.

Funnily enough, I've recently been reading another viewpoint on the Marshall Aid Plan... not quite sure how I got to the site, but I started off with BBC News and ended up there. Although the piece is dated, it makes interesting reading.

Successive governments squandered billions of Marshall Plan Aid to support British world power pretensions, and so jeopardised the economic future of Britain.

www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

... so, not just the NHS.

Dickens After the war, Britain, like most countries received Marshall Aid from the US to help rebuild and update our industrial base that had suffered so badly during the war.

This is exactly what Germany and other European countries did - and is why Britian became uncompetitive in this country and overseas. german goods,for example were better made, and cheaper than british products. We are still suffering from this.

Britain chose to use the money to nationalise the health service. That is where the money to establsih the NHS came from.

Whether the right decision was made is still contentious.

M0nica

NotSpaghetti

Iam64 after ww2 our govt managed to establish the nhs, improve education and build housing. I know society is différent but let’s build hope...

And I'm pretty sure money was tight then!
It's about having the will, I think.

I think it had far more to do with the provision of health care and education being far cheaper then because, compared with nowadays both were more rudimentary.

Hospitals were places where you went to be operated on, nursed to health and sent home, or if severely ill, nursed until you died. They may be had an xray machine, but not much else. The same with schools. just collections of classrooms, quite a number with loo blocks in the playground, inadequate heating, blackboard and chalk teaching methods. All facing the front and listening to the teacher, from 5.

Look at the schools and teaching in many poor countries still, much like that and as then in Britain or overseas now prodicung many well-educated people.

I think it had far more to do with the provision of health care and education being far cheaper then because, compared with nowadays both were more rudimentary.

Quite true MOnica. However, setting up the whole structure of the NHS at that time must have come with a cost - though I can't find any £sum. But, in the 1st financial year after its foundation, expenditure on health services was £447 million - compared to £164 billion in the last financial year before the pandemic (source: House of Commons Library).

Contrary to popular belief - it wasn't only the Conservative party that opposed the establishment of a national health service - consultants, doctors, and even the Labour cabinet were divided on the issue; the Labour-led London County Council thought local councils were better qualified to administer health care.

I think the model has to change - for obvious reasons frequently discussed on GN - and the fear persists that a Tory government wants to and will ultimately completely privatise health provision. Which, given the disparity between the better off and those with no disposable income, would be disastrous for the latter. It's all very well suggesting that there are healthcare 'plans' tailored to individual pockets, but, if your plan is a limited one and you contract a disease that's outside of its remit - you're jiggered. And absolutely no-one knows what's in store for them health wise. We associate the Tories with the American model; good healthcare for those that can afford it and a limited safety net for those that can't.

However, the European model is a different kettle of fish and probably the one we should be looking at rather than the winner-takes-all-and-the-devil-the-hindmost.

... as long as Liz Truss isn't allowed anywhere near such negotiations, I'm OK with it.

Luckygirl3

*It's about having the will, I think.*

The will to focus funds on public services demands a government truly committed to this - we do not have that.

Exactly Luckygirl. We live in a more affluent society than after the war, but instead of focussing on universal health and dental care, private treatment for those who can afford it is promoted by allowing the demise of NHS services.

Iam countries that tax in order to provide good public services are shown to have better outcomes for the majority.
Completely true.
Instead we have arrived at the state where children are being admitted to hospital primarily for removal of decayed teeth, and adults are reduced to pulling out their own teeth with pliers and attempting their own fillings.

I absolutely agree with that.

We have just seen Sunak's wealth on the newly published rich list. It is not surprising that he finds it hard to get his head around the fate of those less fortunate.

I think if we were told an extra 1% tax (or whatever) specifically for NHS most would be OK with it.

There are plenty of us who would have been happy for higher taxation if directed at better services all round.

Whatever we do we need to support our genuinely struggling families better.