Anyone else getting butthurt at Physical Therapists saying they are "doctors"

[Deecee2DO]

But it's not quackery.

These chiros are practicing quackery yes. You can't call the entire profession quackery. There are good and bad apples in every profession

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

These chiros are practicing quackery yes. You can't call the entire profession quackery. There are good and bad apples in every profession

Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine of bonesetting,[4] and as it evolved it incorporated vitalism, spiritual inspiration and rationalism.[29] Its early philosophy was based on deduction from irrefutable doctrine, which helped distinguish chiropractic from medicine, provided it with legal and political defenses against claims of practicing medicine without a license, and allowed chiropractors to establish themselves as an autonomous profession.[29] This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method,[29] and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science.[30] However, most practitioners tend to incorporate scientific research into chiropractic,[29] and most practitioners are "mixers" who attempt to combine the materialistic reductionism of science with the metaphysics of their predecessors and with the holistic paradigm of wellness.[30] A 2008 commentary proposed that chiropractic actively divorce itself from the straight philosophy as part of a campaign to eliminate untestable dogma and engage in critical thinking and evidence-based research.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_note-Murphy-pod-31

Sure sounds like quackery to me.

 

[libertyyne]

These chiros are practicing quackery yes. You can't call the entire profession quackery. There are good and bad apples in every profession

"Hill's criteria are the most commonly used epidemiologic model for suggesting a causal link for any diagnostic or treatment approach. There is a significant lack of evidence in the literature to fulfill Hill's criteria of causation with regards to the chiropractic subluxation. No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability"
https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1746-1340-17-13?site=chiromt.biomedcentral.com

 

[de Ribas]

Cant wait till we go over energy fields that are better than MRI's for diagnosing, There is an M2 class on that right?

Cant wait to refer all my concussion patients

Oh hearing loss

What is that gun for in the first video? is she a chiropractor? What is she doing with her hands over that lady's head?

 

[libertyyne]

What is that gun for in the first video? is she a chiropractor? What is she doing with her hands over that lady's head?

The second video explains what she is doing with the hands. It's called koren specific technic. It is special.

 

[Deecee2DO]

Sure sounds like quackery to me.

Are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source right now. LMAO

 

[Deecee2DO]

The problem is these things are not rare, I can find you hundreds of these guys. This is one example of a "Doctor" (Chiropractor) that is attacking oncologists and claims to know the cure of breast cancer. Guess what, she's selling the real preventative stuff.

https://breastcancerconqueror.com/ - her website

https://breastcancerconqueror.com/about/7-essentials/ - where she sells the essentials that prevent breast cancer.

I'm not interested in antagonizing you, I am sure you're a great person. But you're going to be a DO. The fact is too many chiropractors practice far beyond their scope of practice. They pretend to have the cure for diseases using overpriced snake oil. The governing body behind chiropractors clearly has not taken enough initiative to fight this transgression and that is why it has become a chiropractic problem. It is no longer just "a few chiropractors here and there." I can send you dozens doing the same stuff as the "doctor" does above. The ACA doesn't seem to give a **** about these quacks. If they did, they would not be practicing with such huge followings.

Drop the support for the DCs until the governing body behind chiropractors, the ACA, makes serious moves in revoking the quacks' licenses. Because that is clearly not happening, chiropractoric philosophy does not deserve the respect of the medical profession.

Well thank God im going to be a DO. I guess I just get frustrated because there are many chiros that I know (mostly likely because I was one so I know more than you personally not attacking you just stating facts) and I see how they practice (non-surgical MSK based chiros that work in multi-disciplinary practices with MD/DOs etc) and they are phenomenal clinicians that do NOT practice quackery. But, there are also a lot of quacks that soil the whole profession too like you said, so I just like giving the ones that aren't quacks the respect they deserve since I lived it (I was not a quack, I worked in multi-disciplinary practices just hated MSK and my passion lies more in IM and systemic disorders which is one of the reasons why Im attending medical school). I don't want to argue anymore were going to be colleagues one day.

 

[de Ribas]

Im not going to let it go with chiro, when people make up BS about a profession they know nothing about.

wth do you know about chiro anyway. Slim to nothing.

I guess you were right I didn't know much about chiropractors. I really didn't. I never been to one. After seeing these videos, I don't think I will get close to one of their offices for sure.

For some reason I had a better opinion about chiropractors. I thoughr they practice medicine and evidence-based practices. I thought chiros just manipulate muscles and skeleton to help relief pain in some ways and place some bones back in place. But treating ear infections and all that energy B.S. and what I have see in those videos is just something.

 

[Deecee2DO]

I guess you were right I didn't know much about chiropractors. I really didn't. I never been to one. After seeing these videos, I don't think I will get close to one of their office for sure.

