Q. One of the most characteristic aspects of being a member of the British middle class ‘nouveau pauvre’ is finding it embarrassing to take action when things we used to take for granted as a free service are now very expensive. I have paid over £3,000 to our (private) dentist for our younger son to be fitted with the new South African ‘train track’ mini-braces that are a status symbol at his school. After 18 months he admittedly does have a Hollywood smile, but all I have is a large bill and the recently removed set of perfectly fine braces. It seems a criminal waste of money to throw them away. My wife, who is of German extraction, has suggested that, with a bit of adjustment, they could be re-fitted on to our border terrier — a pedigree animal only let down by a slightly undershot lower jaw. I regard this as a completely outrageous idea but my wife insists it is only sensible to see if the cost can be amortised, and insists I speak to the dentist. Mary, how can I approach him without being seen as mercenary about it all?
N.T., Peaslake, Surrey
A. Your wife must be commended for her imaginative recycling initiative, yet you can assure her there is no point in your approaching the dentist. A curious anomaly in the law would prevent him from treating the terrier. While vets are not barred from medically ministering to humans, the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966 dictates that dentists and doctors are barred from attending to animals. More to the point, as the Holland Park vet Andrew Carmichael informs me, ‘even if it were legal, a terrier would not tolerate any type of foreign body in its mouth, whether or not it were adjusted to fit snugly’.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in