Wednesday 17 January 2018

#416 A checkup

It had been a while since I'd last visited the dentist. It wasn't exactly my favourite place in the world. I usually came out feeling like I'd just lost a fight with someone, who had the unfair advantage of wielding a scalpel.

I'd envision not just needing painful and excruciatingly uncomfortable work done but having uncontrollable reflex actions while it was being carried out, causing a drill to go into my gum or an instrument to end up slicing my cheek open.

The whole process was completely bloody awful and terrifying and there never seemed to be any end to it. Every six months it was a case of either subjecting oneself to what could only be described as torture, or leave it even longer so that the necessity for painful repair work accumulated. 

Given the choice between some kind of hell now or even more kinds of hell later, it didn't seem logical or sane to choose the first one. Why not? Well because if you've ever been to any kind of hell, the first thing you learn very quickly is that the only thing that matters is not being in hell and the longer we can all hold out before having to go there, the better.

Granted there were people in the world with worse problems than going to the dentist. When my time eventually came to face something worse I might just decide to stop writing entirely. For now though, the fact that I had to return and try to tolerate the hygienist on Friday was pretty much all I could think about. I hoped to God I could just get through it without any serious problems.


Fizzfan said...

I had to have so much anaesthetic once (to have a wisdom tooth out) that side of my face froze. Trouble was I couldn’t blink.
On driving home I had to steer one handed to free the other one up to manually operate my eyelid.
I was imagining if I’d had an accident explaining that on a claims form.

Hate dentists, doctors and hairdressers. They can all do a lot of damage with sharp implements.

Profound Familiarity said...

What would happen in those circumstances?

My guesswork, which is unlikely to be correct, would go something like:

The claim would be rejected if the insurer knew all the details because you'd made the decision to drive despite being in full knowledge of the fact you only had limited use of one arm.

Unless the accident had nothing to do with your impaired state (because maybe recent policy wordings or new legislation (or both) now permit payouts on claims where irresponsible behaviour has nothing to do with the cause of the accident?)

I suppose you might report that you'd been unknowingly given an overdose that had impaired your judgement, at which point, would the insurer ask you for evidence, prompting you to decide whether or not to seek legal advice most likely resulting in a settlement?

As I say, I might be way off but wanted to give it some thought.

Fizzfan said...

You should have been a lawyer. I’m impressed!

I’ve never dealt with claims but I think whoever’s to blame always gets paid for their car damage, even under the influence, unless it’s specifically excluded in the policy wording, you just lose your no claims bonus and pay a bigger premium next renewal.
I might have been charged for wreckless driving by the police though.

I was thinking more along the lines of.....
Q. Why weren’t you in full control of your vehicle?
A. Because the dentist paralysed my face and I was helping myself blink to stop my eye drying out.

Just sounds nicely bizarre

Profound Familiarity said...

That it does.