For some reason I had a better opinion about chiropractors. I though they practice medicine and everyone based practices. I thought chiros just manipulate muscles and skeleton to help relief pain in some ways and place some bones back in place. But treating ear infections and all that energy B.S. and what I have see in those videos is just something.

Those are the ones you really need to stay away from. You are correct. There are good and bad apples in every profession. Seeing those videos makes me so frustrated with what could be a much better profession than it is, but sadly it won't change anytime soon, which is one of the reasons why I have decided to become a medical doctor instead. Gosh, some of the people in chiro are just so ridiculous (like the ones in those videos), but it stinks because I know some really good chiros, personally, that practice in multi-disciplinary clinics with a strong evidence based MSK approach and then they get clumped in with the bad ones smh such a shame. Whatever, it is what it is.

 

[de Ribas]

Those are the ones you really need to stay away from. You are correct. There are good and bad apples in every profession. Seeing those videos makes me so frustrated with what could be a much better profession than it is, but sadly it won't change anytime soon, which is one of the reasons why I have decided to become a medical doctor instead. Gosh, some of the people in chiro are just so ridiculous (like the ones in those videos), but it stinks because I know some really good chiros that practice in multi-disciplinary clinics with a strong evidence based MSK approach and then they get clumped in with the bad ones smh such a shame. Whatever, it is what it is.

I think you made a good move and I wish you luck and all the best on your path of becoming DO.

 

[Deecee2DO]

I think you made a good move and I wish you luck and all the best on your path of becoming DO.

Thank you, you as well as a DPM. Good luck

 

[freak7]

One of the many reasons I have left and will never be back

*rimshot*

 

[Deecee2DO]

"Hill's criteria are the most commonly used epidemiologic model for suggesting a causal link for any diagnostic or treatment approach. There is a significant lack of evidence in the literature to fulfill Hill's criteria of causation with regards to the chiropractic subluxation. No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability"
https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1746-1340-17-13?site=chiromt.biomedcentral.com

Any clinically competent chiro knows that subluxation complex doesn't exist and it is all witchcraft. This sort of stuff is only taught at some schools, but when I was in practice I wouldn't be caught dead preaching this stuff and when I did hear chiros say this I would be the first to outwardly question their theory and where they got their evidence. Subluxation theory is very old school stuff. Subluxations A. Don't exist (hate when chiros call it that), B. a malalignment of your spine doesn't contribute to systemic disease thats just ridiculuous and it is sad that some chiros preach this crap. This bone on nerve stuff inhibiting "flow" to organs is a load of BS. What is true is that extra and intra articular adhesions develop within the joint capsules and in muscle. These adhesions stimulate a local inflammatory response and can prevent tissue mobility and lead to pain. Mobilization of these joint complexes can improve mobility and address adhesion formation which restricts mobility and perpetuates inflammation. Joint mobilization also facilitates mechanotransduction at the cellular level which effects chondrocyte expression and has implications in cartilage integrity and proteolytic enzyme activity (balance between matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitor metalloproteinases). In combination with rehab, joint mobilization/manipulation is effective in contributing to comprehensive approach to low back rehab/Tx for chronic/acute low back complaints. Many chiros now practice using mobilization PT modalities, myofascial release, gait analysis/correction, and rehab. This approach, however, is not quackery. When PTs, DCs, MD/DOs, DPMs work collaboratively with a patient for their low back and non-surgical musculoskeletal complaints it can be very beneficial in providing comprehensive care to a patient in pain. Sometimes, these conservative treatments can be a more cost-effective and lower risk treatment option for low back complaints before immediately resorting to surgical intervention. Surgery does have it's benefits once conservative care options have been exhausted and surgery is required (many times surgery is in fact the best option immediately). There are successful microdiscectomies, laminectomies and fusions but there are downsides like infection, clotting, hemorrhage, nerve damage etc and fusions can accelerate the degenerative process above and below the sectional fusion, which can further exacerbate what is known as failed back surgery syndrome. Like I said surgery can be the best option many times and I am thankful for the competent surgeons that do operate on these patients, however, if a patient can successfully avoid surgery or surgery is not necessary we can rely on conservative care options.

 

[Saifa]

Are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source right now. LMAO

I'm happy you're going to medical school. Just want to add Wikipedia is a great reference, you can verify all the information by following the sources at the bottom of the article and evaluating their quality. They usually link to peer-reviewed articles or other primary sources.

For example, the claims made in that passage come largely from The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management and Principles and Practice of Chiropractic. They even give page numbers!

 

[libertyyne]

Are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source right now. LMAO

This is a few years old. But still makes a point.
The prevalence of the term subluxation in North American English-Language Doctor of chiropractic programs

"The concept of the subluxation in chiropractic is a controversial subject with a paucity of evidence. With the exception of three schools, all English-language DCPs in North America mention the concept of the subluxation either in course titles or descriptions and/or in their respective missions. Despite the lack of evidence for the subluxation construct, it appears to be very much a key part of chiropractic education.

