the Dr title...

[THP]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Are chiropractors allowed to be referred to as doctors? (I really don't know)

I don't know but it is beside the point. THe point is he comes off like a pretentious a$$.

I personally don't like referring to chiropractors as doctors because it elevates them to a level I don't believe their profession deserves.

 

[Firebird]

There is no science behind the field and no data to support the existence of sublexations, or the efficacy/possibility of spinal manipulation

That is not true. If I remember correctly, there is level 1A evidence that lumbar manipulation is effective in reducing lower back pain.

 

[synapse lapse]

That is not true. If I remember correctly, there is level 1A evidence that lumbar manipulation is effective in reducing lower back pain.

Really? Where is this reference. As far as I know no study has supported the practice of chriopracty nor is there an anatomical basis for it. There is also no agreement that any data supports the idea of subluxations. It was my understanding that only Class V evidence (case studies) existed in support of the treatment. Of course I may be wrong, I would like to see your source. Is this the study: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymmt/article/PIIS0161475405002277/abstract ? Thank you.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Really? Where is this reference. As far as I know no study has supported the practice of chriopracty nor is there an anatomical basis for it. There is also no agreement that any data supports the idea of subluxations. It was my understanding that only Class V evidence (case studies) existed in support of the treatment. Of course I may be wrong, I would like to see your source. Is this the study: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymmt/article/PIIS0161475405002277/abstract ? Thank you.

I don't know about "subluxations," but there are some manipulative techniqes in the lumbar area which are effective for long-term pain relief in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. The JAOA has published extensive studies on the use of muscle energy, strain-counterstrain, thrust, myofascial release, and other techniques. Keep in mind that the treatment requires a prior diagnosis of a specific dysfunction. This is the method through which osteopathic physicians employ these techniques. I am not so convinced that chiropractors diagnose specific disorders instead of blindly treating patients with the techniques that they like best.

 

[RunnerMD]

Going back to the OP, I would never correct someone...unless we were in a hospital setting and they referred to me as "nurse so-and-so"

On a side-note, you are indeed a Dr. after graduation. The title of doctor just indicates that you have completed a doctorate program. For instance, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (silence of the lambs) was still a doctor, despite being a convicted murderer. You can have your license taken away, but noone can ever take away your education (although, sometimes I've wondered if this COULD happen. What would they do if 3 years after graduation they found out you were part of some cheating scandal or something? Could they then revoke your diploma, and hence the Dr. title?)

 

[Law2Doc]

On a side-note, you are indeed a Dr. after graduation. The title of doctor just indicates that you have completed a doctorate program. For instance, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (silence of the lambs) was still a doctor, despite being a convicted murderer. You can have your license taken away, but noone can ever take away your education (although, sometimes I've wondered if this COULD happen. What would they do if 3 years after graduation they found out you were part of some cheating scandal or something? Could they then revoke your diploma, and hence the Dr. title?)

Nobody said you don't technically have the Dr. title by virtue of receiving an MD. I just indicated that there might be good legal liability reasons why one ought not use it widely until you were licensed, hence my use of the term "problematic". The public relies on things differently when coming from a "doctor", and if you take on that apparent authority, by holding yourself out as "Dr.", a court will hold you to those standards, licensed or not. Which is fine if you are working as in intern in a hospital, but maybe not what you bargained for when dispensing free advice at a cocktail party.
Hannibal Lecter had little to lose -- when facing cannibalism charges, malpractice is probably the least of one's legal concerns.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Going back to the OP, I would never correct someone...unless we were in a hospital setting and they referred to me as "nurse so-and-so"

On a side-note, you are indeed a Dr. after graduation. The title of doctor just indicates that you have completed a doctorate program. For instance, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (silence of the lambs) was still a doctor, despite being a convicted murderer. You can have your license taken away, but noone can ever take away your education (although, sometimes I've wondered if this COULD happen. What would they do if 3 years after graduation they found out you were part of some cheating scandal or something? Could they then revoke your diploma, and hence the Dr. title?)

