“Health Care Truth and Transparency Act of 2006

[toughlife]

”
Legislation would protect patients by preventing non-physician providers from misrepresenting their qualifications

Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) has introduced H.R. 5688, the “Health Care Truth and Transparency Act of 2006.” This legislation would strengthen FTC enforcement against limited-licensed health care providers and keep them from making deceptive misrepresentations as to their education, skills and training. It would also keep non-physicians from holding themselves out as medical doctors (MD), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DO), doctors of dental surgery (DDS) or doctors of dental medicine (DMD).

In furtherance of this new legislation, ASA was invited to join the Coalition for Healthcare Accountability, Responsibility and Transparency (CHART), a group of large national medical specialty and dental organizations dedicated to pursuing appropriate Federal legislative, regulatory and legal actions, such as support for H.R. 5688.

According to a recent survey, the vast majority of Americans—90 percent—want to know in advance of treatment if their provider is not a physician. Because of misleading statements and advertisements by some allied health professionals, however, patients are often confused about their providers’ qualifications.

CHART has documented numerous instances of non-physician healthcare providers holding themselves out to be medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, or as having their medical qualifications, leading patients to believe they are seeing a medical doctor when they are not. Further, some allied health professional educational programs claim to offer the same training as four-year medical degree programs and subsequent medical specialty training. These false claims could mislead the public and endanger public safety.

ASA believes that H.R. 5688 would significantly reduce patient confusion and safeguard the public by prohibiting the dangerous practice of some health care providers who are not medical doctors using misleading terminology to misrepresent themselves or their qualifications. Patients should be confident in their healthcare decisions without having to second-guess their providers’ credentials.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BIS]

Who ever is purposely misrepresenting themselves should be pentalized. That I agree with.

 

[SleepIsGood]

Yet another Republican

Yo Tough, is there a link on the ASA to help support this legislation? I couldnt find one.

 

[toughlife]

Yet another Republican

Yo Tough, is there a link on the ASA to help support this legislation? I couldnt find one.

Not to my knowledge. I was looking for the same as well.

 

[cloud9]

Not to my knowledge. I was looking for the same as well.

Link to the text of the bill on Govtrack.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=h109-5688

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

seems an odd bill

Why is this all the sudden important now when PT/OT/Pharm have been using doctorate preparation for years?

100% political 100% of the time. If it wasent for the skewed politics of healthcare everyone would get along much better!

 

[Monty Python]

seems an odd bill

Why is this all the sudden important now when PT/OT/Pharm have been using doctorate preparation for years?

100% political 100% of the time. If it wasent for the skewed politics of healthcare everyone would get along much better!

The above poster's avatar quote is:
I Got Yer Vector Victor

Who can recite which movie that came from? Hint: another famous line related how someone with very poor vision was treated by a "multioptic pupillotomy."

Hysterically funny movie - gives Mel Brooks a run for his money.

 

[toughlife]

seems an odd bill

Why is this all the sudden important now when PT/OT/Pharm have been using doctorate preparation for years?

100% political 100% of the time. If it wasent for the skewed politics of healthcare everyone would get along much better!

If you are not misrepresenting yourself to patients why does it bother you?

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

 

[Monty Python]

”
Legislation would protect patients by preventing non-physician providers from misrepresenting their qualifications

.

Looking at this issue strictly from historical and academic viewpoints, the word "doctor" is derived from Latin, and means "teacher of the doctrine." It is a generic term, referring to anyone who has achieved terminal status in becoming educated within their area of expertise.

Of course, the waters are muddied by modern-day Western society commonly associating the term "doctor" used anywhere and anytime (including health care settings) as referencing a physician. Another twist of modern society is using the term "doctor" strictly within professional circles for a variety of non-physician people who achieved doctorate level education and who have full authority and right to claim the title, such as PhD, ThD, JDs, PharmDs, DNPs etc etc etc.

So part of the blame for confusion can be placed on modern society's technically improper use of the lexicon.

 

[BlackScorpion]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

I think the bill wants to insure that patient's know and UNDERSTAND the difference between Physicians and non-physician providers. I don't think it's the least inflammatory to NP or DNPs or whatever doctor nurse acronyms they decide to come up with. I think the consumer/patient deserves the right to know who is treating them and what qualifications they hold. I don't see any political bias behind this bill at all.

 

[Monty Python]

I think the bill wants to insure that patient's know and UNDERSTAND the difference between Physicians and non-physician providers. I don't think it's the least inflammatory to NP or DNPs or whatever doctor nurse acronyms they decide to come up with. I think the consumer/patient deserves the right to know who is treating them and what qualifications they hold. I don't see any political bias behind this bill at all.

Of course this would be aided by everyone in hospitals wearing ID badges or name tags with their academic qualifications / degree initials prominently printed behind their name in large font.

 

[Monty Python]

Of course this would be aided by everyone in hospitals wearing ID badges or name tags with their academic qualifications / degree initials prominently printed behind their name in large font.

Or better yet (and I think this is a JCAHO issue): everyone wears an ID badge with their title spelled out below their name:

Physician
Pharmacist
Registered Nurse
Nurse Anesthetist

etc etc

 

[UTSouthwestern]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

The summary of this bill doesn't seem to target nurses. It's focus is broad and across the board for allied health providers, alternative health providers, chiropractors, etc.

Given that there have been apparently a significant number of documented incidents of misrepresentation, it seems that the existing laws/rules lack the teeth to scare some non-physician providers from misrepresenting their training.

For example, one of my friends is a neurosurgeon whose child was taken to an ER in Tampa with a leg/knee laceration, where the treating "doctor" who clearly wore a white coat with Dr. XXX XXXX, Department of Emergency Medicine, was in fact an NP, albeit an NP, Pharm D. She introduced herself as Dr. XXX XXXX. For a 5 inch laceration, she simply dabbed off the blood with a pack of 4X4's, used one small bottle of sterile water for irrigation, and applied a gauze bandage. She was going to discharge her without a tetanus shot or antibiotics, topical or otherwise. When my friend arrived in the ER, his daughter told him what the "doctor" had done, at which time my friend removed the bandage, saw that the wound was still open and filled with debris, and confronted the "doctor" who defended her choice of treatment vigorously, while not knowing my friend was a physician.

