The Late Kevin Lewis - His Dento-Legal Achievements For The Profession

There have been many lovely obituaries written following Kevin’s death on 30^th July 2025 celebrating his commitment to dentistry in so many ways. Although these obituaries have all mentioned his time at Dental Protection/Medical Protection Society, where he was Council Member, Dental Adviser and Director of Dental Protection, I wanted to share my thoughts on this part of his career.

There are very few times that dentistry leads the way in making changes to the law. Throughout his time as Director at Dental Protection Kevin was never frightened to challenge the authorities if he could see a way to improving the lot, firstly of the member concerned, but also for the wider profession. 

The Human Rights Act was brought in by the Blair government in 1998, about the time Kevin became Director of Dental Protection. It came into operation in October 2000. 

In September 2000 a dentist was suspended by the GDC for one year following a Professional Conduct Committee hearing. That dentist was represented by a different indemnity provider which was not prepared to support an appeal. Kevin found a way for MPS to exercise its discretion to assist and take an appeal to the Privy Council raising a number of challenges, including a successful challenge to the fairness of the GDC’s FTP process under the Human Rights Act. From then on registrants involved in all regulatory proceedings had their right to a fair trial (Article 6) protected.

Kevin always had a keen interest in the law and the process of obtaining proper consent for treatment as anyone that heard him speak or saw his writing on the subject. In fact, his last column in Dentistry Conspiracy theories versus provider obligation - Dentistry concerned the way consent was being managed in cosmetic dentistry cases. In his time at Dental Protection consent cases were considered in the courts around the world, notably in Australia and Ireland as well as the UK, so by the time the Montgomery case was decided, Kevin had already made sure that Dental Protection’s team of advisers lectured and wrote about the “particular  patient” and the material risks for that patient when obtaining consent. Looking back at the slides I used before the Montgomery case, I can see that the ruling really didn’t change the approach Kevin had been advocating for a number of years. Interestingly, the GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team published in 2013 concerning consent were drafted with the “particular patient” and the concept of “material risks” at the front of mind.

Kevin was a great proponent of the “critical friend” relationship when dealing with regulators all over the world. The consequence of that was when changes were contemplated by the GDC for example, the GDC staff made a point of listening particularly carefully to Kevin’s views on the proposed changes. 

Sometimes decisions were made without consultation, such as when the GDC decided to regulate how non-surgical cosmetic treatments were offered by dentists. It decided that a dentist could offer these treatments, but that they couldn’t do so acting as a dentist and there had to be a separate entrance, because this type of treatment was “not the practice of dentistry.”  (Dento-legal aspects of non-surgical facial aesthetic procedures Lewis K  FDJ Vol 5 number 2 https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsfdj.2014.5.2.68 )   A little research revealed that there had been more dentists trained in the use of non-surgical cosmetic treatments than there were orthodontists on the specialist list for orthodontics. Since the Dentists Act defined dentistry as what dentists do, it was plain to Kevin that the GDC needed to be challenged formally on behalf of DP’s members as well as the wider profession. Judicial Review proceedings were duly commenced, and as with many challenges, the claim was resolved by the GDC reflecting on its somewhat hastily introduced policy, which was withdrawn.

In the late 2000’s when a hospital in one part of the country and a Deanery in a different part interfered with maxillofacial surgery training pathways harming the careers of individuals and raising the existential question about what is the practice of dentistry, Kevin encouraged a close working relationship between DP and the British Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS), encouraging BAOMS to work closely with the GDC to resolve their differences. At the same time DP challenged the Deanery concerned eventually succeeding in resolving the issues. Little did we know at the time that the discussions between BAOMS and GDC would go on for many years after we had both left Dental Protection. By 2023 BAOMS and the GDC had finally reached an accord as to what constitutes the practice of dentistry in the context of maxillofacial surgery GDC & GMC | British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. GDC position statement on dual registration requirements 

Underdogs and those being bullied by authority were regularly championed by Kevin regardless of that person’s status in the profession. He was passionate to see people treated fairly and according to the relevant laws and policies, even if that ultimately led to an outcome that the person didn’t want.

Those of us who learned our leadership skills from Kevin saw a generous, passionate leader who led by example, taking extremely seriously the development of his team formally through a process of performance development reviews and informally by coaching on a one-to-one basis. 

He always tried to find the best in his team members and put them into roles that maximised their potential, trusting them to ask questions and supporting them when challenged. In doing that he built a team that was tremendously loyal and extremely privileged to have had the chance to work with one of a very few genuinely inspirational leaders that dentistry has seen in the past 40 years. 

Our loss is as nothing compared to that of Non, Sian and Nick their spouses and Kevin’s grandchildren.