Judges up to and including the Law Lords (Supreme Court) and the Central Disciplinary Tribunal for Healthcare in the Netherlands do not consider guidelines to be optional. This offers security to patients and dental care professionals. But a field of tension can exist between, on the one hand, a patient’s right of self-determination and the dental care workers professional autonomy and, on the other, a guideline. This field of tension can be resolved by first limited testing of the acceptability of the goal of care desired by the patient, taking into consideration at the same time professional autonomy; and, subsequently, by selecting the most effective treatment for achieving this goal of care on the basis of ‘evidence’. With respect to the current definition of guidelines for clinical practice, this means that patients and healthcare workers explicitly acknowledge that they have been able to agree on a goal of care that deviates from the ideal. In this way, a judicially responsible balance is achieved between the right of self-determination and professional autonomy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the desire for evidence-based treatment and a limitation on unaccountable variation in treatment and transparency of care.