Last Updated on 29 September 2026 by Watchdog Witness
Introduction: A Lie Designed to Silence
When patients complained about cancelled appointments, delayed treatments, and requests for refunds, Dr Thomas Munroe needed an excuse. What he chose was as audacious as it was cruel: he told them he had “very serious cancer” and was undergoing treatment .
Between September 2020 and March 2022, the dentist at Milltown Dental Clinic in Dublin 6 fabricated a cancer diagnosis in text messages, emails, and direct communications to patients who had the temerity to challenge him over his failures .
The lie was calculated. It was designed to elicit sympathy, to make patients feel guilty for complaining, to buy time. It was a weaponisation of one of the most feared diseases imaginable.
On July 27, 2026, the High Court formally censured Dr Munroe and imposed strict conditions on his practice . He had already admitted the facts of the allegations made by seven patients at a Dental Council fitness-to-practise inquiry .
This is the story of a dentist who betrayed his patients’ trust, falsified records, and invented a cancer diagnosis to cover his tracks — and the regulatory system that took seven years to hold him to account.
IDC – 2202
The Man and His Practice
Dr Thomas Munroe, registration number 2202, practised at Milltown Dental Clinic in Dublin 6 . The clinic’s online reviews paint a picture of a professional who was once highly regarded by his patients. One reviewer praised his “expertise” and described him as “very friendly and approachable” . Another said: “Tom makes you feel very comfortable and provides pain free treatment at very reasonable prices” .
In January 2024, that reputation was formally set aside when Munroe gave an undertaking to the Dental Council not to engage in the practice of dentistry pending the determination of complaints against him, except in accordance with approved return-to-practice arrangements .
By July 2026, the Dental Council had confirmed the findings of its Fitness to Practise Committee, and the President of the High Court had directed that conditions be attached to his registration .
The Cancer Lie: A Fabricated Diagnosis
The most shocking element of Munroe’s misconduct was his use of a fake cancer diagnosis.
According to the Dental Council’s published findings, Munroe falsely claimed on multiple occasions between September 2020 and March 2022 that he had “very serious cancer” and was undergoing treatment .
The specific finding in relation to Patient G states:
“On or around 3 September 2021, [you] falsely informed Patient G in a text message that one of the reasons for her appointments being cancelled was because you had cancer or words to this effect, when this was not the case.”
These false claims were made in text messages, emails, and direct communications to five patients who had sought refunds or challenged him over cancelled appointments and prolonged treatment delays .
The lie was designed to make patients back off. It was a manipulation of the highest order.
The Full Scope of the Misconduct
The Dental Council’s findings reveal a pattern of clinical and administrative failures that affected all seven patients .
Clinical Failures
- Failure to provide implant and veneer treatments in a timely manner
- Unnecessarily prolonging treatment by cancelling multiple appointments
- Failing to refer patients to another practitioner when he could not provide the treatment himself
- Failing to arrange emergency care for a patient in pain
- Failing to carry out upper arch implant care in a timely manner or at all
Administrative Failures
- Failure to provide written treatment plans or cost estimates
- Failure to release patient records upon request
- Failure to retain X-rays and radiographs as required
- Making retrospective, inaccurate additions or amendments to patient files without noting that the entries were retrospective
- Failing to take and/or keep and/or maintain OPG radiographs
The Falsified Records
Munroe’s attempts to cover his tracks extended to his own records. The Dental Council found he made retrospective additions and amendments to patient files that were inaccurate and failed to record them as retrospective . This was a deliberate attempt to rewrite history, to create a paper trail that supported his version of events rather than the truth.
For Patient G, the finding was explicit: the retrospective additions were not only unrecorded but inaccurate .
The Dental Council’s Findings
The Fitness to Practise Committee was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations were proven against Dr Munroe and that he was guilty of professional misconduct .
Munroe admitted the facts of the allegations and accepted that his actions had constituted professional misconduct .
The Dental Council met on 21 May 2026 and confirmed the findings of the Fitness to Practise Committee. It decided to:
The High Court Order: Strict Conditions
On 27 July 2026, the President of the High Court directed the Dental Council to attach conditions to Dr Munroe’s registration pursuant to Section 40(4) of the Dentists Act 1985 .
