Wisdom Tooth Guide

This guide would be useful if:
1) You are an NSF (better if you are from SCDF)
2) Want to know what to do to get your wisdom tooth plucked out (for free, if you are an NSF)
3) Want to know the procedures for the surgery
4) Want to know how it feels
5) Want to know tips for before and after the surgery

Wisdom Tooth

Wisdom tooth is that annoying tooth that grows at the very end after your last visible molar tooth at all four sides of your mouth. They are usually inside your gums, but over time (usually when you are 20 years and above) there will be instances where they could grow out of your gums at an angle or move inwards to constrain the spaces of your remaining teeth. The former could result in infection or tooth decay as it would be near impossible to brush the tooth at an angle using a typical toothbrush. The later could cause your other tooth to move out of shape resulting in crooked tooth and even cause pain or discomfort. Some people are born with no wisdom tooth, others with all four. For me, I had three. Either way, the treatment normally prescribed is to remove them.

What have I gotten into?

For NSFs

For a National Service Fulltime (NSF; which could also mean Non-Sufficient Fund or Not So Fast, both very apt), an option by the Ministry was given to them to be able to remove their wisdom tooth for free during their NS period. First step is to consult a person in-charge of your unit's welfare. The person in charge would have at the very least another name for you to ask more questions about the procedures. As an SCDF NSF posted to a fire station as my unit, I was referred to a medical admin officer at my station. All fire station would have an admin officer to settle administration, and they would have the knowledge of the procedures to pluck your wisdom tooth for free. If you are posted to a different unit, the advise given might be different, thus you have to consult your relevant officers in charge. For me, the advice given was first, to get a referral from a Polyclinic which would schedule an appointment for me to a clinic which could perform the surgery for free under the NS agreement. Going/ calling the clinics directly would only result in them asking you to go to a Polyclinic first to get a referral. Any Polyclinic would do. I went to Pasir Ris Polyclinic. I went and consulted a doctor and asked for a referral to pluck my wisdom tooth. After the consultation, I was led to another room, the Polyclinic's call centre, where a nurse called the clinics to schedule an appointment for me. Some suggested clinics are the National Dental Centre and Changi Hospital. An appointment for dental consultation was fixed and I was given a referral letter.

Pre-Procedure/ Consultation

When the day of appointment came, I went to the National Dental Centre at Outram and was led to level 2 for registration. After registration, those below 21 are required to bring their parent/s-, my number was called up and I went to consult a Dentist. The Dentist checked and prodded my teeth in a cubicle with a dentist chair and some minimal dental equipment in it. Then I was led to an X Ray room where an x ray of my face was taken. I went back to the dentist and she advised me on the surgery required regarding my wisdom tooth. I had 2 high risk impacted wisdom tooth and 1 other wisdom tooth which would most likely not be impacted my entire life. She told me to choose if I wish to remove all 3 or just 2. She also highlighted the risks of the surgery, namely damage to the nerves which would numb senses near the wisdom tooth area and the risk of perforation on the upper gums. (A hole from mouth to nose.) The risks are small, about 1%, but nevertheless they are still risks. She also asked if I would prefer general or local anesthetic. General meaning I would go to sleep during surgery and local meaning I would be awake but they would numb the area they are operating on. In the end, I chose general aesthetics and to remove all 3 wisdom tooth at once. After the consultation, I was led out of the room and waited to schedule another appointment on another day for the surgery itself. A nurse with a calendar book looked through all appointments and scheduled a date agreeable for all parties. The nurse also advised on what to bring on the day itself and told me to not eat after 12am the day before the surgery or the Dentist would postpone my surgery.

Surgery

On 1 March, I went to NDC to level 3 where the surgery room is. After registering, I was led to a bed and was told to change my shirt to a plain blue shirt reminiscent of a bathrobe or kimono and an adjustable blue pants with slippers. A nurse took my blood pressure and asked me questions about my medical history. Afterwards, I was told to wait in my bed. I waited for hours before I was called. A very friendly and nice anaesthetic doctor told me the procedures of the surgery and if I had sneezing or coughing the previous days. Sneezing might affect the surgery and if I had them, they would postpone the surgery. I was then lead to the operating room and was told to lie on a bed under an enormous lamp. The staff was very friendly and asked me questions about my work and stuff. They inserted a 24G cannula to my left hand. Afterwards they place a mask over my face. At first I thought it was oxygen. Then, the gas smelled different. My second last breath made me really drowsy. The last thing I heard was, "You are doing really great...". Then, I blacked out. I had many dreams. Some bad, some good. But I totally did not recall the surgery. The next thing I felt was a slap from a nurse asking me to wake and I woke up suddenly, surprised.