To add to this:

Licensure and board certifications are ever-changing, and can be regulated by state or medical society.

As a graduate from medical school, you possess neither of these until post-graduate training. You can't get your doctorate taken away, just like you can't get your bachelor's degree taken away. It is simply a record of something you have completed.

 

[RunnerMD]

To add to this:

Licensure and board certifications are ever-changing, and can be regulated by state or medical society.

As a graduate from medical school, you possess neither of these until post-graduate training. You can't get your doctorate taken away, just like you can't get your bachelor's degree taken away. It is simply a record of something you have completed.

Yeah, but I'm wondering if they could revoke it if they can prove that you did not technically "earn" the degree (e.g. by cheating). If they could revoke your diploma, then couldn't they revoke the title (since you didn't truly demonstrate that you fufilled the requirements of the program)?

 

[OSUdoc08]

Yeah, but I'm wondering if they could revoke it if they can prove that you did not technically "earn" the degree (e.g. by cheating). If they could revoke your diploma, then couldn't they revoke the title (since you didn't truly demonstrate that you fufilled the requirements of the program)?

Yeah, I would think so.

😉

and I can be a sensitive guy!

 

[RunnerMD]

Yeah, I would think so.

😉

and I can be a sensitive guy!

I know...being sensitive goes hand-in-hand with being a "walk around the park" kinda guy lol...i'm just kidding 😉

 

[Firebird]

Really? Where is this reference. As far as I know no study has supported the practice of chriopracty nor is there an anatomical basis for it. There is also no agreement that any data supports the idea of subluxations. It was my understanding that only Class V evidence (case studies) existed in support of the treatment. Of course I may be wrong, I would like to see your source. Is this the study: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymmt/article/PIIS0161475405002277/abstract ? Thank you.

I have no idea where this reference is. We had a conference on integrative medicine and a whole class on integrative medicine and both referenced a level 1A study on lumbar manipulation for the relief of lower back pain.

Just because there's no anatomical basis for something, doesn't mean that it can't be effective. The whole point of our integrative medicine class was basically to make sure that we understand that there are many things about the human body that western medicine can't explain or describe. While I don't buy into any of the nonwestern medicine schools, I do have to agree that we dont' know everything, nor can we explain everything with our model. Just look at the placebo effect. There's no reason for a patient to feel better by taking a sugar pill, but it can happen.

At any rate, I think the important thing is that if all of your contemporary techniques fail, and something like chiropractics makes the patient feel better, who cares whether the manipulations are actually doing anything...if the patient feels better, then that's great.

 

[8744]

...The whole point of our integrative medicine class was basically to make sure that we understand that there are many things about the human body that western medicine can't explain or describe. While I don't buy into any of the nonwestern medicine schools, I do have to agree that we dont' know everything, nor can we explain everything with our model. Just look at the placebo effect. There's no reason for a patient to feel better by taking a sugar pill, but it can happen.

And yet, if I suggested we bring a faith-healer or snake-handler into the clinic as a paid consultant I would meet with considerable resistance because some placebo effects are more equal than others.

Suggest that some loosy-goosy medical practice based on Eastern mysticism or New Age pseudo-science be incorporated into modern medical practice and you can land a job at any of our politically correct medical schools as a Coordinator of Alternative Medicine. Suggest that we incorporate some of that Old Time Religious pseudo-medicine which has just as much intellectual backing (none, that is) and equal placebo effect as yer' friggin' Feng Shui and the tired old baby-boomer ex-hippies who plan your curriculum will become puritanical in their zeal to protect the science of medicine.

By the way, giving a placebo to your patient is unethical. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and said it would cure their migraines I could be fired from any residency. If I prescribe acupuncture or yoga I'm golden!

