Part I of 5: Accumulating strain: Ethics, morals, and law under tension

Dentistry portrays itself as a stable profession—grounded in science, guided by ethics, and justified by its contributions to health and public trust.^1,2 Yet beneath that reassuring surface, pressure has been building for years. As corporate consolidation accelerates, inflation rises, and private equity buyouts expand, production targets increasingly come into conflict with patient welfare, straining clinicians' ability to practice in alignment with their values.^3,4 What is emerging is not a collection of isolated disputes, but the gradual accumulation of ethical tension along deep professional fault lines.^1,5 

Across the country, more clinicians describe their daily reality in terms of fear, frustration, moral exhaustion, and the possibility of leaving practice altogether. ^6,7 They find themselves trapped between institutional expectations and the obligations they owe their patients as professionals.^2,8 

This strain is not limited to individual practices. Organized dentistry, insurers, private equity, and regulatory agencies are locked in visible conflict over who controls the workforce, how care is reimbursed, what scope of practice will be permitted, and how oral health care will be structured.9,10 Recent policy disputes are symptoms of something deeper: a profession whose ethical foundations no longer align with the systems that govern it.^1,7 

The central thesis of this series is simple but unsettling—the disputes over scope, reimbursement, autonomy, and corporate control are surface expressions of deeper ethical instability.^2,5 Like tectonic plates grinding slowly beneath a seemingly solid landscape, long-term contradictions have accumulated beneath dentistry's appearance of stability. The question is no longer whether there is strain, but how much pressure the profession can absorb before rupture occurs.^3,5 

Morality, ethics, and law: What is the difference? 

To understand this strain, it is necessary to differentiate between the three systems that shape clinical decision-making: morality, ethics, and law.¹¹  

Morality refers to internal beliefs about right and wrong shaped by culture, religion, philosophy, upbringing, and lived experience. These convictions influence how clinicians experience their work, such as the distress they feel when rushing an exam, recommending a marginally necessary procedure, or failing to provide the care they know a patient needs.^12,13 

Ethics, by contrast, are externally derived standards. They are outlined in codes of conduct and expectations of competence, honesty, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and patient welfare.^2,13 Ethics are meant to universalize professional behavior and preserve public trust, especially when individual moral instincts differ. The profession implicitly claims that its members will adhere to these shared ethical obligations even when doing so is inconvenient or unprofitable.^1,5 

Law is the enforceable regulatory structure administered by courts and agencies. It determines what is permitted and what is not, but legality is not synonymous with ethics.^9,11 A practice may be technically legal and yet ethically indefensible. Conversely, an ethically sound course of action may be constrained by institutional policies, insurance contracts, or practice acts that have not kept pace with contemporary evidence.^9,10 

The widening gap between what is legal and what is ethical is one of the central sources of tension in modern dentistry.⁶ When clinicians are told that a practice is compliant yet perceive it as morally or ethically wrong, the contradiction does not merely cause distress; over time, it leads to burnout, disengagement, and erosion of professional identity.^6,7  

The significance of intention 

In both law and ethics, understanding the concept of intention is crucial. There is a sharp difference between outcomes that are accidental, reckless, or deliberate, even when the harm is identical.^14,15 The legal distinction between murder and manslaughter is grounded in intent— both result in death, but the meaning and consequences differ because the underlying purpose differs.¹⁴ 

Philosophically, intention also matters because actions cannot be understood solely in terms of outcomes.¹⁶ Intention is central to understanding purposeful human conduct.¹⁷ Health care is no exception to these concerns.¹² Courts evaluate intent when reviewing allegations of fraud and professional misconduct. 9 A diagnosis inflated to maximize reimbursement is not merely a coding issue; it may be evidence that financial gain has displaced patient welfare as the primary intention. Likewise, a corporate entity that proclaims patient-centered care is its primary goal, while tying compensation and job security to production metrics, signals a misalignment between its stated values and its true purpose.^2,10 

