60 Minutes: A personal perspective

60 Minutes recently aired a segment on the supposed "dangers" of a fictitious practice it termed "four on the floor" orthodontics.

Here Dr Derek Mahony comments on the program and his involvement.

When 60 Minutes had initially approached me about the story, the topic was "the benefits of early orthodontic treatment". I was as shocked as everyone else when the story was sensationalised into a debate about the facial changes associated with extraction-based orthodontic treatment!

I apologise to those members of the profession that came under intense questioning from their patients regarding the segment. This was never my intention. In fact, of the 150,000 emails I received from the public, my response was to go back and discuss treatment options with their treating clinicians. For those patients who had no orthodontic care, I suggested practitioners who believe in early treatment and for those patients who felt that their face had been damaged by previous treatment, I spent a great deal of time in calming them down and assuring them that many of those changes are associated with the natural aging process.

My side of the story was to deal with the benefits of treating early to take advantage of growth so that we can minimise extraction. 60 Minutes had chosen to interview English orthodontists on the section associated with facial damage, and I felt that this section of the segment was very unfortunate for the public and the profession (The English component of the program Dr Mahony refers to was filmed two years previously by the BBC in a story unrelated to the 60 Minutes program Ð Ed).

From the professional feedback I have received, there was a segment of the profession that felt betrayed by one of its own regardless of their viewpoint on the timing of treatment and a segment that felt that what was said needed to be said publicly as a catalyst to change.

It is the old story - consider the upside and the downside of getting involved with the media and then made the decision. On balance, the downside of talking to the media far outweighs any potential upside. If you want to participate in a media interview, then you should agree to the interview only if they allow you to have someone video the entire process so that you have the complete interview and all that was said fully documented. In my personal experience, the segments that were edited for airing were totally incongruent with the message I was trying to portray. The media had quite cleverly cut and paste my interview to suit their own needs. The major footage, shot in my practice, of children being treated early with arch expansion appliances and removal of unwanted myofunctional influences such as airway problems, etc, was totally omitted.

This was very disappointing for me as the clinical research we are currently conducting on the benefits of arch development has been picked up and reported very accurately by New Scientist magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald, ABC radio, etc. I assume these are more established media who care about the truth in a story rather than pure sensationalism. I was particularly disgusted by the promos for the 60 Minutes segment that made out to the public that orthodontic treatment was causing more harm than good. Once I saw this promo, I tried to stop the segment from going to air via my solicitor, but unfortunately, once you agree to an interview, it becomes almost impossible to stop the process. I would advise our profession to never agree to an interview without full editorial control. I was verbally given this control, but they then put to air whatever they liked and once it had been broadcast, the damage was done. I speak from practical experience. The media make all sorts of promises and guarantees and then do whatever they want, totally ignoring everything to which they had originally agree.

The major disappointment for me from this story was that it attempted to portray me as a maverick and purposely set up a debate against the ASO (Australian Society of Orthodontists). I felt particularly sorry for Dr. Geoffrey Wexler who went to the same orthodontic school as me and is an excellent clinician. He was portrayed very badly in this interview because the focus of his questioning was totally different to what they had asked me and my name was used in vain for things that I had never said in my interview, to try and push the 60 Minutes side of the story. I was interviewed on the timing of treatment and the extraction of teeth associated with this whereas the segment that went to air was more focused on the damage to faces by orthodontic treatment.

So in summary, I apologise for the problems that this segment has created and I can assure you that this was never my intention. I run a highly successful practice and certainly did not need the extra promotion. I firmly believe in the benefits of early orthodontic intervention, but would warn the profession against involvement with sensational media that try and cause internal professional conflict for the sake of a good story.

As a reputable publication interested in delivering accurate information, not sensationalism, Australasian Dental Practice gave Dr Mahony complete editorial control over this article prior to publication.

< back to articles