 

[Firebird]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or arguing with me...but I suspect a little of both. At any rate, personally I would not recommend anything that I would believe would have a placebo effect. But if a patient came to me and said "I am taking Herb X and I am feeling much better," I would not necessarily tell them that their improvement is all in their mind and not actually the result of an herb that I know has never shown any therapeutic value.

To comment and your middle paragraph, I was under the impression that religion was becoming a much more accepted placebo effect. I have even heard of doctors taking a "spiritual history" from their patients, although this is certainly far from mainstream. (By the way, being a religious person myself, I don't necessarily view prayer etc. as a placebo, but I referred to it that way because I know that is how it is viewed from a scientific perspective)

Oh and just to make sure we're on the same page, I was not suggesting that a doctor prescribe placebos. That was only an illustration.

 

[beefballs]

My wife had a boyfriend when she was in high school whos dad was an orthodontist, she went over for dinner and she said mr so & so, he not oonly corrected her but added "I think I've earned it"--I smile just thinking about it.

 

[coastal]

Have an acquaintance of the fam who insists that he be called Dr. SoAndSo. I find it pretty funny, considering he teaches grade 3 and has a PhD in Education.... whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[Firebird]

Actually, I think we need a slap back into reality. "Doctor" is a term used for doctorate level education. To quote one of our most entertaining attendings, he said something like, "They say we're giving you all a doctorate level education. Really I think all we're doing is vocational training." He is quite right. A real doctorate level education involves synthesizing a new idea and formulating a dissertation around it, something that student physicians do not do.

The first recorded use of the word doctor was in 1303 and it referred to a church father. In 1375, the it was first used to mean "one who held the highest degree offered in a University." The first record of "doctor" being used to refer to a medical professional is not known before 1377 but this was not common until about 200 years later. Even in 1611, when the King James Version of the Bible was translated, "MD's" were only known as physicians and any mention of a "doctor" in the New Testament refers to those who were highly trained in Law. So essentially Doctor originally meant PhD.

Point is: we don't technically get a doctorate level education and PhD's used the term first.

 

[heyjack70]

PhD's, or doctors of philosophy, synthesize new ideas and do research and make dissertations. They have advanced degrees in ideas, theories, etc.

Medical Doctors (MD, DO) don't usually do the same level of research as PhD's because they have advanced degrees in practical medicine.

I think the term doctor is valid for both in that they indicate advanced training in each field, though each field is very different.

Just like a bachelor's degree in Biology is very different than a Bachelor's of fine arts, each person would correctly state that they hold a bachelor's degree.

 

[Hurricane]

PhD's, or doctors of philosophy, synthesize new ideas and do research and make dissertations. They have advanced degrees in ideas, theories, etc.

Medical Doctors (MD, DO) don't usually do the same level of research as PhD's because they have advanced degrees in practical medicine.

I think the term doctor is valid for both in that they indicate advanced training in each field, though each field is very different.

So why don't lawyers insist on being called doctor after they earn their JD (juris doctorate)? It's every bit as "advanced" as an MD. Because both the MD and JD are professional degrees. Lawyers aren't called doctor unless they are awarded a JSD (Doctor of Juridical Science) which is essentially a PhD in law, and requires original research and a dissertation.

 

[Paws]

Have an acquaintance of the fam who insists that he be called Dr. SoAndSo. I find it pretty funny, considering he teaches grade 3 and has a PhD in Education.... whatever floats your boat I guess.

A third grade teacher?! Some of the most awesome phsyicians I know will introduce themselves as "Bob Smith" or "Margaret" or whatever. I hope my patients call me "Paws" instead of Dr [last name]. Especially the older patients. I mean really, we all know who we are and if you came to see me, then I reckon we both know who I am. Substance is more important than a hollow title.

 

[fun8stuff]

A third grade teacher?! Some of the most awesome phsyicians I know will introduce themselves as "Bob Smith" or "Margaret" or whatever. I hope my patients call me "Paws" instead of Dr [last name]. Especially the older patients. I mean really, we all know who we are and if you came to see me, then I reckon we both know who I am. Substance is more important than a hollow title.

i stated this once and someone brought up the argument that in order to have the correct professional doctor-patient relationship, the "Dr." was necessary. What do you think?