The conditions, which will remain in place for at least three years, are severe :
Supervision Requirements
- Munroe must retain Dr Stuart Lutton (or another council-approved specialist) to act as his supervisor for implantology
- Phase 1 (minimum 12 months): Direct supervision for at least two full working days per week, where the supervisor is directly present during treatment
- Phase 2 (12 months): Indirect supervision, subject to the supervisor’s approval and the Dental Council’s agreement
Professional Development
- Must complete 75 hours of structured continuous professional development in implant dentistry by the end of Phase 1
Practice Restrictions
- Cannot practise implantology as a sole practitioner without prior council approval
- Must work exclusively in a group practice unless authorised otherwise
- Must notify the Dental Council within seven days of any patient complaint received regarding his clinical practice or conduct
Reporting Requirements
The Systemic Failure: Seven Years of Inaction
This case raises serious questions about how a dentist could engage in such sustained misconduct over a period of more than two years before being held to account — and why it took seven years for the regulatory process to reach its conclusion.
The complaints spanned from 2019 to 2022 . Yet it was not until January 2024 that Munroe gave an undertaking not to practise pending the determination of the complaints . The Dental Council’s final decision came in May 2026, and the High Court order in July 2026 .
That is a gap of nearly seven years between the earliest complaints and the final sanction.
During that time, patients continued to suffer. Their treatments were delayed. Their records were falsified. They were lied to about cancer.
A Broader Problem
The problem is not unique to Ireland’s Dental Council. In the United Kingdom, the General Dental Council has acknowledged that fitness to practise investigations “can take too long and can feel overly complex” and that this “can negatively impact the mental health and wellbeing of those involved” .
The GDC has introduced measures to almost halve the time it takes to complete the initial stage of the process, from 30 to 16 weeks . It is also reviewing communications to ensure they are “clear and empathetic” and is looking at remediation as an approach to addressing potential issues before a case is referred to case examiners .
But in Ireland, there is no evidence of similar reforms. The Munroe case suggests that the Dental Council’s processes remain slow, opaque, and potentially harmful to the very patients they are meant to protect.
The Human Cost
Behind the legal language and the regulatory findings are seven patients who trusted a dentist with their care.
One patient, Patient E, requested her records on or around 6 May 2021. Munroe failed to provide them in a timely manner .
Another patient, Patient F, had her treatment unnecessarily prolonged through cancelled appointments between August 2020 and April 2022 .
A third patient, Patient G, was told the dentist had cancer. She was lied to .
These are not abstract regulatory breaches. They are real people who suffered real harm — financial, physical, and emotional.
Conclusion: A Betrayal of Trust
Dr Thomas Munroe took an oath to care for his patients. Instead, he lied to them, delayed their treatment, falsified their records, and invented a cancer diagnosis to avoid accountability.
He has now been censured, restricted, and placed under supervision. But the question remains: how did this go on for so long?
The Dental Council’s findings and the High Court’s order are a step towards accountability. But for the seven patients whose complaints sparked this investigation, justice has been slow in coming. And for the public, the case raises uncomfortable questions about whether the regulatory system is fit for purpose.
Watchdog Witness will continue to track cases of professional misconduct. If you have been affected by the conduct of a healthcare professional, we want to hear from you.
Sources and Citations
- Dental Council of Ireland – Dr Thomas Munroe (Registration number 2202) – Website Notice (July 2026)
- Nature – “Welcome feedback” – Letter from Theresa Thorp, Executive Director of Regulation, General Dental Council (2026)
- The Irish Times – “Dentist who falsely claimed he had cancer after patients made complaints is censured” (July 28, 2026)
- QanoMed – Milltown Dental Clinic Reviews
- Dental Council of Ireland – Notices Archive (January 2024)
- Dental Council of Ireland – Dr Thomas Munroe notice (January 17, 2024)
- Irish Statute Book – Dentists Act 1985, Section 40
- ClinicBooking – Milltown Dental Clinic Reviews
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court records, Dental Council findings, and reports from reputable news outlets. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice and is provided for informational and journalistic purposes only. Watchdog Witness does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information presented and accepts no liability for any errors or omissions. This article may be updated as further information becomes available.
Comment
Participate in discussion, add context, and respond to this report.
Tips and Evidence
Submit verified tips, supporting evidence, or additional intelligence.
Corrections
Request factual corrections or submit verifiable updates for this report.
Watchdog Witness will continue to track this case and others like it.
Should you wish to request the removal of this article, we will consider legitimate and lawful grounds for doing so, in accordance with our editorial policy and data protection obligations. If you have information about this story — a tip-off, new evidence, or a correction — we want to hear from you. Your identity will be protected. If you believe any detail in this article is inaccurate, please contact us with your evidence, and we will review it promptly.
Contact us or share your story — your voice matters. — [contact us or share your story]. Email us at watchdogwitness@proton.me
About The Author