When he asked for another physician to speak to, she told him that her "supervising physician" was seeing a critically ill patient. Supervising physician? But SHE is a physician and this is not a teaching hospital. Red flags raised. He asked her point blank if she was a doctor, and she replied point blank that she was. He asked her to show him her I.D. badge and she, in his words, "confidently presented her badge which was hiding all the time in her coat with the titles NP, PharmD., Chief of Clinical NP, Department of Emergency Medicine, Tampa ********* Hospital."

At this time, my friend introduced himself fully and in his words, "she bailed out of there fast and went to get her boss." If it took that much twisting and turning for a board certified neurosurgeon to catch on that this midlevel provider was misrepresenting herself, how many times has this person been able to misrepresent herself to other less educated or less medically-oriented patients?

It apparently wasn't enough to get her more than a reprimand despite vigorous complaints by my friend for both the inappropriate treatment as well as the misrepresentation. My friend checked up with another neurosurgeon in the area who told him that this invidivual was still practicing and still wearing the coat with the badge tucked away safely inside.

Ironically enough, he received a bill for the ER visit, which included "physician charges for level 3 patient interview and patient care". He is now contemplating suing the hospital and the midlevel practitioner specifically for misrepresentation and knowing his personality, he is likely going to make this a dogfight.

That's just one specific example. I can't tell you how many times I have met chiropractors and acupuncturists in social environments who have introduced themselves with business cards or verbally as Doctor XXX, Spine and Pain Medicine Practitioner. WTF? A layperson is going to think this is a PHYSICIAN with a minimum of 12 years of higher education and possibly a fellowship in pain management or spinal surgery or sports medicine, not an acupuncturist from a 2-3 year holistic/homeopathic institute or a chiropractor from the local chiropractic school.

Designating a new level of training for midlevel providers as a "doctorate" level of training does not equalize the training and education levels to that of physicians which you seem to agree with, but the reality is that some providers have crossed the line of misrepresentation, and some do so blatantly, in writing, in advertising, in person.

 

[jetproppilot]

The summary of this bill doesn't seem to target nurses. It's focus is broad and across the board for allied health providers, alternative health providers, chiropractors, etc.

Given that there have been apparently a significant number of documented incidents of misrepresentation, it seems that the existing laws/rules lack the teeth to scare some non-physician providers from misrepresenting their training.

For example, one of my friends is a neurosurgeon whose child was taken to an ER in Tampa with a leg/knee laceration, where the treating "doctor" who clearly wore a white coat with Dr. XXX XXXX, Department of Emergency Medicine, was in fact an NP, albeit an NP, Pharm D. She introduced herself as Dr. XXX XXXX. For a 5 inch laceration, she simply dabbed off the blood with a pack of 4X4's, used one small bottle of sterile water for irrigation, and applied a gauze bandage. She was going to discharge her without a tetanus shot or antibiotics, topical or otherwise. When my friend arrived in the ER, his daughter told him what the "doctor" had done, at which time my friend removed the bandage, saw that the wound was still open and filled with debris, and confronted the "doctor" who defended her choice of treatment vigorously, while not knowing my friend was a physician.

When he asked for another physician to speak to, she told him that her "supervising physician" was seeing a critically ill patient. Supervising physician? But SHE is a physician and this is not a teaching hospital. Red flags raised. He asked her point blank if she was a doctor, and she replied point blank that she was. He asked her to show him her I.D. badge and she, in his words, "confidently presented her badge which was hiding all the time in her coat with the titles NP, PharmD., Chief of Clinical NP, Department of Emergency Medicine, Tampa ********* Hospital."

At this time, my friend introduced himself fully and in his words, "she bailed out of there fast and went to get her boss." If it took that much twisting and turning for a board certified neurosurgeon to catch on that this midlevel provider was misrepresenting herself, how many times has this person been able to misrepresent herself to other less educated or less medically-oriented patients?

It apparently wasn't enough to get her more than a reprimand despite vigorous complaints by my friend for both the inappropriate treatment as well as the misrepresentation. My friend checked up with another neurosurgeon in the area who told him that this invidivual was still practicing and still wearing the coat with the badge tucked away safely inside.

Ironically enough, he received a bill for the ER visit, which included "physician charges for level 3 patient interview and patient care". He is now contemplating suing the hospital and the midlevel practitioner specifically for misrepresentation and knowing his personality, he is likely going to make this a dogfight.

That's just one specific example. I can't tell you how many times I have met chiropractors and acupuncturists in social environments who have introduced themselves with business cards or verbally as Doctor XXX, Spine and Pain Medicine Practitioner. WTF? A layperson is going to think this is a PHYSICIAN with a minimum of 12 years of higher education and possibly a fellowship in pain management or spinal surgery or sports medicine, not an acupuncturist from a 2-3 year holistic/homeopathic institute or a chiropractor from the local chiropractic school.

Designating a new level of training for midlevel providers as a "doctorate" level of training does not equalize the training and education levels to that of physicians which you seem to agree with, but the reality is that some providers have crossed the line of misrepresentation, and some do so blatantly, in writing, in advertising, in person.

i knew i shouldda been a biotech analyst.....geez the battles doctors have to fight these days....

 

[Noyac]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

Your lack of concern for this issue only makes me wonder. Do you not see this as an issue? Do you think that misrepresentation rarely exists? Are you one that may misrepresent yourself (I read your post but I still submit the question)? Do you believe that NP's with doctorates should call themselve Doctors when speaking to patients? Or even at all?

 

[TIVA]

Interestingly enough, surgeons in the UK and Ireland have made sure that no one mistakes them for any old doctor ... their preferred title is "mister." That's right, once a British or Irish resident passes their surgical exams, from that day forward, they are no longer a simple and lowly Dr. John Smith, but Mr. John Smith, which carries a lot of weight in social and academic and professional circles.