 

[NEATOMD]

I didn't vote.

I'd like to request that another option be added first:

-Slap/punch person in face and say, "It's doctor to you, IDIOT! Get it right next time or I'll do worse."

 

[NEATOMD]

I didn't vote.

I'd like to request that another option be added first:

-Slap/punch person in face and say, "It's doctor to you, IDIOT! Get it right next time or I'll do worse."

That was a joke, by the way... 😉

 

[Firebird]

i stated this once and someone brought up the argument that in order to have the correct professional doctor-patient relationship, the "Dr." was necessary. What do you think?

I think it depends on the setting. If I was an FP ( ) and I had a long standing relationship with a patient, I would probably be fine with them calling me by my first name. However, if I was working in the ED and was seeing a patient, I likely would introduce myself as Dr. _______ because when you don't know a patient, it's important to come across as professional as possible...because if something goes wrong with a patient you don't know, the way they have come to view you in that very short period of time is going to make some difference as to whether they run immediately to the lawyer's office.

 

[jesse14]

Yeah that's right. I personally find it disgusting that chiros wear white coats and refer to themselves as doctors and have been able to, through years of this, convince the public, including many medical professionals, that they are practicing medicine. There is no science behind the field and no data to support the existence of sublexations, or the efficacy/possibility of spinal manipulation. Chiros at best really do nothing more than a massage therapist could, and at worst perform dangerous manipulations, especially cervical ones, that have harmed patients. Anyhow back to the OP, why on earth would it matter if someone called you Mr not Dr? This is so strange a thing to bring up in a regular convorsation. I would always just say hey I'm Alex what's up when meeting new people. I mean I agree with PandaBear (I think it was him) in that I would probably use it when talking with creditors, banks, schools, etc. but I wouldn't correct people I just met when our talking had nothing to do with my being a doctor That's Doctor jackoff to you ! Haha and as a side not liverotcod I just figured out what your name meant, I am so ******ed haha

Funny, My PT not MT could "cure" my chronic headaches like my DC did. I fail to see how you can sit there and say they can't do anything more than a MT. That statemnet just shows me how little you actually know about chiropractic and how much you think you know. NO DC's arn't MD's and should NOT be acting as such (im yet to find one that does). But, i don't like how you are giving these pre-meds a very one-sided view of the profession. If you would like to dicuss this further, i'd be happy to.

 

[Paws]

Ok, as for first name basis yes, if I was in family practice and knew people well, or if I got to know the patients over time in say, oncology I would do it. But ER doc, Dr. Paws it is. I guess I would like my patients to feel comfortable with me and I see myself in a smaller community.

As for the lawyer thing, and being unprofessional, well I have read that the more your patients like and relate to you the less likely they are to want to sue you. I think being too stiff and formal (maybe even hiding behind the Dr title) pi$$es people off and they get angry - especially when things get complicated medically. I guess there is a thin line to walk here.

 

[Law2Doc]

Lawyers aren't called doctor unless they are awarded a JSD (Doctor of Juridical Science) which is essentially a PhD in law, and requires original research and a dissertation.

Even then, they tend to go by "Professor", because to my knowledge that is an advanced second degree that qualifies you to do absolutely nothing additional but teach law...

 

[Hurricane]

I think it depends on the setting. If I was an FP ( ) and I had a long standing relationship with a patient, I would probably be fine with them calling me by my first name. However, if I was working in the ED and was seeing a patient, I likely would introduce myself as Dr. _______ because when you don't know a patient, it's important to come across as professional as possible...because if something goes wrong with a patient you don't know, the way they have come to view you in that very short period of time is going to make some difference as to whether they run immediately to the lawyer's office.

I think you're right - it depends on the specialty. I'm going into psychiatry, and although I abhor the white coat and all of the pretention that so often comes with the culture of medicine, I think the Dr title is necessary with patients in psych to maintain that boundary.

