I am writing in to emplore to you the importance of NOT allowing dental assistants to have the expanded funtion of scaling  patients teeth.  It is not in an attempt to "hold them back" or begrudge them an expanded function, but rather to spare any patient inadequate treatment that could be potentially harmful to the patient and the oral mucosa.  As any dental health professional could agree, the institutions that educate us are rigorous programs that include not only a  state mandated number of hours of instruction in a clinic, but also many hours within a classroom.  This time of study is crucial to the understanding and developement of a competant clinician.  Understanding the histology and embryology of the oral mucosa is an intrucate balance of evaluating, accurately treating and educating a patient on their oral health.  To accurately train a dental assistant in these areas to the same state and national  standards that we must adhere to would be unrealistic.  In order for the DAII to obtain this expanded function, it would only be ethically right to the patients for the DAII to go through all the training in which we as dental health professionals were mandated to complete.  This is not an issue of competition between DA and DNH, but rather an issue of ethics and morallity.  I encourage anyone seeking additonal education in the dental field to do so, however  we CAN NOT ALLOW inadequate training in order to facilitate this expanded function.  There are standards of care that must be upheld.  Certaionly we would not ethically let a nurse preform a "basic" surgery that he or she may not have classical trianing in, similarly it would unethical to allow a DAII to preform scaling on a client, though it may "appear basic".  It may appear this way because the clinican has spent many months and years in school EARNING  and PRACTICING this skill.  Not to be negative, but as a DA myself for over 6 years, I have worked with many DDS and DA and there are a number of reason as to why this expanded function will not be successful and very detremental.  Most important is the insufficient amount of traing that the DA will recieve in order to practice this expanded function.  To justify the expanded function a  two year program would be the the most efficient way to reicive sufficient trainig, however this would not make sense for the DA or the DDS who would be responsible for funding the training, or for the DA who could them sit for their national boards as a registerd DNH.  Clearly this does not make sense for either party.  The other aspect to this is that the traing that could potentially be enforced to allow this expanded function is not likey to be as long.  Clearly for the reason above it would not make "sense" to have it take so long, and not have the actual benefit of being able to practice as a registered DNH, consequently the traing period would be less, and the standard of care would refelct that.  On all levels this is not a good descicion to pass this through.  All that has been worked for will be lost, not only for the professional that worked so long and hard to obtain their degrees, but for the patient who is trusting in us to provide the utmost care.  PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS BILL AND DO WHAT IS ETHICALLY RIGHT, DO NOT PASS IT THROUGH.   Thank you for your time and consideration,

Alice Gentry  VDHA member