Maybe we as doctors in the U.S. should collectively consider changing our titles to misters as well. That way, no one would confuse us with a doctor (of nursing, pharmacy, engineering, history, music, etc, whatever). And these days, no one introduces themselves as Mr. So and So or Ms. So and So (which is what female surgeons in the UK/Ireland are called). Thus, this title of mister is ripe for the taking by our profession.

 

[Monty Python]

Interestingly enough, surgeons in the UK and Ireland have made sure that no one mistakes them for any old doctor ... their preferred title is "mister." That's right, once a British or Irish resident passes their surgical exams, from that day forward, they are no longer a simple and lowly Dr. John Smith, but Mr. John Smith, which carries a lot of weight in social and academic and professional circles.

Maybe we as doctors in the U.S. should collectively consider changing our titles to misters as well. That way, no one would confuse us with a doctor (of nursing, pharmacy, engineering, history, music, etc, whatever). And these days, no one introduces themselves as Mr. So and So or Ms. So and So (which is what female surgeons in the UK/Ireland are called). Thus, this title of mister is ripe for the taking by our profession.

It's my understanding (open to correction) that UK medical students finish medical school with a MBBS degree - essentially Bachelor-level education with a "major" in medicine. Then they go on to specialty training. The term "doctor" in the UK is reserved for folks who earn a PhD. This is seen also with graduates of medical school in India.

I think.

 

[rainking]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

why cant you go to all nursing.com... why do you have to come on here? if you are an rn.. this is called student doctor forum..

 

[UTSouthwestern]

i knew i shouldda been a biotech analyst.....geez the battles doctors have to fight these days....

You know its not an ego thing. It is a matter of not eroding the trust of the general public in the health care system and its physicians. I specifically say physicians and not health care providers in general because you don't see physicians trying to impersonate nurses, PA's, acupuncturists, chiropractors, midwives, optometrists etc.

When an individual impersonates a physician and we do not immediately remove that individual from practice, it hurts the image and reputation of physicians and our governing bodies.

 

[DrRobert]

You know its not an ego thing. It is a matter of not eroding the trust of the general public in the health care system and its physicians. I specifically say physicians and not health care providers in general because you don't see physicians trying to impersonate nurses, PA's, acupuncturists, chiropractors, midwives, optometrists etc.

When an individual impersonates a physician and we do not immediately remove that individual from practice, it hurts the image and reputation of physicians and our governing bodies.

I agree. I hope your friend follows through with his lawsuit and that in some way forces the hospital to fire or severely reprimand the NP.

 

[UTSouthwestern]

I agree. I hope your friend follows through with his lawsuit and that in some way forces the hospital to fire or severely reprimand the NP.

This man is obsessive compulsive. It's made him a great neurosurgeon. When he said he was thinking about doing it, I just told him not to spend too much time in Florida this fall.

 

[jetproppilot]

Interestingly enough, surgeons in the UK and Ireland have made sure that no one mistakes them for any old doctor ... their preferred title is "mister." That's right, once a British or Irish resident passes their surgical exams, from that day forward, they are no longer a simple and lowly Dr. John Smith, but Mr. John Smith, which carries a lot of weight in social and academic and professional circles.

Maybe we as doctors in the U.S. should collectively consider changing our titles to misters as well. That way, no one would confuse us with a doctor (of nursing, pharmacy, engineering, history, music, etc, whatever). And these days, no one introduces themselves as Mr. So and So or Ms. So and So (which is what female surgeons in the UK/Ireland are called). Thus, this title of mister is ripe for the taking by our profession.

"HEY MAV, YOU REMEMBER THE NUMBER TO THAT TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL?"

 

[proman]

Forget the lawsuit. Pursue this through the board of medicine and turn it into a criminal case (practice of medicine) and it won't cost him anything.

 

[UTSouthwestern]

Forget the lawsuit. Pursue this through the board of medicine and turn it into a criminal case (practice of medicine) and it won't cost him anything.

It won't cost him anything to begin with as he is on the board of several major companies and has their lawyers on retainer for his use. Let's just say that he is a very influential person.

 

[aredoubleyou]

Interestingly enough, surgeons in the UK and Ireland have made sure that no one mistakes them for any old doctor ... their preferred title is "mister." That's right, once a British or Irish resident passes their surgical exams, from that day forward, they are no longer a simple and lowly Dr. John Smith, but Mr. John Smith, which carries a lot of weight in social and academic and professional circles.

Maybe we as doctors in the U.S. should collectively consider changing our titles to misters as well. That way, no one would confuse us with a doctor (of nursing, pharmacy, engineering, history, music, etc, whatever). And these days, no one introduces themselves as Mr. So and So or Ms. So and So (which is what female surgeons in the UK/Ireland are called). Thus, this title of mister is ripe for the taking by our profession.

You're referring to a long tradition among experienced and well respected surgeons in the England, which is more of a historical hangover in part because of the tense relationship between doctors of medicine and the doctors of surgery (many years ago). Now all UK docs, like US docs receive an MD degree, even if they are surgeons. And now all surgeons who pass their boards can be called Mister.

Damn I'm full of useless knowledge.

 

[jwk]

why cant you go to all nursing.com... why do you have to come on here? if you are an rn.. this is called student doctor forum..

We know what Mike is - he has the stones to spell it out in his profile. You? Gee, yours is ........................................... empty.

And as far as the debate at hand - a "doctor", to a patient in a hospital or other healthcare facility, is a physician. No argument from me.

PharmD? Sorry, in a hospital, you're a pharmacist. DPT? You're a physical therapist. In an ACADEMIC setting, you can certainly use whatever title you want. But there are far too many "reports" of non-physicians using the title "doctor" in a clear attempt to either mislead the patient, stroke their own egos, or both.

 

[BIS]

The AANA pushing to not allow CRNAs that have or get a DNP to use the title doctor in the clinical setting. I really could careless. As long as I have a job and a good salary Ill like it when you call me BIG PAPPA and all you guys can throw your hands in the air cuz Im a true player. Whats the big fuss here. Its a political move plain and simple. Anyone that is claiming to be a MD,DO that isnt should be held accountable. I dont think anyone in any and every corner of allied health disagrees with that. If they do then they have a problem. This however is just a smoke screen. A bill that is making things look a lot worse than they are and to get the public and politicians bucked up so allied health looks bad and other bills on the slate negatively effecting allied health professionals are better noticed.

