- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 4,684
I will say that I never expected this. I just hope that it's actually enforceable and other states follow suit as quickly as possible.
This doesn’t mean DNPs can write “Doctor” in their badge right? I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna play this
From the reddit post: "In New Jersey, all healthcare workers will be required to wear a badge showing their degree and training. They will be required to state their training and degree, both verbally and in writing." I thought a DNP would have to introduce themselves as, "Hi, I am Dr. XYZ and I am Doctor of Nurse Practice"This doesn’t mean DNPs can write “Doctor” in their badge right? I’m trying to figure out how they’re gonna play this
From the reddit post: "In New Jersey, all healthcare workers will be required to wear a badge showing their degree and training. They will be required to state their training and degree, both verbally and in writing." I thought a DNP would have to introduce themselves as, "Hi, I am Dr. XYZ and I am Doctor of Nurse Practice"
I will say that I never expected this. I just hope that it's actually enforceable and other states follow suit as quickly as possible.
Can you expand on this a bit and flesh out what you're stating? In your view, who can appropriately be addressed as Dr. X?Yeah, Dr is a title, not a degree. Their badge will show their degree, so it will either say DNP or NP. I think more and more places will start making it policy that nurses can’t use the dr title in a clinical setting.
Can you expand on this a bit and flesh out what you're stating? In your view, who can appropriately be addressed as Dr. X?
It seems as though physicians should be called physicians/surgeons/psychiatrists/obstetricians/etc. in the hospital--- Dr. X, our Ob/Gyn physician. Or Dr. A, our cardiovascular surgeon... and so on
If you have a Ph.D, you've earned the title. Dr. X, our organic chemist. Or Dr. Y, our librarian. Or Dr. Z, our nurse practitioner... and so on.
It seems as though physicians should be called physicians/surgeons/psychiatrists/obstetricians/etc. in the hospital--- Dr. X, our Ob/Gyn physician. Or Dr. A, our cardiovascular surgeon... and so on
If you have a Ph.D, you've earned the title. Dr. X, our organic chemist. Or Dr. Y, our librarian. Or Dr. Z, our nurse practitioner... and so on.
Well first it was used to describe someone who mastered a subject (in this case theology) and was qualified to teach it. Then it was expanded to include people who were masters of law and medicine who were qualified to teach their respective fields. It wasn't originally meant to designate that this person was qualified to perform their art-- that arises naturally out of mastery.And before anyone wants to throw out this myth, no PhDs did not have the title dr first. The first to use the title were theologians, lawyers, and physicians.
The goal we all share is being able to better distinguish and ultimately nullify the power-grab at a word. It makes sense to characterize exactly who a patient is seeing:That’s way too complicated. The title dr is very closely associated with physicians. Anyone called a dr in a hospital or clinical setting is going to get mistaken for a physician.
A PhD has earned the title in a non-clinical setting. There is literally zero need for any PhD to go by dr in a hospital.
No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.This isn't hard. Use Dr. to refer to only physicians in clinical settings. Outside of the clinic, feel free to use Dr. to whoever you want.
And using Dr. specifically to mean MD/DO in a clinical setting is something society agreed upon. When someone gets a heart attack on the flight and they ask "is there a doctor on board?", everyone knows they're not referring to Dr. Smith, the physicist or Dr. Johnson the anthropologist.
Doesn't take away from the achievements of Dr. Smith or Dr. Johnson though.
It's not gatekeeping to use the word in its correct context. Doctors always mean physicians in any clinical setting. Stop falling for midlevel propaganda.No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.It's not gatekeeping to use the word in its correct context. Doctors always mean physicians in any clinical setting. Stop falling for midlevel propaganda.
But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
It was a title licensed by the church for teaching. The first three fields were theology, law, and medicine. The PhD didn’t even exist when the title was first being used by those fields.Well first it was used to describe someone who mastered a subject (in this case theology) and was qualified to teach it. Then it was expanded to include people who were masters of law and medicine who were qualified to teach their respective fields. It wasn't originally meant to designate that this person was qualified to perform their art-- that arises naturally out of mastery.
The goal we all share is being able to better distinguish and ultimately nullify the power-grab at a word. It makes sense to characterize exactly who a patient is seeing:
"Hello Matt, this is Dr. 35, a neurosurgeon. Also on your team is Dr. Nine, a psychiatrist and Dr. Lawpy, a nurse practitioner. Your team is entirely qualified and specialized."
Everyone gets their cake and eats it to.
The only problem is everyone wants to be a doctor, but no one wants to go to medical school. If you want to say, “hi I’m dr B” to a patient in a clinical setting, graduate from medical school.No, that's gate keeping a word that doesn't belong to us. Physician and its affiliates does belong to us as it is a categorically accurate qualifier. Doctor also belongs to us in a particular way, but that opens the door to the problem we're talking about in this thread.
