The patient would then have the autonomous right to demand antibiotics from the general practitioner. Fourth, the dentist's preferred practice is not relevant in this dilemma and could not, for example, justify prescribing antibiotics where the potential negative consequences of their use outweighed their purpose. With respect to this principle, the combined application of principles 1 through 3 would override most concerns or rights arising in connection with Principle 4. Fifth, aesthetic values are equally inapplicable to this particular dilemma. Finally, sixth, resource efficiency also militates for the use of prophylactic antibiotics. By comparison, the cost savings attributable to the avoidance of a single instance of preventable bacterial infection could be anywhere from ten times to several thousands of times the cost of providing prophylactic antibiotic treatment before surgery. Together with...

The former would emphasize the fact that the essential purpose of the dentist is to prevent harm (i.e. infection) to the patient; the latter would emphasize the fact that wider adoption of the dentist's position as public policy would benefit society more than the general practitioner's position expressed in public policy.
Proposed Course of Action and Resolution

To protect the health and welfare of his patient in this case, the dentist has no ethical choice but to respond proactively and to escalate his advocacy of good clinical practice as high as might be necessary to protect his patient. First, he might counsel the patient and provide sufficient objective factual information for the patient