Some schools may state that they are not subluxation-focused or heavily engaged in the teaching of subluxation. Nonetheless, most schools continue to teach about the subluxation in what seems to be more than just a historical context. We believe that this puts the profession in an awkward position because the skeptic and/or critic of subluxation can point to chiropractic education as outdated and unscientific. Chiropractic education will have to address this issue if the chiropractic educational enterprise wishes to become scientifically competitive with other healthcare sciences and produce graduates who are critical thinkers prepared as the evidence changes to change their practice and throughout their careers. Future research should determine if changes in regulation and research change the prevalence of the use of the term subluxation in chiropractic curricula."
Here is a survey of what DCs offer in their practices

Might i point out to the modalities provided section which includes things like homeopathy, laser therapy.
Furthermore,

"There exists one large survey of the attitudes of chiropractors towards vaccination. Colley and Haas35conducted a mail survey of randomly selected American chiropractors. Despite the fact the validity of the study suffered from a very low response rate (36%), and the sample size represented less than 1% of all chiropractors in the United States, the researchers reported roughly one-third of the 171 respondents believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease, that immunization has substantially changed the incidence of infectious diseases that immunization causes more disease than it prevents and that contacting a disease is in fact safer than being immunized against it.35

A study by Evans et al36 surveyed a random sample of chiropractors’ website that purportedly discussed ‘wellness’. Sixteen of these websites (34%) contained anti-vaccination information, and these same websites were the ones to most often mention ‘innate’, ‘subluxation’ and ‘spinal pain’ as well. This led the authors to conclude that many of these websites contained ‘useless’ information that would not help a person maintain good health.

Page and colleagues37 explored how chiropractors in Alberta brought up the topic of immunization with their patients using a set of interview questions. They reported the discussion typically was initiated after a media report of some kind, as the result of reading material left in the chiropractor’s waiting room or after a patient’s perceived adverse reaction to a vaccine. The discussion could also be initiated by chiropractors if they were seeing the children of patients. The researchers reported some chiropractors used this as an opportunity to provide anti-vaccination information and material, and that much of the waiting room material had an anti-immunization slant. The same group of researchers then asked whether these Albertan chiropractors felt prepared to discuss immunization with their patients.38 Of the 503 Albertan chiropractors surveyed, only 45% felt their chiropractic education adequately prepared them to counsel patients on the topic of immunization. Despite this, 72% of respondents indicated they felt adequately prepared to counsel their patients on immunization.

Medd and Russell39 conducted a secondary analysis of the study by Injeyan et al38 cited above. Medd and Russell39 reported that, while over 90% of the chiropractors interviewed were themselves immunized, only 35.7% of them would accept to be immunized in the future. Furthermore, only 66% of respondents had immunized their children and only 21% would refer patients for possible immunization. Russell et al40reported that 41% of chiropractors felt immunizations were safe, that 60% felt immunization should never be given to children under the age of 1, that 30% felt they should never be provided to the elderly and 27% of them advised their patients “against having themselves/their children immunized”. Finally, a recent study by Downey et al41 reported that children were significantly less likely to receive all four recommended vaccinations if they saw a naturopathic doctor and significantly less likely to receive three of the four recommended vaccinations if they saw a chiropractor.

That all having been said, Russell et al42 subsequently reported 60% of Albertan chiropractors would be interested in participating in community immunization awareness programs. Lastly, in contrast to aforementioned studies, studies by Davis and Smith 43 and Smith and David44 reported that chiropractic patients were no less likely to be vaccinated for the seasonal influenza flu than were non-chiropractic patients, although they also reported that chiropractic users were significantly less likely than non-users to use the pneumococcal vaccine. A study by Stokley et al45 described vaccination coverage among patients according to their use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and found vaccination coverage levels were actually higher among recent CAM users compared to non-CAM users."
On Vaccination & Chiropractic: when ideology, history, perception, politics and jurisprudence collide

When a large portion of the profession is antivax, when a good chuck uses hemeopathy, when educational institutions continue to teach subluxations. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....


Disgraced former physician Andrew Wakefield is keynote speaker at upcoming chiropractic "pediatrics" conference
Anti-vaccine leader tells parents to fight immunization bill
The MMR Vaccine and Autism: An Interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield - American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic - Chiropractic BioPhysics, American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic

I will leave you with this gem


I am not sure what your level of understanding of the field was going in, or what it was in leaving but I am glad you did leave.

 

[Deecee2DO]

This is a few years old. But still makes a point.
The prevalence of the term subluxation in North American English-Language Doctor of chiropractic programs

"The concept of the subluxation in chiropractic is a controversial subject with a paucity of evidence. With the exception of three schools, all English-language DCPs in North America mention the concept of the subluxation either in course titles or descriptions and/or in their respective missions. Despite the lack of evidence for the subluxation construct, it appears to be very much a key part of chiropractic education.