But the public won’t do that because to 99% of people, doctor = physician.When someone is asking for a "doctor" on a plane, they're using the word doctor in a specific context that we all understand. A Geology Ph.D or a Music Ph.D wouldn't stand up in this situation. Asking for a physician or surgeon/etc. would clarify this further and ultimately end the paranoia that a DNP stands up in a plane to respond to a crisis.
No you’re argument isn’t valid. This is proved with one simple thought experiment: if I walk into a patients room right now and say “hi I’m Dr. X” then what does that patient immediately assume I am?But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).What alternative definition? And how is it context dependent in a clinical setting?
If someone's going to a clinic in hopes of seeing a doctor, they're expecting to see is the physician, not a midlevel pretending to be one.
That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.This is why i always suggest to call midlevels and nurses by their first names even if they have a doctorate
It doesn’t matter what it explicitly means. It matters what the patient thinks. The most important person in this equation is the patient. Not the NP’s ego.But it doesn't explicitly mean physician. It is implied through an alternative definition which relies heavily on context-- which is why the argument is a valid one.
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).
That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.Doctors of nursing are just midlevels having an inferiority complex and creating a doctorate degree to feel equivalent to physicians. It's a load of nonsense that midlevels should be blamed and slammed for failing to standardize their own training and allow crappy online midlevel programs to exist
Also for the record, i call residents by their first name. Literally zero problems and they're physicians in training. The only ones taking the issue are midlevels with bruised egos and MS1s on social media virtue signalling their love for midlevels.
The patient is there to receive the best transparent care they deserve - led by a physician. They're not there to be educated on the differences between MD and DNP. In a clinical setting, there is no "alternative context" where a DNP or non-MD/DO doctorate should refer themselves as a doctor unless a patient is specifically seeing a doctorate professional in their own private office (like a PT). If I was working with a DNP, I would simply say this is [X first name], your nurse practitioner.Right, so the goal would be to help the patient understand through clarifying instead of fighting a war with words that legitimately mean what they mean regardless of what the patient thinks.
By definition, both are Dr.'s, but only one is a doctor. If you want to fight that, that's a hard battle which has plenty of ways to backfire on physicians.
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.
Right, so the goal would be to help the patient understand through clarifying instead of fighting a war with words that legitimately mean what they mean regardless of what the patient thinks.
By definition, both are Dr.'s, but only one is a doctor. If you want to fight that, that's a hard battle which has plenty of ways to backfire on physicians.
I agree with you; egos are a whole different level of problems. I'm going to take the rug out from under this simply by clarifying. Rather not have HR be upset about word-wars when I can have a dictionary and the truth on my back.
We don't have the same experiences, that's clear.I don’t know what your level of training is, but it doesn’t seem like you have very much real clinical experience.
Right of course, though some people are going to see professionals who are trained with Ph.Ds (definition 1: Dr.) and others who are going to see physicians who are also known as doctors (definition 2: Doctor, who also goes by Dr.).
That's a fight which you don't have to have if you take the approach of saying "Yes, you are a doctor of nursing and I'm a physician, a doctor of medicine." Both are Dr's, only one is a doctor.
I don’t know why everyone is being so adamant about the title thing. I am not the only one that goes by doctor until he hospital. Dentists/OMFS, podiatrists, and psychologists (PsyD and PhD) all have as much right to that title in the clinical setting. Our DPTs on the other hand, do not.
Yes, DNPs are probably trying to intentionally blur the lines. But perhaps we physicians were not clear enough from the get-go. We should just go by “Rangerbob, physician” and no one would be trying to call themselves doctor anymore...
True, but they could easily come up with their own licensing exams (which they should do anyway, though they’ll likely be a joke as well) and point to that to say “those docs are just biased against us because we’re nurses.”Tbh, i usually think dentistry, podiatry and psychology were better merged into medicine completely but like MD vs DO, it's largely a historical accident. There's also psychiatry vs psychology issues that i'm not completely clear about but at least dentists, podiatrists and veterinarians have standardized training and take necessary boards that they deserve to be called doctors. Midlevels have no such thing other than struggling badly on a watered down version of Step 3.
I don’t know what your level of training is, but it doesn’t seem like you have very much real clinical experience.
We don't have the same experiences, that's clear.
I really wish it wasn't the case, but there are full blown physicians making these arguments, lol
Yeah, and they are all either docs profiting off their army of midlevels or super woke academic idiots looking for promotions.
I think I see what you're saying-- you'd be asking to change the definition of doctor to "those who pass an accredited licensure exam which is sufficiently difficult", right?
He is aYeah, I have 15 years of experience in healthcare in multiple settings in hospitals all over the country, and my experience has been the same in most places.
He is apremednew m1 for perspective
Sure, as did I.I figured. But I had all that experience before I started med school. I don’t like to assume that just because someone is a premed or M1 that they have no experience. Edit: but it does seem to be premeds and M1s who really just don’t get the whole midlevel issue. Which makes sense, but it’s like a whole separate Dunning-Kruger.