You guys are fools if you think this is about the pt. Like someone said "100% political, 100% of the time". The AMA must have Carl Rove running things now. Good move I must say, kind of like the whole gay marriage issue at the time of every election. Cause a fuss and wake people up then hammer our agenda in.

 

[Faebinder]

Another lately ignored factor is patient compliance with authority. Everyone is taught this in medical school and I realize we are in a patient-has-all-rights society but you as a physician also have some (minor) rights. You can't abandon a patient in 95% of the cases but it is possible to abandon a patient if they remain consistently not compliant with your recommendations.

Some patients respond better to authority and comply with recommendations when doctor tells them to do something. I'm not saying it's 100% obviously but authority does affect compliance.

 

[jwk]

Another lately ignored factor is patient compliance with authority. Everyone is taught this in medical school and I realize we are in a patient-has-all-rights society but you as a physician also have some (minor) rights. You can't abandon a patient in 95% of the cases but it is possible to abandon a patient if they remain consistently not compliant with your recommendations.

Some patients respond better to authority and comply with recommendations when doctor tells them to do something. I'm not saying it's 100% obviously but authority does affect compliance.

Maybe patient compliance with "directions" would be a better term. There is no authority.

And you don't abandon a patient - you discharge them from your care.

Semantics? Yes, but important differences.

 

[cloud9]

Maybe patient compliance with "directions" would be a better term. There is no authority.

And you don't abandon a patient - you discharge them from your care.

Semantics? Yes, but important differences.

We are told that "cooperation" is a better term than compliance simply due to the fact that compliance implies authority. If the patient is uncooperative and unwilling to attempt alternative suggestions then the patient can be "fired" from care.

Again semantics, but worth noting.

 

[toughlife]

Hey tough

Well I guess thats the thing. Who ever does? Im a guy RN. When i walk into a room im automatically a physician. I have to correct people all day everyday. Doesnt bother me at all. Im sure that the rule for doctorate prepared RNs will be similar. Using DnP (or whatever the official term will be) behind their names in the hospital but not calling themselves "Doctors".

Its already illegal to misrepresent yourself to a patient in anyform (impersonating a physician etc). This bill appears only to suggest that NURSES who become doctorate prepared will do such a thing. Its inflammatory dont you think? Since there are already laws prohibiting these types of behavior what does this do other than cause animosity?

It does seems clearly aimed at NPs since there has not been any moention, or action, taken against all the other Doctorate prepared health professions.

No im not an NP nor am i going to be one.

I understand the male issue and patients believing they are physicians. I think the crux of the issue is to make sure no one overstates their qualifications and to make sure patients are told in advance of who is providing their care. I personally like this bill and I hope it becomes law. Many out there like to impersonate physicians whether it be NPs, CRNAs, chiroquacks, naturoquacks, etc.
This needs to stop and since people can't police themselves, we need a law to scare them ****less.

 

[rainking]

We know what Mike is - he has the stones to spell it out in his profile. You? Gee, yours is ........................................... empty.

And as far as the debate at hand - a "doctor", to a patient in a hospital or other healthcare facility, is a physician. No argument from me.

PharmD? Sorry, in a hospital, you're a pharmacist. DPT? You're a physical therapist. In an ACADEMIC setting, you can certainly use whatever title you want. But there are far too many "reports" of non-physicians using the title "doctor" in a clear attempt to either mislead the patient, stroke their own egos, or both.

i got banned too many friiggin times to be filling out profiles every time i get banned.. and I am a doctor and a board certified one at that.. so get a freakin life... and if you are a crna.. go back to all nursing.com..

 

[SleepIsGood]

I understand the male issue and patients believing they are physicians. I think the crux of the issue is to make sure no one overstates their qualifications and to make sure patients are told in advance of who is providing their care. I personally like this bill and I hope it becomes law. Many out there like to impersonate physicians whether it be NPs, CRNAs, chiroquacks, naturoquacks, etc.
This needs to stop and since people can't police themselves, we need a law to scare them ****less.

absolutely correct.

The other day I went to the pharmacy to pick up meds for my parents. I accidentally still had my ID on my shirt. The pharmacist behind the counter was like are you a resident? I answered yes. He's then like, "man my wife is a pharmacist at Hospital X and she can run codes better than all of you residents...you know she's a doctor (PharmD)". My reply was simple. "Mr. Blah, can I get your wife's cell phone number or pager? Next time there's a code at the hospital I'll have our hospital operator page your wife".

Bottom line. True, this is a team sport. However, as in all sports there's a captain or team leader. IF you think other health care workers do not try to play themselves off as physicians, by using the title "doctor' then you are gravely mistaken. I've just seen it too many times among friends and family that are in these fields. If the term 'doctor' was not coveted then why are all theses allied health workers trying to obtain the title (doc of chiro, optometry, physical therapy, nursing). If true knowledge is what is saught, then why not just call it 'advanced nursing care',etc?

P.S. Someone above stated that if we should be called Doctor Smith, then they should be called Nurse Matthews. I have no problem calling a nurse, Nurse Matthew,etc.

 

[rn29306]

I have no problem calling a nurse, Nurse Matthew,etc.

You honestly go around calling nurses you work with everyday by this?

Why not just simply call them by their first name? Do you think the nurse you are talking to doesn't know:
1. Who the physician is, and
2. That he or she is a nurse

You gotta be kidding me.

 

[SleepIsGood]

You honestly go around calling nurses you work with everyday by this?

Why not just simply call them by their first name? Do you think the nurse you are talking to doesn't know:
1. Who the physician is, and
2. That he or she is a nurse

You gotta be kidding me.

You are misunderstanding me.

I usually go around calling ppl whatever they introduce themselves to me as. If it's Ms. Jameson, I'll call her Ms. Jameson. If it's Jill, I'll call her Jill.

I was just saying that someone on this thread, or some other thread on this forum had stated that if docs should be called "Doctor Smith", then nurses should be called "Nurse Smith". If a nurse wanted to be called Nurse Smith, I wouldnt have a problem calling her that.