But in non doctor-patient settings, such as with colleagues or social acquaintances, I couldn't care less if anyone calls me Dr or not. Actually, I'd prefer just my untitled name. I'm a pretty informal person. I already have a PhD and occasionally get called Dr. Hurricane in non-medical, academic settings, and it's just weird. Too formal. Most of the PhD researchers I know go sans title among colleagues.

 

[velo]

Not actually wrong, if you read what I wrote. I would agree that you have a doctorate and could call yourself a doctor. However, you do increase your liability if you create a misimpression on others by the apparent authority of the title. i.e. when someone sues you, they are going to attest that you told them you were a doctor, and you will likely be held to standards higher than that of the general public for this reason. Thus you wouldn't want to use the title in other than in social settings (and in your residency), until you have a license and insurance behind you.

No, actually you are wrong about this, you start refering to yourself as 'doctor' once you start residency

 

[8744]

No, actually you are wrong about this, you start refering to yourself as 'doctor' once you start residency

I certainly do and I don't know anyone whether intern or resident who does not. Certainly nobody ever tells a patient,"That's Mr. Bear, not Dr. Bear."

On a side note, the PhD candidates at my medical school had the biggest chips on their shoulder when it came to the medical students. I knew several of them and their big complaint was that Medical Doctors weren't "real" doctors like they would be once they stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons long enough to finish their dissertations.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Seconded.

In the earlier years of undergrad, I worked part-time as a restaurant hostess. If there's a wait, I asked for a name. First or last, doesn't matter since we didn't call parties by mister/miss anyway. A couple times, I had customers specify, "doctor" when I wrote down their last name and they would stand over me until I penciled it in. I was a mere mortal then and I thought it was pompous. Fast forward to med school...yea I still think it's pompous.

agreed. i'd never correct anyone; it is overly arrogant; in a restaurant, who the heck cares unless someone is in cardiac arrest and needs assistance

 

[Hurricane]

On a side note, the PhD candidates at my medical school had the biggest chips on their shoulder when it came to the medical students. I knew several of them and their big complaint was that Medical Doctors weren't "real" doctors like they would be once they stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons long enough to finish their dissertations.

Really? Because in my experience, the PhD students are much less concerned with the title compared to the MD students. As evidenced by the multi-page Dr title and white coat threads. Like I said upthread, most of the PhD researchers simply call each other by their first name, and only use Dr in formal written correspondence, or when teaching.

When I came back to medical school after receiving my PhD, quite a few med students asked if I was going to "make" people call me Dr. Yeah right, because as a 3rd year medical student, I'd need another excuse to be picked on. 🙄

 

[Firebird]

I think you're right - it depends on the specialty. I'm going into psychiatry, and although I abhor the white coat and all of the pretention that so often comes with the culture of medicine, I think the Dr title is necessary with patients in psych to maintain that boundary.

But in non doctor-patient settings, such as with colleagues or social acquaintances, I couldn't care less if anyone calls me Dr or not. Actually, I'd prefer just my untitled name. I'm a pretty informal person. I already have a PhD and occasionally get called Dr. Hurricane in non-medical, academic settings, and it's just weird. Too formal. Most of the PhD researchers I know go sans title among colleagues.

Thanks for thinking I'm right. Ever since I got married, the phrase "I think you're right" has become sparse.

Actually I thought of a situation where I would want to be called doctor outside of a clinical situation. If I have a daughter, when she reaches the appropriate age of dating, her boyfriend better well call me "doctor" or "your highness" or something to that effect.

That's a joke, by the way.

Sort of.

Not really.

 

[THP]

Thanks for thinking I'm right. Ever since I got married, the phrase "I think you're right" has become sparse.

Actually I thought of a situation where I would want to be called doctor outside of a clinical situation. If I have a daughter, when she reaches the appropriate age of dating, her boyfriend better well call me "doctor" or "your highness" or something to that effect.