The first thing I tried to do was to comprehend what just happened and it slowly dawned to me that I just had my surgery and I remembered the gas. The next thing I realized was that I could not feel my tongue. It was numb, and so is the sides of my mouth. The nurse calmed me down and I felt them wheeling me to my previous ward where I had waited before my surgery. I was very groggy and when I tried to sit up, my whole body was weak and it made my head spin. The peculiar thing was that my mouth did not hurt and I assumed it was due to the anaesthetic. A different nurse came to me and fed me a cup full of purple glucose  through my mouth. It had been about 14 hours since I last ate. Nurses have high patience level and I salute them. For there I was, a helpless patient barely able to open my mouth due to the numbness and I had spilt my drink and she wiped it for me. I have my gratitude to all the staff which made my surgery successful and pleasant, they are really professional. Afterwards, my dentist came to me and told me of the surgery and it's outcome and told me what to do in the next coming days and what to expect. I collected my medication and afterwards left the vicinity. As a precaution, I was told to take a cab home.

Post surgery

The pain I envisioned based on countless recounted experiences from friends who had undergone the surgery before did not arrive. What I felt was a prickly pain similar to a cut to my finger, to the sides of the operated area. There was no excruciating pain, just the prickly feeling once in a while and when I bend my head down. Swallowing the painkillers even let the pain disappear altogether. The only problem was that my mouth became swollen and hard to open for the next 4 days. The swelling was very severe, I stopped all social activities like a chalet and movie outing with colleagues and friends. The silver lining is, I had a clear picture of what I would look like if I was fat. And it was not a pretty sight. (Added motivation to keep fit) I was told to eat 5 pills 3 times daily for the next few days and since my mouth was swollen, I was advised not to eat or chew on the affected places of surgery in my mouth for at least the next few days. My mother cooked for me porridge almost everyday and bought me tubs of ice cream. I spent my days eating and watching movies or catching up on television shows I had missed. When I get bored I read books or do household chores around the house. And before long, I had recovered. I fixed another appointment about a week after the surgery to the dental centre where they check up on my teeth and remove the stitches. The removing of stitches is slightly painful, like a prick. Afterwards, I recovered a little more and my mouth is back to normal. The slight complication I had was that I felt a slight numbness to my lower right jaw. The dentist then told me to come back in a month and gave me a prescription of vitamin D for the nerves. But generally, the procedure went extremely well.

Cost
The cost of the surgery, under the NS Scheme amounted to $7 for the removal of 3 wisdom tooth. I checked the invoice for my surgery at the National Dental Centre, the cost of the surgery amounted to $3000+ but with Government subsidies (for Singaporeans/PRs) bringing the cost down to about $1200+. My private dentist quoted me $2200 for the removal of all 3 wisdom tooth.

For NSFs, I would advice them to apply to remove wisdom tooth early. If they remove 2 teeth, they are allowed to remove one at a time. Each time they remove would allow them to take 7/8 days of MC. That is, if they wish to do so. I advice them to take early because I took mine close to my ORD date (ord-oh), and almost was not able to get an appointment to remove my wisdom teeth. I would advise them to at the very least, start getting referrals at least 1 or 1 and a half month before your Ord date as it may take 1 or even 2 months until you get an appointment to remove your wisdom tooth.

I hope this guide was useful as I sure was not able to get a proper detailed guide from just Google. For those intending to get their wisdom tooth removed, do not be afraid as the way the surgery looks is less painful than it seems. A paramedic once told me a thing about pain. At that time, the paramedic was referring to inserting a needle into our hand for intravenous (IV) use and he had this advise for those who are afraid of needles. "Pain, pain a bit only what. Why need to scared? You can't die. Seriously, you cant die!" And it's true! A needle won't kill you. I have seen patients with a crushed leg or had broken their arms and I do believe their pain would be insurmountable compared to a needle poke. I will not die.
But anyway, for being less wise by 3 tooths, I sure am wiser about the subject.