For previous readers, sorry about the confusion...two words---> post call.

 

[rn29306]

I was just saying that someone on this thread, or some other thread on this forum had stated that if docs should be called "Doctor Smith", then nurses should be called "Nurse Smith". If a nurse wanted to be called Nurse Smith, I wouldnt have a problem calling her that.

I've found some former military healthcare workers prefer to be addressed in this manner, such as PA Jones or RN Smith.

 

[rainking]

absolutely correct.

The other day I went to the pharmacy to pick up meds for my parents. I accidentally still had my ID on my shirt. The pharmacist behind the counter was like are you a resident? I answered yes. He's then like, "man my wife is a pharmacist at Hospital X and she can run codes better than all of you residents...you know she's a doctor (PharmD)". My reply was simple. "Mr. Blah, can I get your wife's cell phone number or pager? Next time there's a code at the hospital I'll have our hospital operator page your wife".

.

No way.. He actually said his wife can run a code better than you.. he prolly was joking TOO bad she cant prescribe medicine.. sHe can only dispense them on your order LOL

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

Hmm

Seems i need to clarify a little

I think it is FRAUD to call yourself a "Doctor" in the hospital if not an MD or DO. While the definition is quite broad, the accepted standard definition of "Doctor" within the walls of healthcare institution means only one thing MD/DO.

What i find odd (im not saying its malicious) is that this has only been introduced as a bill the same month the nurses assoc. mandates DnP by 2015. I dont think it does anything bad really, im just suggesting that the time frames are more than coincidence. Essentially, it appears the AMA didnt care until RNs decided to become doctorate prepared midlevels.

Now, having said that i think im for the bill not against it. If indeed, incidents are common (which has not been my experience) then maybe it should be instituted.

As for the disparaging comments from the username ive already forgotten, your of no relevance to me.



PS: Thanks jwk

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

i got banned too many friiggin times to be filling out profiles every time i get banned.. and I am a doctor and a board certified one at that.. so get a freakin life... and if you are a crna.. go back to all nursing.com..

Umm.... I don't mean to make a fuss.... but why does a board certified doctor keep getting banned?

As a side note, why be a jerk... Mike was being polite and posting reasonable thoughts.

 

[sdn1977]

I don't get involved in your political discussions much, but since you've mentioned & disparaged my degree, I need to give some clarification.

The PharmD degree was actually the first degree awarded in pharmacy (along with the PhG, PhC & PharmM) degrees in the mid 1800's when each state could determine the educational requirements for a pharmacist.

In 1938, the ACPE, which is the accrediting board for pharmacy education, determined the uniform nationwide standards for pharmacy education & determined the BS degree would be awarded.

In 1950, USC brought back the Pharm.D degree as a result of the post WWII advances in drug development. This change was a result of the amount of education which was required to keep up with drug development. It benefited my state (CA) since a student had to receive a degree after a maximum amount of units or leave the university - in other words - you could not be a perpetual student. The units required to finish pharmacy could not be done in the amount alloted for a BS.

In 2000, the ACPE determined the entry level degree in pharmacy would be the Pharm.D. There is no longer a BS given in pharmacy at all in the US. It is a reflection of the length of time required to acquire knowledge - not to compete with any other profession! In the beginning (the 60's) the PharmD was a 6 year degree....most students entered as freshmen in college & did not receive a degree until 6 years later. Now....altho that can happen, it is less & less popular & is now a 4 year post graduate degree.

It was not done to try to obtain a "Dr" title - it was done to allow for time to learn & understand drugs which went beyond what what done in 1938 & involved...in 1950...the beginnings of pharmacokinetics & pharmcodynamics. It has gone well beyond that now.

As for your personal experiences....I can probably recount more experiences I've had with physcians who've been "jerks" than you can recount pharmacists. But..I won't say there aren't any or there aren't any who became pharmacists who really wanted to become physicians or dentists (or even NP's I guess...). I've worked with plenty of those too.

I will stick my neck out here though & say that most pharmacists do not want the physical interaction with patients that physicians & nurses have, we don't want to see a wound, irrigate a wound or close a wound....but we will love to talk to you about what antibiotic might be useful as a prophylaxis give the cause & the extenuating medical conditions. I really have a hard time with your case UT of an NP/PharmD....but...who knows? It does seem a difficult combination of interests coming from a pharmacists perspective.

We also know code carts really, really, well - we replace their contents about 3x/day, given the hospital. So...in our lexicon - running a code only means, we can find the drug easily, write the drug, dose & time given on the code record & thats it. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ EKGS AND WOULD NEVER, EVER ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTUAL RUNNNING OF THE CODE - no matter what your pharmacist husband says (he may love her immensely & think she's wonderful!) (However, I'm pretty sure a flat line is a bad thing!) Perhaps,the situation you recounted was really inappropriate....but....could it be, just possibly..that you misinterpreted the lingo each of you were using????

My point of this whole long tirade is that my degree is due to the evolution of the education within my profession. It has nothing to do with yours. I cannot speak for nurses or PA's, but please...do not sweep us all under the rug you seem to want to. Altho there are those who are inappropriate, we are not all that way. I've had plenty of run-ins with physicians who want me to do unethical & blantly illegal things, but I don't judge all of you that way. I've had my Pharm.D since 1977 - many of you were still in elementary school, so I've seen lots of inappropriate behavior on all sides. I'm just wondering if this kind of inflammatory discussion is beneficial to a good working relationship with all of us. I try to do the best job I possibly can within my profession. Altho I've been an instructor in a pharmacy school, can prescribe & dispense PlanB (a whole other subject), give immunizations & counsel your patients on the medications you've prescribed....neither I nor the colleagues I work with (& I know lots of them!) want to be nor do we represent ourselves as physicians, altho my nametag does state my degree & I've been addressed as sdn, Dr sdn, hey you, lady, whatever......

I am disappointed that this discussion has taken place here again. I thought your private forum would lessen this. But..perhaps..it is good to see what thoughts are generated when you speak openly about the rest of us. I am disappointed though - it lessens respect on all sides & perhaps in an unfair manner.