Intentions can be multifaceted. It is not wrong for clinicians or institutions to seek financial security, professional autonomy, or respect. These are legitimate secondary and tertiary aims. They become ethically problematic when they displace the primary intention that must govern any health profession: patient welfare.^5,13 When production targets, investor returns, or market share become the de facto primary purpose, the ethical reasoning of otherwise routine clinical decisions can change.^4,5 

The structural consequences of this shift are profound. As the gap widens between what dentistry says it exists to do and what its systems actually reward, instability grows between professional ideals and institutional reality.^4,7 Clinicians experience this as cognitive dissonance and burnout, while patients experience it as rushed visits, upselling, and care that is transactional rather than therapeutic.^6,7 

Actions speak louder than words 

Institutions will always tell a flattering story about themselves. Polished mission statements, value proclamations, and branding campaigns are designed to project ethical legitimacy, but in any health system, operational behavior—not slogans—reveals true priorities.^1,5 

In dentistry, operational systems increasingly reward procedural upselling, production quotas, shortened appointments, and aggressive revenue mining. Preventive care, longitudinal relationships, and patient education become secondary or are reframed as optional elements that must fit into ever-tighter time blocks.^8,18 When clinicians feel pressured to recommend interventions of marginal or questionable benefit, overbook columns, or delegate complex tasks to minimally trained personnel, the institution has already declared what it values most.^1,2 

Ethical legitimacy depends on alignment between primary purpose and conduct. If dentistry's stated purpose is to promote oral health and prevent disease, but its operational structures treat prevention as a loss leader, while prioritizing restorative interventions because they pay better, the profession is not ethically neutral—it is ethically dissonant.^8,19  

Over time, clinicians see the disconnect between public ethical commitments and internal financial imperatives, a gap that eventually becomes impossible to ignore.^1,4 This tension is not merely a matter of individual bad actors—it is structural. When systems consistently reward behaviors that undermine prevention or patient-centered care, individual clinicians are placed in an untenable position: conform and compromise or resist and risk their livelihoods.³  

The warring logics of American health-care

Part of the problem lies in the architecture of American health- care itself. It operates at the intersection of two fundamentally different institutional logics: nonprofit mission and for-profit enterprise.^3,19 Nonprofit health organizations are, in theory, mission-driven.²⁰ Revenue is meant to support the mission, not supplant it. The organizational center is public good: such as caring for patients, advancing knowledge, or improving population health.^10,18 

For-profit businesses, by contrast, are built around a shareholder-centered framework, grounded in Milton Friedman’s doctrine that the social responsibility of business is to increase profits within the bounds of the law.²⁰ Profit generation becomes the primary institutional purpose, with systems optimized for efficiency, growth, and financial return.^4,18 

American health care, including dentistry, functions as a hybrid system.²⁰ It retains the rhetoric and ethical expectations of a nonprofit mission while operating inside a commercialized marketplace shaped by investor expectations and production metrics.⁴ But patients are not ordinary consumers, and disease is not a commodity—yet the system governing their care treats them as if they were.^10,19 

Hybrid organizations are particularly vulnerable to mission drift.²⁰ Under financial pressure, the gravitational pull of revenue and growth can quietly displace a profession's mission. Competing demands to meet quarterly targets, satisfy investors, and increase production pull organizations in directions that conflict with their stated obligations to the public.^4,18 

Clinicians are caught in the crossfire. They are expected to function simultaneously as caregivers, productivity units, revenue generators, and professionals. It is not surprising that this convergence produces burnout, moral exhaustion, ethical disengagement, and the normalization of practices many would once have rejected earlier in their careers.^6,7 As privatization, consolidation, fragmented regulation, and commercial influence intensify, the pressure on clinicians grows, even as public expectations of ethical care remain unchanged.^4,10 

Instability, in other words, is structural. From the beginning, the profession has asked clinicians to reconcile ethical obligations with financial incentives that are increasingly pulling in opposite directions.¹⁹ 