Some schools may state that they are not subluxation-focused or heavily engaged in the teaching of subluxation. Nonetheless, most schools continue to teach about the subluxation in what seems to be more than just a historical context. We believe that this puts the profession in an awkward position because the skeptic and/or critic of subluxation can point to chiropractic education as outdated and unscientific. Chiropractic education will have to address this issue if the chiropractic educational enterprise wishes to become scientifically competitive with other healthcare sciences and produce graduates who are critical thinkers prepared as the evidence changes to change their practice and throughout their careers. Future research should determine if changes in regulation and research change the prevalence of the use of the term subluxation in chiropractic curricula."
Here is a survey of what DCs offer in their practices

Might i point out to the modalities provided section which includes things like homeopathy, laser therapy.
Furthermore,

"There exists one large survey of the attitudes of chiropractors towards vaccination. Colley and Haas35conducted a mail survey of randomly selected American chiropractors. Despite the fact the validity of the study suffered from a very low response rate (36%), and the sample size represented less than 1% of all chiropractors in the United States, the researchers reported roughly one-third of the 171 respondents believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease, that immunization has substantially changed the incidence of infectious diseases that immunization causes more disease than it prevents and that contacting a disease is in fact safer than being immunized against it.35

A study by Evans et al36 surveyed a random sample of chiropractors’ website that purportedly discussed ‘wellness’. Sixteen of these websites (34%) contained anti-vaccination information, and these same websites were the ones to most often mention ‘innate’, ‘subluxation’ and ‘spinal pain’ as well. This led the authors to conclude that many of these websites contained ‘useless’ information that would not help a person maintain good health.

Page and colleagues37 explored how chiropractors in Alberta brought up the topic of immunization with their patients using a set of interview questions. They reported the discussion typically was initiated after a media report of some kind, as the result of reading material left in the chiropractor’s waiting room or after a patient’s perceived adverse reaction to a vaccine. The discussion could also be initiated by chiropractors if they were seeing the children of patients. The researchers reported some chiropractors used this as an opportunity to provide anti-vaccination information and material, and that much of the waiting room material had an anti-immunization slant. The same group of researchers then asked whether these Albertan chiropractors felt prepared to discuss immunization with their patients.38 Of the 503 Albertan chiropractors surveyed, only 45% felt their chiropractic education adequately prepared them to counsel patients on the topic of immunization. Despite this, 72% of respondents indicated they felt adequately prepared to counsel their patients on immunization.

Medd and Russell39 conducted a secondary analysis of the study by Injeyan et al38 cited above. Medd and Russell39 reported that, while over 90% of the chiropractors interviewed were themselves immunized, only 35.7% of them would accept to be immunized in the future. Furthermore, only 66% of respondents had immunized their children and only 21% would refer patients for possible immunization. Russell et al40reported that 41% of chiropractors felt immunizations were safe, that 60% felt immunization should never be given to children under the age of 1, that 30% felt they should never be provided to the elderly and 27% of them advised their patients “against having themselves/their children immunized”. Finally, a recent study by Downey et al41 reported that children were significantly less likely to receive all four recommended vaccinations if they saw a naturopathic doctor and significantly less likely to receive three of the four recommended vaccinations if they saw a chiropractor.

That all having been said, Russell et al42 subsequently reported 60% of Albertan chiropractors would be interested in participating in community immunization awareness programs. Lastly, in contrast to aforementioned studies, studies by Davis and Smith 43 and Smith and David44 reported that chiropractic patients were no less likely to be vaccinated for the seasonal influenza flu than were non-chiropractic patients, although they also reported that chiropractic users were significantly less likely than non-users to use the pneumococcal vaccine. A study by Stokley et al45 described vaccination coverage among patients according to their use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and found vaccination coverage levels were actually higher among recent CAM users compared to non-CAM users."
On Vaccination & Chiropractic: when ideology, history, perception, politics and jurisprudence collide

When a large portion of the profession is antivax, when a good chuck uses hemeopathy, when educational institutions continue to teach subluxations. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....


