Objective: A beautiful smile is perceived as important but the components that contribute to the patient's concept of a beautiful smile have not been fully investigated. Hence this study aimed to compare the views of patients on their own dental aesthetics with those of a group of dentists. It also assessed the patients' willingness to undergo aesthetic treatment. Methods: Fifty patients, who ranged in age from 24 to 76 years, completed self-assessment questionnaires. Photographs were taken of these patients, which were subsequently assessed by six dentists using a questionnaire with visual analogue scale to assess each parameter. Results: Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between the opinions of the dentists and the patients. Older patients were generally more satisfied with their smile than the dentists. Eighty-six percent of the patients were willing to undergo aesthetic treatment, although factors such as the complexity of treatment, time involved, discomfort and financial costs, deterred many. The cost of treatment was the main deterrent. The younger patients were least likely to be put off treatment. Conclusion: Patients' views of their own smile differed from the dentists' opinion. Those who were the least satisfied and were most likely to undergo aesthetic treatment were in the younger age groups. Satisfaction increased with age and older patients were less likely to seek the aesthetic treatment.

No abstract

A recent request for religious accommodationat York University has generated controversynot just about the merits of the particular claimbut also about the general practice of religiousaccommodation under human rights codes andthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Iwill argue that the York case highlights the difficulty in treating religion as a ground of discriminationand more generally in fi tting religioninto an equality rights framework. Th isdiffi culty stems from the complex character ofreligious adherence, which can be viewed as botha personal commitment to a set of claims abouttruth and right and as a cultural identity that isexpressed in shared spiritual practices. Whenreligion is viewed as a cultural identity, it seemsright that it be accommodated, unless this wouldcause “undue hardship” to others. Yet when it isviewed as a set of beliefs about right and truth,particularly when those beliefs are inconsistentwith public values, it is not clear why it ought tobe accommodated.

No abstract

No abstract