Ethical decline: A slow-motion disaster 

Ethical collapse in a profession seldom arrives in dramatic fashion. It emerges gradually, through repeated compromises that become routine. Reimbursement systems undervalue prevention, so preventive visits are shortened. Workforce restructuring introduces minimally trained personnel to reduce costs, even when it compromises standards of care. Productivity expectations ratchet upward, and diluted standards are framed as adaptability rather than erosion.^1,8 

With each adjustment, clinicians comply with the system rather than insisting it adapt to ethical obligations. Over time, what would once have been condemned as unacceptable becomes normalized. The central danger is not a handful of egregious violations; it is the quiet institutional redefinition of what counts as normal or necessary in clinical practice.^5,15 

The deepest strain beneath modern dentistry is not just about money or power—it is about whether the profession is willing to confront the erosion of its ethical foundations while there is still time to reinforce them.  

The fault lines are visible. The pressure is real. The question now is whether dentistry will treat these seismic strains as warning signs or wait until the ruptures are impossible to ignore.

Author's note: Part II, Structural load: Business models, power, and professional control, will explore how the power of organized dentistry, DSOs, and private equity is driving business and health-care ethics into conflict, raising broader concerns about hierarchy, control, and the use of regulatory power to restrict competition and consolidate authority. 

References 

1. Groß D, Wilhelmy S. The recent ethics boom in dentistry: moral fig leaf, fleeting trend or professional awakening? Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(12):7935-7940. doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05312-8. 

2. Ozar DT, Sokol DJ, Patthoff DE. Dental Ethics at Chairside: Professional Obligations and Practical Applications. 3rd ed. Georgetown University Press; 2018. 

3. Relman AS. The new medical-industrial complex. N Engl J Med. 1980;303(17):963-970. doi:10.1056/NEJM198010233031703. 

4. Relman AS. Medical professionalism in a commercialized health care market. JAMA. 2007;298(22):2668-2670. doi:10.1001/jama.298.22.2668. 

5. Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. The Virtues in Medical Practice. Oxford University Press; 1993. 

6. Patel BM, Boyd LD, Vineyard J, LaSpina L. Job satisfaction, burnout, and intention to leave among dental hygienists in clinical practice. J Dent Hyg. 2021;95(2):28-35. 

7. Bishop JL, Henderson R, Townsend JA, Kearney RC. Job stressors and their impact on dental hygienists’ job satisfaction and intention to leave practice. Work. 2025;82(1):120-129. 

8. Grytten J. Payment systems and incentives in dentistry. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2017;45(1):1-11. doi:10.1111/cdoe.12267. 

9. Furrow BR, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Health Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems. University of South Carolina School of Law; 1989:328. 

10. Gostin LO, Hodge JG. Global health law, ethics, and policy. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(4):519-525. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00176.x. 

11. Tyson JM. Morals, ethics, and laws: what commonalities remain? Liberty UL Rev. 2019;14:89. 

12. Swanson T. Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics: Decision-Making, Principles and Cases. Trinity International University; 2012:123. 

13. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics: marking its fortieth anniversary. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(11):9-12. doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1665402. 

14. Dressler J. Understanding Criminal Law. 9th ed. Carolina Academic Press; 2022. 

15. Hart HLA. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press; 2008. 

16. Searle JR. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press; 1983. 

17. Anscombe GEM. Intention. 2nd ed. Harvard University Press; 2001. 

18. Verdier JM. Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. Wiley; 2007:968-971. 

19. Pellegrino ED. The commodification of medical and health care: the moral consequences of a paradigm shift from a professional to a market ethic. J Med Philos. 1999;24(3):243-266. doi:10.1076/jmep.24.3.243.2523. 

20. Hai S, Daft RL. When missions collide: lessons from hybrid organizations for sustaining a strong social mission. Organ Dyn. 2016;45(4):283-290. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.10.003.