Disgraced former physician Andrew Wakefield is keynote speaker at upcoming chiropractic "pediatrics" conference
Anti-vaccine leader tells parents to fight immunization bill
The MMR Vaccine and Autism: An Interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield - American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic - Chiropractic BioPhysics, American Journal of Clinical Chiropractic

I will leave you with this gem

Did you read my response to your previous post to this one? What does anti-vax have to do with this? The validity of these studies you are citing is poor. Unless it is a systematic review, meta-analysis the validity goes down considerably here. The sample sizes are small as well and surveys were used. If you would just read my post to your previous comment you are missing my point. There are two different schools of chiro (straight schools like Life University (3 campuses), Palmer (3 campuses), Sherman, Dyouville etc that preach witchcraft subluxation complex and anti-vax) and there are schools that have more medical curricula (Logan, NYCC, Northwestern, Western States, National in Chicago). This divide is why chiropractic will never be anything, which is why I am attending medical school. The guys preaching subluxation ruin everything and they lead to posts like yours and soil the profession and contribute to hatred by the medical profession. My post explains that not ALL chiros practice this nonsense and if you would read it and take heed to my knowledge in this regard you may decide to be more open to learning more about a sector of the profession that doesn't get recognized. I gave up as a chiropractor not only because I don't like MSK but because chiropractic will never go anywhere and will be a dying profession unless it is changed. You don't know because you haven't lived it. I have lived it. DO schools also teach the old philosophy of AT still OMT and how the blood, lymphatic and nervous systems are affected because they are required to (I understand that this is still only a small portion of the curriculum). This doesn't mean that all DOs believe it. But it is part of the roots so it is taught, just like the old philosophy is still taught in some chiro schools, however, you need to recognize the other parts of the curriculum which make up the majority. In both DO and DC curricula, philosophy is a small portion of the curriculum. If you look at the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) this is referenced on the front page "Another integral tenet of osteopathic medicine is the body’s innate ability to heal itself. Many of osteopathic medicine’s manipulative techniques are aimed at reducing or eliminating the impediments to proper structure and function so the self-healing mechanism can assume its role in restoring a person to health." However, I know that that is not a major portion of the profession, but it does refer back to osteopathic medicine's roots so they have kept it there (whether DOs believe it or not). Look at Northwestern's chiro curriculum there is zero reference to bone setting or subluxations if you would read the courses. I used the same texts as my medical school friends when I was in chiro school and my professors were MDs and DOs who also taught at medical schools. I am NOT however comparing the two and saying that chiro school is medical school, so please don't think this.
Curriculum Outline - College of Chiropractic - Northwestern

 

[libertyyne]

Did you read my response to your previous post to this one? What does anti-vax have to do with this? The validity of these studies you are citing is poor. Unless it is a systematic review, meta-analysis the validity goes down considerably here. The sample sizes are small as well and surveys were used. If you would just read my post to your previous comment you are missing my point. There are two different schools of chiro (straight schools like Life University (3 campuses), Palmer (3 campuses), Sherman, Dyouville etc that preach witchcraft subluxation complex and anti-vax) and there are schools that have more medical curricula (Logan, NYCC, Northwestern, Western States, National in Chicago). This divide is why chiropractic will never be anything, which is why I am attending medical school. The guys preaching subluxation ruin everything and they lead to posts like yours and soil the profession and contribute to hatred by the medical profession. My post explains that not ALL chiros practice this nonsense and if you would read it and take heed to my knowledge in this regard you may decide to be more open to learning more about a sector of the profession that doesn't get recognized. I gave up as a chiropractor not only because I don't like MSK but because chiropractic will never go anywhere and will be a dying profession unless it is changed. You don't know because you haven't lived it. I have lived it.

I read your response which was lacking in any citations. and even if anything you said was true there are still no studies indicating that what chiro's do is better than what PT or standard of care could accomplish. The studies I cited gave you clear evidence of continued reliance on subluxations at chiro schools. I am open about learning about other professions. However , I am not going to call something science based when it clearly is not. If you set out to change people's minds about chiropractors i think this is probably the wrong audience, but everything I read makes me even more concerned that anyone would be taking medical advice from a chiropractor.

What is the point of chiropractors if all they are doing is physical therapy? wouldn't I just send my patient to a physical therapist? And I am not promoting back surgeries. I am just confused to what value a DC would bring to the table.

1 out of 10 chiros provide homeopathic services
1 / 5 - 1/3 chiros are antivax.
That is crazy. I havent even started looking at electrotherapy, or laser therapies that they offer. If a good chunk of practitioners are doing treatments with no scientific grounding in what they are doing or if there is no efficacy studies in what they are doing .... it sounds like there is a lot of talking like quacks, acting like quacks, must be....

 

[21Rush12]

More importantly, where did they get the average MD salary from?

 

[Deecee2DO]

More importantly, where did they get the average MD salary from?

I was wondering the same thing lmao. More like $~200K+ if you include all specialties from peds to ortho/derm etc

 

[21Rush12]

Probably asked 10 residents and 2 attendings

 

[libertyyne]

More importantly, where did they get the average MD salary from?

I was wondering the same thing lmao. More like $~200K+ if you include all specialties from peds to ortho/derm etc

I think that is the salary for DO/MD employed by a chiro practice.

 

[Deecee2DO]

I think that is the salary for DO/MD employed by a chiro practice.