That's a joke, by the way.

Sort of.

Not really.

Actually its your duty as a father to intimidate all of your daughter's boyfriends.

 

[1Path]

So what do you do when you are in some sort of situation and someone says "Hello. Mr/Mrs. fun8stuff. How are you?", like for example when you are at the dentist office or at conferences for your kid and the teacher says hi. Do you correct them and say it is "Dr. Fun8stuff" or just ignore it?

Judges get called "judge XX" in all situations, why shouldn't "Dr.'s"??

 

[mendel121]

On a side note, the PhD candidates at my medical school had the biggest chips on their shoulder when it came to the medical students. I knew several of them and their big complaint was that Medical Doctors weren't "real" doctors like they would be once they stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons long enough to finish their dissertations.

Sounds to me like someone has a chip on their shoulder about PhDs

When I came back to medical school after receiving my PhD, quite a few med students asked if I was going to "make" people call me Dr. Yeah right, because as a 3rd year medical student, I'd need another excuse to be picked on.

It's like we share the same brain, at my med school I keep the fact that I have a PhD a closely guarded secret for this exact reason, I don't need a target on my back. Whenever someone does find out, the first question is "Do you make people call you doctor?" which supports the thought that the ones who are really most worried about it are med students, not doctoral students - I was never asked this question in grad school, and I'm doing a part-time post doc now and have never had a grad student ask me this question

 

[Law2Doc]

No, actually you are wrong about this, you start refering to yourself as 'doctor' once you start residency

If you reread my post, you will see that I carved out on the job residency use in the paranthetical of my post.

 

[1Path]

Whenever someone does find out, the first question is "Do you make people call you doctor?" which supports the thought that the ones who are really most worried about it are med students, not doctoral students - I was never asked this question in grad school, and I'm doing a part-time post doc now and have never had a grad student ask me this question

I think you all should make the med students call you "Dr".

 

[fun8stuff]

Sounds to me like someone has a chip on their shoulder about PhDs



It's like we share the same brain, at my med school I keep the fact that I have a PhD a closely guarded secret for this exact reason, I don't need a target on my back. Whenever someone does find out, the first question is "Do you make people call you doctor?" which supports the thought that the ones who are really most worried about it are med students, not doctoral students - I was never asked this question in grad school, and I'm doing a part-time post doc now and have never had a grad student ask me this question

I had a couple profs from undergrad who looked down on for me for wanting to go to med school. One even gave me the whole bit about how i wouldn't technically be a doctor because I would not be completing a thesis or or doing any original research, etc. Another came out and told me that the money would not be worth it, immediately assuming that i only wanted to go for the money....

edit: wow, i seem to have left out a few key words, lol. my typing is getting messy...

 

[mendel121]

...I had a couple profs from undergrad who looked down on for me for wanting to go to med school. One even gave me the whole bit how i wouldn't technically be a doctor because I would complete a thesis or do any original research, etc. Another tried to say the money would not be worth it, immediately assuming that i only wanted to go for the money....

I guess the attitude of any given PhD towards MDs may depend on the school and department. I can see how a Prof dealing with pre-meds all the time can get a little jaded. I got mine in a department without undergrads, and then worked in the med school, where the PhDs that I know really don't act like this towards MDs, but someone in the basic science departments might be a little different I guess, also a$$holes are everywhere, even among PhDs

 

[mendel121]

I think you all should make the med students call you "Dr".

An MD/PhD that I worked with as a doctoral student told me that I should get "My Name, PhD" on my white coat, and then make senior med students call me doctor. 🙂

edited to protect the innocent - sorry

 

[MacGyver]

I have no idea where this reference is. We had a conference on integrative medicine and a whole class on integrative medicine and both referenced a level 1A study on lumbar manipulation for the relief of lower back pain.