 

[UTSouthwestern]

It shouldn't lessen respect on both sides. The example I brought up is in no way intended to implicate every member of the pharmacy profession or the chiropractic practice, etc. It is intended to lump together everyone who wants to present themselves as something they are not. My specific point was that beyond being a superficial ego or title issue, it can become a point of issue when a patient does not receive appropriate care. In my friend's case, I am sure the NP/PharmD knew more about appropriate medications for infections than myself and my friend combined, but her clinical judgement led her to another path, without review by her supervising physician.

It was clearly an inappropriate pathway to take, but my issue is less with that, because physicians make wrong decisions in even basic cases as well. My issue is that a non-physician pushed the limits both medical and legal responsibility by overstating her qualifications in such a way that can only be construed as deceptive. That puts the patient, supervising physician, and hospital all at risk as this case has done, now that my friend is suing the latter two entities for improper care of the former entity. While the NP/PharmD may lose the right to practice at that hospital plus any penalty from the state board of nursing, she is unlikely to suffer any monetary or punitive damages and especially any major criminal charges under the current laws, because the scope of injury to the patient was limited to hypothetical conditions (she may have contracted necrotizing fasciitis, had to have an amputation, etc., which fortunately did not occur although she did have to suffer through my friend suturing the wound under ibuprofen only).

A federal law would change the latter.

In no way do I disparage Pharm D's, NP's, PA's, or other health care providers. I AM ripping apart anyone who thinks, feels, and especially promotes and/or practices that they can be a physician without the training. That isn't disparaging a profession, it's disparaging those in any profession that practice beyond the scope of their training and responsibilities.

 

[rainking]

Umm.... I don't mean to make a fuss.... but why does a board certified doctor keep getting banned?

because I keep on telling the crnas to go to all nursing.com and the moderators are dictators.. they forget this is america.. at least its where I live..

 

[Noyac]

This is not a pharmacist issue or even a chiropractor issue in my opinion. This is an issue strictly among those that will be treating pts in a hospital or medical clinic setting. They will be knowingly misrepresenting themselves to pts. Chiro's don't usually see pts in the hospital and these pts that go to them understand that they are not physicians. Pharmacists as well, don't present themselves to pts as Dr. so-and-so. Martin Luther King didn't enter hospitals and start treating pts.
It is the misrepresentation as many here have already stated that makes this dangerous.
Hell I don't even introduce myself as Dr. But if nurses start walking around calling themselves Dr. then I will have to introduce myself as " I'm Noyac M.D. your "REAL" doctor."
Nurses may extend their education as far as they wish, I'm all for it, but don't misrepresent yourself. And most of all don't lose site of reality.
This is not a "power trip" as most nurses that do this seems to believe. It is real life and pts are involved.

 

[SleepIsGood]

We also know code carts really, really, well - we replace their contents about 3x/day, given the hospital. So...in our lexicon - running a code only means, we can find the drug easily, write the drug, dose & time given on the code record & thats it. ...

Here lies the problem. Many pharmacists who 'fill these carts' demonstrate hubris when they think they can actually run a code themselves (this is probably why this guy's wife thinks she can 'run a code'). Sure, there is a need for drugs in the ACLS algorithm, however, it's not about just pushing drugs. In medicine it's all about 'treating the patient' and not the numbers. It's about analyzing data and coming to a conclusion. I wonder if the said pharmacist would actually stick her neck (license) out and take responsibility for these codes even because she knew the carts really, really well...probably not.

In terms of the 'doctor' title for pharmacist. I can tell you that at most retail pharmacies those with RPh (the bachelor degree) in pharmacy are still practicing alongside with the PharmDs (I know this because I have cousins that are Rph and that are PharmDs). For all PRACTICAL purposes they are exactly the same, except one has a "doctorate'. Oh, and the length of training went up one year (from 3 yrs to 4 yrs in pharm school) and all of a sudden someone is a doctor. You can still find many Rphs working in retail and at hospitals all the time. As you and I are well aware it wasn't until the late 90s-- 2000 when a shortage in pharmacists was announced that the profession took off. All you needed was 2 yrs of undergrad and 3 years of pharm school and you could be making >100k doing retail AND you got to be called a 'doctor'. I'm not convinced that it's about 'knowledge'. Again, in a clinical setting it's confusing for the patients and for anxillary staff when another health care worker other than a physician (MD/DO) is referred to as a doctor. It's just inappropriate for the hospital. Again, if we are at Pfizer or some research lab...perhaps the rules could be more inclusive. I'm not denigrating the pharmacy profession, nor any other profession. They are vital for the healthcare infrastructure. However, misrepresentation needs to seize to exist. This is the best way for good patient care to occur.

 

[SleepIsGood]

This is not a pharmacist issue or even a chiropractor issue in my opinion. This is an issue strictly among those that will be treating pts in a hospital or medical clinic setting. They will be knowingly misrepresenting themselves to pts. Chiro's don't usually see pts in the hospital and these pts that go to them understand that they are not physicians. Pharmacists as well, don't present themselves to pts as Dr. so-and-so. Martin Luther King didn't enter hospitals and start treating pts.
It is the misrepresentation as many here have already stated that makes this dangerous.
Hell I don't even introduce myself as Dr. But if nurses start walking around calling themselves Dr. then I will have to introduce myself as " I'm Noyac M.D. your "REAL" doctor."
Nurses may extend their education as far as they wish, I'm all for it, but don't misrepresent yourself. And most of all don't lose site of reality.
This is not a "power trip" as most nurses that do this seems to believe. It is real life and pts are involved.

It's funny you mentioned this.

Recently, a group of older physicians were talking about this. It is/was tacky to have written on your door, card ,etc "Dr. John Smith, MD". They are now stating, if these nurses, chiros, whatever all become docs....wouldnt it be necessary to have this written on one's office door, card,etc so that patients can distinguish b/w the physicians and everyone else?