Makes more sense

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source right now. LMAO

That's your defense? Really?

Aside from the ridiculousness of saying, "lulz wikipedia suxors," as your refutation, you realize there are sources used in that wikipedia article (which is presumably written or at least edited by a DC), and that those sources are publications like Principles and Practice of Chiropractic, right?

 

[Wilf]

So you technically could call yourself Dr whatever with a JD, but every lawyer will call you a pretentious d bag.

In my opinion, JD>DNP, OD, DPT, AuD, etc. Too bad culture did not make it "d bag" for them to use the title.

 

[Deecee2DO]

In my opinion, JD>DNP, OD, DPT, AuD, etc. Too bad culture did not make it "d bag" for them to use the title.

Lol how can you compare JD with these other degrees? they are completely different professions, im guessing this is a joke or something haha. IMO it goes MD>DO>>>DDS>DPM>OD>Caribbean MD>DPT/DNP/PA

 

[libertyyne]

 

[911 Turbo]

who cares

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

Lol how can you compare JD with these other degrees? they are completely different professions, im guessing this is a joke or something haha. IMO it goes MD>DO>>>DDS>DPM>OD>Caribbean MD>DPT/DNP/PA

CRNAs are doctors ad well or at least soon will be moving to a universal doctorate degree. I would rank them around DO and DDS. And as I'm typing this I just realized why even bother.

 

[Deecee2DO]

CRNAs are doctors ad well or at least soon will be moving to a universal doctorate degree. I would rank them around DO and DDS. And as I'm typing this I just realized why even bother.

Never heard that. That is interesting. You would rank them around a DO?

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

Never heard that. That is interesting. You would rank them around a DO?

Lower, I guess around DDS. I've seen them at work and they are there for the entire surgery. I don't know how to rank them but I'd say there around there

 

[Deecee2DO]

Lower, I guess around DDS. I've seen them at work and they are there for the entire surgery. I don't know how to rank them but I'd say there around there

above a podiatric foot and ankle surgeon? still very interesting. I don't have much knowledge about CRNAs but it seems hard to believe everyone has their own opinions however

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

above a podiatric foot and ankle surgeon? still very interesting. I don't have much knowledge about CRNAs but it seems hard to believe everyone has their own opinions however

I don't know about podiatry. Def around DDS. CRNAs provides anesthetics to patients throughout the surgery. I think in terms of responsibility they have a bigger responsibly than a DDS. Life or death we're taking about here. IDK man I'm just saying there underrated

 

[libertyyne]

I don't know about podiatry. Def around DDS. CRNAs provides anesthetics to patients throughout the surgery. I think in terms of responsibility they have a bigger responsibly than a DDS. Life or death we're taking about here. IDK man I'm just saying there underrated

It's because they practice under physicians in most states, and tend to take the less complicated patients. i have also seen them freak out and run to get the nearest anasthesia doc anytime anything goes wrong.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

It's because they practice under physicians in most states, and tend to take the less complicated patients. i have also seen them freak out and run to get the nearest anasthesia doc anytime anything goes wrong.

Well, that proves my point they are freaking out because of the amount of responsibility they have. Everyone freaks out, physicians, dentists, nurses, etc

 

[libertyyne]

Well, that proves my point they are freaking out because of the amount of responsibility they have. Everyone freaks out, physicians, dentists, nurses, etc

They are freaking out because their training is inadequate. But hey, if you think it is awesome more power to you.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

They are freaking out because their training is inadequate. But hey, if you think it is awesome more power to you.

That one person* was possibly freaking out due to many confounding factors. Maybe recent graduate, lack of experience, hadn't known the role of a CRNA, nervous etc. Obviously, a physician specialized in that department is trained better & superior and often supervises CRNAs, but this a support role and yes I do think it's pretty solid gig. From your tone you should probably stop generalizing a certain profession because of one incident you encountered. Just as in any profession there are people who thrive and those who fall short.

Have a good day.

 

[Saifa]

this a support role and yes I do think it's pretty solid gig. From your tone you should probably stop generalizing a certain profession because of one incident you encountered.

He's probably replying to your assertion that a CRNA has a broader and deeper knowledge base than a dentist. Apples to oranges sort of, but that's patently incorrect. Dentists are the foremost experts in their field, CRNAs are technicians.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

He's probably replying to your assertion that a CRNA has a broader and deeper knowledge base than a dentist. Apples to oranges sort of, but that's patently incorrect. Dentists are the foremost experts in their field, CRNAs are technicians.

Well, I never explicitly said that nor meant to say that. I said "I think in terms of responsibility they have a bigger responsibly than a DDS."