Name one person you have known to have died from a needle poke

Morality

       

 At roughly 2.10pm, a discussion organized by Mr Tim Bunn started at the second floor of P. Bistro, a cosy café located at 142 Owen Road. Among those who attended were roughly 30 interested people from all backgrounds; lawyers, students and especially, philosophy enthusiasts all interested in an afternoon of intellectual conversation. It was my first experience and a rewarding one at that. I arrived at 1.55pm and made my way into an empty looking café, unsure of what to expect. I had earlier on seen a waitress inviting an Indian gentleman into the café but when I entered he was nowhere to be seen. So, I joined three others queuing at the counter in hope of asking the receptionist about the meetup. The first two teenagers looked to be about my age and they were just about to leave. As they left, I overheard the receptionist telling them, “I will send your orders upstairs!” So, I concluded that the discussion would take place upstairs. The door to the café opened and an older white gentleman came in, looking important yet somehow casual. Later on, I found out he is Mr Tim Bunn himself! I ordered an ice Mocha ($7.06) and after being told my beverage would be sent upstairs, I made my way up. The man queuing in front of me was the first person I approached, Zhen Quan a lawyer, and I asked him what I should expect. So, here is how the discussion would usually unfold.

An open discussion between all attendees will ensure. Tim will give an opening monologue before asking for an introduction of all attendees. He will then proceed to ask for objectives for the discussion and what we want to find out and he will ask to be given a yes/no question about the topic. The discussion will start and then end with the same yes/no question and a voting to that question will occur. Depending on the arguments portrayed in the discussion, we will cast our votes to a yes or a no.

I sat in between Jervais, a web designer with “too much free time” and Zhen Quan, a lawyer who wishes to “know if lawyers can be ethical”. Comparatively, I felt inferior to them but lest I was kept assured that when we are discussing opinions, we are on non-discriminatory lines and having a diverse view on the topic might add a different dimension to the argument. Chris, an expat, opened up the discussion with a question.

Does society define what is ethical and what is unethical? Ethics is about how society defines it. It is a cultural agreement imposed in different jurisdiction based on the society’s needs. For example, huge inequity between aristocrats and factory workers in pre-Soviet Union led to Communism being the preferred choice of system during the early Soviet era even though limitations to the system is obvious, such as Capitalistic freedom. The city population was generally contented with the ideology of Communistic laws. The same thing happens during major revolutions which changed the way states were run, such as the French Revolution. However, those who do not belong to the jurisdiction might not feel the same way because things are run differently where they live. Life may be easier, smoother or special. Thus, they have different priorities and the laws they want imposed might be more lenient or different. Society thus imposes a set of ethics to their localized population. (A more concrete point pointed out was how certain countries have more gun violence, robberies etc and the people may feel normal with that amount of violence and how there exists cannibalistic tribes around the world). Another way to look at morality is the principle of “I hurt you, you hurt me.”

At this point there was a flurry of arguments between Chris and Krishin, the intellectual looking gentleman I saw earlier on in his tweed jacket. Tim intervened and tried to get the topic back on track.

What is morality? And how does morality come about? Three explanations were voiced out on the origin of morality. One, God created morality. Two, morality comes from our rational and self-defined judgment. Three, a dominant winning side enforces what is right and wrong. Later on Points Two and Three were reorganized into a new point, Survivability.

 At this point in time, I had formulated my first question. If rationality is the arbiter of morality, does that mean that the less educated perceive lesser “morality” than the more educated? However, before this there is another question which needs to be answered.