 

[Noyac]

Here lies the problem. Many pharmacists who 'fill these carts' demonstrate hubris when they think they can actually run a code themselves (this is probably why this guy's wife thinks she can 'run a code'). Sure, there is a need for drugs in the ACLS algorithm, however, it's not about just pushing drugs. In medicine it's all about 'treating the patient' and not the numbers. It's about analyzing data and coming to a conclusion. I wonder if the said pharmacist would actually stick her neck (license) out and take responsibility for these codes even because she knew the carts really, really well...probably not.

In terms of the 'doctor' title for pharmacist. I can tell you that at most retail pharmacies those with RPh (the bachelor degree) in pharmacy are still practicing alongside with the PharmDs (I know this because I have cousins that are Rph and that are PharmDs). For all PRACTICAL purposes they are exactly the same, except one has a "doctorate'. Oh, and the length of training went up one year (from 3 yrs to 4 yrs in pharm school) and all of a sudden someone is a doctor. You can still find many Rphs working in retail and at hospitals all the time. As you and I are well aware it wasn't until the late 90s-- 2000 when a shortage in pharmacists was announced that the profession took off. All you needed was 2 yrs of undergrad and 3 years of pharm school and you could be making >100k doing retail AND you got to be called a 'doctor'. I'm not convinced that it's about 'knowledge'. Again, in a clinical setting it's confusing for the patients and for anxillary staff when another health care worker other than a physician (MD/DO) is referred to as a doctor. It's just inappropriate for the hospital. Again, if we are at Pfizer or some research lab...perhaps the rules could be more inclusive. I'm not denigrating the pharmacy profession, nor any other profession. They are vital for the healthcare infrastructure. However, limitations and misrepresentation need to seize to exist. This is the best way for good patient care to occur.

So you see pharmacists presenting themselves as Doctors to pts?

I don't know how this became a pharmacist issue. Sure there are some out there that think they know it all. There are also physicians that believe this as well. These people just need to be curtailed not their profession.

 

[sdn1977]

Here lies the problem. Many pharmacists who 'fill these carts' demonstrate hubris when they think they can actually run a code themselves (this is probably why this guy's wife thinks she can 'run a code'). Sure, there is a need for drugs in the ACLS algorithm, however, it's not about just pushing drugs. In medicine it's all about 'treating the patient' and not the numbers. It's about analyzing data and coming to a conclusion. I wonder if the said pharmacist would actually stick her neck (license) out and take responsibility for these codes even because she knew the carts really, really well...probably not.

In terms of the 'doctor' title for pharmacist. I can tell you that at most retail pharmacies those with RPh (the bachelor degree) in pharmacy are still practicing alongside with the PharmDs (I know this because I have cousins that are Rph and that are PharmDs). For all PRACTICAL purposes they are exactly the same, except one has a "doctorate'. Oh, and the length of training went up one year (from 3 yrs to 4 yrs in pharm school) and all of a sudden someone is a doctor. You can still find many Rphs working in retail and at hospitals all the time. As you and I are well aware it wasn't until the late 90s-- 2000 when a shortage in pharmacists was announced that the profession took off. All you needed was 2 yrs of undergrad and 3 years of pharm school and you could be making >100k doing retail AND you got to be called a 'doctor'. I'm not convinced that it's about 'knowledge'. Again, in a clinical setting it's confusing for the patients and for anxillary staff when another health care worker other than a physician (MD/DO) is referred to as a doctor. It's just inappropriate for the hospital. Again, if we are at Pfizer or some research lab...perhaps the rules could be more inclusive. I'm not denigrating the pharmacy profession, nor any other profession. They are vital for the healthcare infrastructure. However, misrepresentation needs to seize to exist. This is the best way for good patient care to occur.

Sleep - you illustrate my point exactly with the lack of respect you have indicated in this post. You not only do not know your cousins very well & what their title designations mean, you don't know my profession very well.

I did not state AT ALL that pharmacists run a code, as least in the way you are interpreting it. My statement was trying to expand on what the lingo of some hospitals may use. I myself have been at 2 (UCSF being one) in which the pharmacist was the individual designated as the person who "ran" the code - which meant in very clear terms - WROTE DOWN WHAT WAS GIVEN & WHEN! We can also grab the lidocaine or whatever faster than a nurse since we know where it is. We don't order it nor do we administer it. To "run" in the actual lexicon of that institutions policy means only "to keep a running record". It may mean in your hospital the individual who is actually deciding what to do & when - whether that is an any attending, any resident, ER, anesthesiologist - whomever is designated by the critical care committee of that institution. You have chosen to jump to the absolute worst reflection of what I have tried to provide as an explanation, which could be as simple as a difference in terminology and have used one person's hearsay evidence to support a broad negative view of my whole profession. What has made you so negative? Why are you threatened & by a pharmacist no less?

As for your misunderstanding of the actual title designations - RPh means "registered pharmacist" - every state gives one when a pharmacist passes the board exam - it only indicates we are licensed to practice in that state. However, before we can sit to take the exam, we must have graduated from an accredited school of pharmacy. Which means each pharmacist carries TWO types of initials - a degree (BS or PharmD) and an indication of registration (RPh). You can have a degree without an RPh, but you can't have an RPh without a degree. Yes, BS degrees & PharmD degrees were given concurrently for many decades - there is a whole thread in the pharmacy forum about why they were concurrent during the 70's, 80's & 90's - go there if you want the detail. However, in 2000, the BS degree was no longer given & there will only be PharmD degrees awarded. I have worked side by side with BS pharmacists & are as competent and skilled as myself - I just lived & went to school in a state which only gave Pharm.D's at the time. I will not get into a discussion of the difference of years of schooling since that was discussed again in the pharmacy forum in depth, but you're assumptions are outright wrong. I don't really think you want to know what is really required educationally in my profession in the acute & ambulatory setting - I think you just want to argue that my education is not needed (or perhaps valued by you???)

I don't know how old you are or how aware you are of my profession even though you have cousins in it, but I can confidently say you are absolutely wrong in stating the practice of pharmacy took off in the 90's! I have been a pharmacist for a very, very long time & this is one of the most boring times to be a pharmacist - particularly in hospitals! The money I make is a reflection of the economy, JCAHO regulation changes, aging population & the increase use of medications to treat illness. There have been many cycles of shortages & overabundance during my professional years. They will continue.