 

[libertyyne]

That one person* was possibly freaking out due to many confounding factors. Maybe recent graduate, lack of experience, hadn't known the role of a CRNA, nervous etc. Obviously, a physician specialized in that department is trained better & superior and often supervises CRNAs, but this a support role and yes I do think it's pretty solid gig. From your tone you should probably stop generalizing a certain profession because of one incident you encountered. Just as in any profession there are people who thrive and those who fall short.

Have a good day.

That one person had over 10 years of experience. I never said it wasn't a solid gig for the training, but too often people like to equate these programs as having parity with physician training. Which as you yourself have indicated is incorrect. If my family or friends are going under, I know who I would want taking care of them .

Everyone wants to play physician , no one wants to go to medical school.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

That one person* was possibly freaking out due to many confounding factors. Maybe recent graduate, lack of experience, hadn't known the role of a CRNA, nervous etc. Obviously, a physician specialized in that department is trained better & superior and often supervises CRNAs, but this a support role and yes I do think it's pretty solid gig. From your tone you should probably stop generalizing a certain profession because of one incident you encountered. Just as in any profession there are people who thrive and those who fall short.

Have a good day.

Have you worked around CRNAs? I have. For 7 years. They are fine in simple cases. They can be good help in more complex ones. When SHTF, they immediately call the MD/DO in to bail them out because they do not have the level of training necessary to handle complex patients or doodoo.

The first rapid response I saw in the OR was an extremely simple MAC case, and the CRNA put him way too deep and then couldn’t intubate. Thank God the MD was close by.

Also, they are doctors like Dr. Pepper is a doctor.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

That one person had over 10 years of experience. I never said it wasn't a solid gig for the training, but too often people like to equate these programs as having parity with physician training. Which as you yourself have indicated is incorrect. If my family or friends are going under, I know who I would want taking care of them .

Everyone wants to play physician , no one wants to go to medical school.

I get it. I'm in no way saying they are physicians, I'm not someone who thinks they are even close to the same level. I 100% agree with you.

However, just like some anesthesiologists have said "You can't be mad at them for being smarter". Obviously, not smart in term of academics but smart as in took the easy road and getting paid decently. Med school would be great, but not everyone can devote that time and effort. Like people have said it is a calling, and if you can tolerate the stress and demand then pursue medicine, but some people don't want to live like that. Some people like and want to help others but also want balance & have there own life, and modern medicine makes it very difficult to have a balanced life. So, you can't be mad at someone pursing a career in healthcare but choose not to be a physician. Unless they think they are on the same level as a physician and have no respect or awareness, then by all means i.e. some sassy nurses

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So, you can't be mad at someone pursing a career in healthcare but choose not to be a physician.

No one is saying this. The argument is that nurses and others are trying to use the term “doctor” in an effort to get the “respect” of being a doctor without going to med school. There are myriad reasons why this isn’t okay.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

No one is saying this. The argument is that nurses and others are trying to use the term “doctor” in an effort to get the “respect” of being a doctor without going to med school. There are myriad reasons why this isn’t okay.

You do realize anyone with a doctorate degree is considered a doctor? If that upsets you then direct your anger to people who received there PhD studying trees. Also, I already said something regarded what you just said when I said "Unless they think they are on the same level as a physician and have no respect or awareness, then by all means i.e. some sassy nurses". Obviously, that isn't right. So, what are we arguing about?

So many professions have doctorate degrees now, so you can only be mad at someone saying they are doctor to make someone believe they went to med school or of the sort. My point is when someone says they're a doctor without any context, so people think they are a physician, it is wrong and they should be ridiculed for it. I'm not mad about all the doctorate degrees because it's not going to change and so many fields already have them. Just get over it.

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

Also, if I get a job where I feel like I'm helping others and myself and get a decent wage out of it then I'm set. I don't care about titles. Of course, it's a noble title but when your flaunting it around, it just becomes less noble and loses its value. So, this whole thread, in my opinion, is so stupid. Who cares? You studied hard for a decade and put your life into it to become educated and make an impact on someone's life, not to flaunt the title of "Dr." around. That's whats wrong with so many people in healthcare right now, in it for the wrong reasons. If I was a doctor and I overheard a physical therapist say they are a doctor - guess what? I'm going to move on with my life because why would I even care? I didn't go into medicine for the title, so it wouldn't bother me, it's just an added benefit.

You may agree or disagree, I think most people would disagree because most people are doing medicine for the respect & money these days. It is what it is. Just my opinion and the way I've seen things.

 

[libertyyne]

You do realize anyone with a doctorate degree is considered a doctor? If that upsets you then direct your anger to people who received there PhD studying trees. Also, I already said something regarded what you just said when I said "Unless they think they are on the same level as a physician and have no respect or awareness, then by all means i.e. some sassy nurses". Obviously, that isn't right. So, what are we arguing about?