Does morality exist in the first place? For morality to exist, a realist would point out that if we are to scrutinize a person or an action we could see “badness” in them. For a dreamer, on the other hand, they would say that morality is a conception of the mind, just like numbers, in order for us to obtain answers to questions we cannot answer. A test to prove morality exists is to eradicate the human population and see if morality still exists in this world. Without the human population, us as the arbiters (indecisive as we are in our views), the world still will live on. The animal kingdom still thrives in their cycles of evolution and natural disasters still occur intermittently. But generally, the world will be balanced because the world can recover without our involvement. However, in the animal kingdom, we can still find various degrees of morality. A more developed organism appears to have a higher degree of morality than less developed ones. For example, a jellyfish thinks less of its family or habitat than a monkey. Fishes appear simply to exist but a monkey is able to reciprocate feelings. Love, care, hurt and giving protection. But simplicity of an organism may not be the reason for altruism. An example would be ants. They are really small, simple organisms but they are highly sociable and literally live for their respective nests. Wolves on the other hand, are highly unsociable who are aggressive in fulfilling their personal needs. So, do morality exist? That question would be put aside till the end of the discussion.

The discussion then moved on towards the source for “morality.”

The argument that God created morality or what is right and wrong is based on the fact that we have an almost innate feeling to know what is right and wrong. For example when someone steals, everyone in the world will know that that action is wrong even when these people do not generally meet one another. The act of killing itself is portrayed as bad. The intention behind the killing however, may be different. The most commonly used law system, The Common Law, have a Latin phrase to justify a person’s criminal liability. Maxim Actus Non Facit Mens Sit Rea. A Guilty Act is not criminally liable unless it was accompanied with the Guilty Mind. This proves that the action (of killing or stealing etc) itself is undeniably wrong, although the intention may not be. Thus, the unexplained instinct to know the right and wrong could only be God’s Will.

The second hypothetical source for morality, Self-Creation of morality can be explained together with the third, enforcement of morality over another person. They are due to survival instincts. In this line of reasoning, we are all genetic creatures intent of being infinite or immortal. All we ever really want to do is to ensure our genes survive and not die out. We want to reproduce. So, we understand that to another thinking being, we do not want bad things to happen to us, so we do not do the same thing to another. It is not altruistic behavior really, because we expect something in return. We expect reciprocation; either similarly or equivalently. We believe in a God who would reward for the good things we do and punish for the bad things we do. This, in this theory, imagines God as a self-constructed entity which serves as a survival function. We believe in Karma and we extrapolate and spread this concept to vast ends of the Earth to ensure people believe in Karma or a God and thus people abide by rules to mutually benefit each other’s survivability.  That is why another group of people might have these accorded rules to “survive”, otherwise known as morality and when they find another group of people who have their own sets of rules for survivability, they do not agree and will fight. The winner would justify their “morality” over the other. Some might argue that we do make decisions which are altruistic. For example, I may donate blood for those who need it. Here is the crux to this theory. It depends on the person’s idea of their own “people”. More people are willing to donate blood or organs to the people they know like relatives but even less would do so to strangers. And even less to strangers from another country. A person is more willing to defend their home country than defend in a war in another country unless they feel they have a genetic relation or possible genetic relation to the people they are defending.

A person spoke up at this point in time and asked about competing ethics in an action.

 For example, should a mother rob a bank to save her starving children? The answer to this is irrevocably intertwined with the origin of morality. It depends if the mother places her children above her society or vice versa. Will the mother care about what her children will think of her? What sort of values will the children adopt from society and would it justify the mother’s action? It will be the mother’s choice or sense of morality in the end that matters.  Some attendees argued that the mother's choice is actually dependent on entirely different grounds. It depends on 3 values which the mother cares about. Psychological, physical or emotional. (I did not quite catch the reasons behind the three values though.

The discussion then turned towards morality progressing.

 Have morality progressed? For example, there are a greater emphasis for equal treatment of women and other coloured races. Is it because we became more moral that we treated them more equally? Or is the case really that we already know how to treat people equally but it is because we did not define women or other races as human, therefore we treated them inhumanely?

At the end of the discussion,because it was close to 4.30pm already, Mr Tim Dunn asked his final question. Who agrees that morality exists? Half of those attended chose Yes.

The discussion above is a general transcript I have managed to write and remember from the meeting. Frankly speaking, I was more engrossed with the arguments than taking note, thus I have missed a fairly large amount of content. I have tried rearranging some bits of arguments into a more understandable structure because they were all over the place. These are not my arguments nor viewpoint. Of course, morality is a much larger and bigger topic. I had read the opening chapter of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins and I think his arguments and research to explain morality is more compelling.