I will agree with Noyac....I'm not sure why this has become a pharmacist issue...perhaps because there is no nurse to bash on today. I have never known nor seen a pharmacist misrespresent ourselves as physicians & we are often the first to recommend someone see a physician when they come to buy something OTC to treat something which needs a physician. I do stick my neck out many times, but only to the extent of the scope of my practice & my license & malpractice is always at risk. Pharmacists are always named as defendants when a drug case comes up, even if the error was caused by a physician or a nurse. I have known and seen and actually be subjected to terrible treatment by physicians (or nurses, or labtechs or administrators, etc..) However, I have always believed the behavior was just a reflection of that one individual - not a whole profession. I'd ask that courtsey of you.

I have been fortunate to be encouraged to post here when I can provide information which is informative & useful and I do appreciate that some of your cases are interesting to me from a drug perspective. I have never, ever represented myself as a physician and have always said drug information can never be taken out of context of a clinical case, whether it is on this forum or in my practice. However, you choose to want to dictate what can go on my nametag just because you don't like my degree, which I earned & wear proudly (btw - my nametag says "sdn,PharmD - pharmacist".

Actually....with regard to the legislation - I could care less - it doesn't affect me - this is no different that practicing medicine without a license. I can only speak for myself - this discussion is a disappointing turn in health profession relations.

(btw...jet, noyac...you don't need to chime in here - I know you appreciate my input & thank you!)

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

Ohhh you mean your a Troll

because I keep on telling the crnas to go to all nursing.com and the moderators are dictators.. they forget this is america.. at least its where I live..

 

[jetproppilot]

Sleep - you illustrate my point exactly with the lack of respect you have indicated in this post. You not only do not know your cousins very well & what their title designations mean, you don't know my profession very well.

I did not state AT ALL that pharmacists run a code, as least in the way you are interpreting it. My statement was trying to expand on what the lingo of some hospitals may use. I myself have been at 2 (UCSF being one) in which the pharmacist was the individual designated as the person who "ran" the code - which meant in very clear terms - WROTE DOWN WHAT WAS GIVEN & WHEN! We can also grab the lidocaine or whatever faster than a nurse since we know where it is. We don't order it nor do we administer it. To "run" in the actual lexicon of that institutions policy means only "to keep a running record". It may mean in your hospital the individual who is actually deciding what to do & when - whether that is an any attending, any resident, ER, anesthesiologist - whomever is designated by the critical care committee of that institution. You have chosen to jump to the absolute worst reflection of what I have tried to provide as an explanation, which could be as simple as a difference in terminology and have used one person's hearsay evidence to support a broad negative view of my whole profession. What has made you so negative? Why are you threatened & by a pharmacist no less?

As for your misunderstanding of the actual title designations - RPh means "registered pharmacist" - every state gives one when a pharmacist passes the board exam - it only indicates we are licensed to practice in that state. However, before we can sit to take the exam, we must have graduated from an accredited school of pharmacy. Which means each pharmacist carries TWO types of initials - a degree (BS or PharmD) and an indication of registration (RPh). You can have a degree without an RPh, but you can't have an RPh without a degree. Yes, BS degrees & PharmD degrees were given concurrently for many decades - there is a whole thread in the pharmacy forum about why they were concurrent during the 70's, 80's & 90's - go there if you want the detail. However, in 2000, the BS degree was no longer given & there will only be PharmD degrees awarded. I have worked side by side with BS pharmacists & are as competent and skilled as myself - I just lived & went to school in a state which only gave Pharm.D's at the time. I will not get into a discussion of the difference of years of schooling since that was discussed again in the pharmacy forum in depth, but you're assumptions are outright wrong. I don't really think you want to know what is really required educationally in my profession in the acute & ambulatory setting - I think you just want to argue that my education is not needed (or perhaps valued by you???)

I don't know how old you are or how aware you are of my profession even though you have cousins in it, but I can confidently say you are absolutely wrong in stating the practice of pharmacy took off in the 90's! I have been a pharmacist for a very, very long time & this is one of the most boring times to be a pharmacist - particularly in hospitals! The money I make is a reflection of the economy, JCAHO regulation changes, aging population & the increase use of medications to treat illness. There have been many cycles of shortages & overabundance during my professional years. They will continue.

I will agree with Noyac....I'm not sure why this has become a pharmacist issue...perhaps because there is no nurse to bash on today. I have never known nor seen a pharmacist misrespresent ourselves as physicians & we are often the first to recommend someone see a physician when they come to buy something OTC to treat something which needs a physician. I do stick my neck out many times, but only to the extent of the scope of my practice & my license & malpractice is always at risk. Pharmacists are always named as defendants when a drug case comes up, even if the error was caused by a physician or a nurse. I have known and seen and actually be subjected to terrible treatment by physicians (or nurses, or labtechs or administrators, etc..) However, I have always believed the behavior was just a reflection of that one individual - not a whole profession. I'd ask that courtsey of you.

I have been fortunate to be encouraged to post here when I can provide information which is informative & useful and I do appreciate that some of your cases are interesting to me from a drug perspective. I have never, ever represented myself as a physician and have always said drug information can never be taken out of context of a clinical case, whether it is on this forum or in my practice. However, you choose to want to dictate what can go on my nametag just because you don't like my degree, which I earned & wear proudly (btw - my nametag says "sdn,PharmD - pharmacist".

Actually....with regard to the legislation - I could care less - it doesn't affect me - this is no different that practicing medicine without a license. I can only speak for myself - this discussion is a disappointing turn in health profession relations.

(btw...jet, noyac...you don't need to chime in here - I know you appreciate my input & thank you!)

Sorry, I'll chime in anyway.

Your posts are invaluable and provide insight on a level, many times, beyond our pharmacologic understanding.

Additionally, I've yet to run across an arrogant pharmacist when interacting with them in private practice. The individuals at the institutions I've worked at have always been helpful and informative which I take as a reflection of their industry....(mostly) helpful, knowledgable individuals.