So many professions have doctorate degrees now, so you can only be mad at someone saying they are doctor to make someone believe they went to med school or of the sort. My point is when someone says they're a doctor without any context, so people think they are a physician, is wrong and they should be ridiculed for it. I'm not mad about all the doctorate degrees because it's not going to change and so many fields already have them. Just get over it.

The whole purpose of these doctorate degree's is to give the ilusion of parity in training. If you get introduced to a person who says Hi I am Dr.X in a hospital do you assume the are an MD/DO or a DNP or DPT or PHD holder in zoology. The whole purpose of this even according to their accrediting body is show parity in terms of education.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) > Doctor of Nursing Practice
accp

Thats why I said. Lots of people want to play physican , not many of them want to go through medical school to do so.


They can call themselves the queen of sealand or what ever they desire outside of clinical settings.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You do realize anyone with a doctorate degree is considered a doctor? If that upsets you then direct your anger to people who received there PhD studying trees. Also, I already said something regarded what you just said when I said "Unless they think they are on the same level as a physician and have no respect or awareness, then by all means i.e. some sassy nurses". Obviously, that isn't right. So, what are we arguing about?

You don’t see the difference between a PhD in botany calling themself doctor at a university and a DNP calling themself doctor in a hospital to patients? Because that’s what we are talking about.

So many professions have doctorate degrees now, so you can only be mad at someone saying they are doctor to make someone believe they went to med school or of the sort. My point is when someone says they're a doctor without any context, so people think they are a physician, it is wrong and they should be ridiculed for it. I'm not mad about all the doctorate degrees because it's not going to change and so many fields already have them. Just get over it.

The only people who need to get over anything are the nurses who are so desperate to be called doctor by patients that they are willing to confuse them and potentially mislead them. You didn’t go to med school. You are not a physician. Get over it.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

A person with a doctorate degree is not a “doctor.” In modern terms, a person who says they are a doctor is assumed by most of society to be a physician. JDs have a doctorate, but if they called themselves doctors (of law), they’d be laughed at. It is deceptive and people are doing it because they want the prestige of being mistaken for a physician, without undergoing the brutal training it takes to actually become one. End of story.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Veni vidi vicii]

You don’t see the difference between a PhD in botany calling themself doctor at a university and a DNP calling themself doctor in a hospital to patients? Because that’s what we are talking about.



The only people who need to get over anything are the nurses who are so desperate to be called doctor by patients that they are willing to confuse them and potentially mislead them. You didn’t go to med school. You are not a physician. Get over it.

Well, technically DNP is a doctor, just not a physician. If you read what I said before it's only wrong when they mislead patients to believe they are a physician. Hey I'm a doctor nurse practitioner, they can say something like that I wouldn't be mad (although I would just prefer nurse practitioner). Saying hey I'm a doctor, is obviously wrong since its "slang" for physician.

However, I agree with @OrthoTraumaMD and you as well now a days doctor means physician and people should have the awareness of that fact. A physical therapist should call themselves a physical therapist not a doctor, a PhD should call himself a professor/researcher and not a doctor. A nurse practitioner should call themselves a nurse practitioner and not a doctor, I'm just saying technically they are "doctors".

 

[gyngyn]

You do realize anyone with a doctorate degree is considered a doctor?

Whereas anyone with a doctorate can be called "doctor" in any non-clinical setting, calling non-physicians Doctor in a hospital or clinic gives patients misinformation. In many clinical settings (including mine) calling anyone who is not an MD, or DO (or dentist) by this honorific is strictly against policy.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Well, technically DNP is a doctor, just not a physician. If you read what I said before it's only wrong when they mislead patients to believe they are a physician. Hey I'm a doctor nurse practitioner, they can say something like that I wouldn't be mad (although I would just prefer nurse practitioner). Saying hey I'm a doctor, is obviously wrong since its "slang" for physician.

As I said before, anyone with a doctorate may refer to themselves as Dr. Whatever when they are in a non-clinical setting. If someone really wants to get an online doctorate so that they can make a reservation under Dr. Insecure, that's fine with me. The point of the argument is that they are trying to refer to themselves as Dr. Lastname in a CLINICAL setting. I don't care if you add "nurse practitioner" into it (i.e., Doctor of Nursing Practice Lastname), it is still dishonest. When a patient hears "Dr. Lastname," they assume they are talking with a physician. Anyone else using that title is misleading that patient.

I have no qualms with someone getting a DNP and calling themselves Dr. Whatever in the classroom or at home.

However, I agree with @OrthoTraumaMD and you as well now a days doctor means physician and people should have the awareness of that fact. A physical therapist should call themselves a physical therapist not a doctor, a PhD should call himself a professor/researcher and not a doctor. A nurse practitioner should call themselves a nurse practitioner and not a doctor, I'm just saying technically they are "doctors".

They have a doctorate and can use the honorific in a non-clinical setting. That doesn't make them doctors.