Just because there's no anatomical basis for something, doesn't mean that it can't be effective. The whole point of our integrative medicine class was basically to make sure that we understand that there are many things about the human body that western medicine can't explain or describe. While I don't buy into any of the nonwestern medicine schools, I do have to agree that we dont' know everything, nor can we explain everything with our model. Just look at the placebo effect. There's no reason for a patient to feel better by taking a sugar pill, but it can happen.

At any rate, I think the important thing is that if all of your contemporary techniques fail, and something like chiropractics makes the patient feel better, who cares whether the manipulations are actually doing anything...if the patient feels better, then that's great.

Thats all fine and good, but a profession that operates that way should NOT be considered "doctors"

Massage therapists make people feel good too. Chiro is a one trick pony, and yet they wrap themselves up in this "doctor" bull****. Last time I looked, a "doctor" should be able to treat more than one symptom.

To be called a doctor implies that you have a somewhat wide skill set, use appropriate diagnostic and treatment techniques for a variety of conditions. To call somebody a "doctor" because they manipulate somebody's back to make them feel better is a joke. Massage therapists deserve the "doctor" title is thats the standard you are going to use

 

[Firebird]

To be called a doctor implies that you have a somewhat wide skill set, use appropriate diagnostic and treatment techniques for a variety of conditions.

Apparently it doesn't, because not only are DC's called "doctor," so are people in naturopathy, homeopathy, etc. They definitely don't use real diagnostic or treatment techniques yet our society has chosen to call them doctor.

The whole business of elevating medical doctors to some platform that is above other professions is ridiculous. The movie quote that you have put in your signature line is a great example of this. Now, Chiropractors may not use scientifically proven techniques, but you don't have the right to look down on them for that and say they're not worthy of the same title that you are.

 

[velo]

If you reread my post, you will see that I carved out on the job residency use in the paranthetical of my post.

uh huh, so besides "social situations" and "at his residency" a resident should call himself doctor...what else is he doing? Whatsmore what is he doing that he's going to get sued for saying he's a doctor? I know, at home! (wife on the stand: "he said trust me baby, I'm a doctor") You're way too lawyer-y if you can think of a situation...are you thinking good samaritan? You should burn in hell if you sue a good samaritan anyway... 🙄

 

[THP]

The whole business of elevating medical doctors to some platform that is above other professions is ridiculous. The movie quote that you have put in your signature line is a great example of this. Now, Chiropractors may not use scientifically proven techniques, but you don't have the right to look down on them for that and say they're not worthy of the same title that you are.

I disagree with this sentiment, we should look down on and criticize these professions. Part of our job is to be educators and that includes calling BS when we see it. You even admit that what they are doing is likely false (esp homeopathy) and I think you are irresponsible if you don't discourage things that are false AND potentially harmful. For example, if a patient thinks some sort of homeopathic remedy is going to help and it delays treatment it can be harmful. Giving them the title of doctor legitimizes what you say is unproven.

Also, he has every right to look down on whom ever he wants - that's the whole point of the 1st ammendment. Note that you also have the right to call him a pompous a$$ if you want.

 

[8744]

Really? Because in my experience, the PhD students are much less concerned with the title compared to the MD students. As evidenced by the multi-page Dr title and white coat threads. Like I said upthread, most of the PhD researchers simply call each other by their first name, and only use Dr in formal written correspondence, or when teaching.

When I came back to medical school after receiving my PhD, quite a few med students asked if I was going to "make" people call me Dr. Yeah right, because as a 3rd year medical student, I'd need another excuse to be picked on. 🙄

You missed my cutting remark about the geekiness of doctoral candidates as exemplified by their love for Dungeons and Dragons.

I didn't say they wanted to be called "Doctor," just that they had a chip on their shoulder.

As far as what it takes to get a PhD, well, they are giving away doctoral degrees in fields like education, sociology, ethnic studies, and any number of intensely Mickey Mouse fields so the value of a PhD, like most things in our insipid, grade-inflated culture, is rapidly eroding.

All the doctoral candidates I knew slacked off most of the day, dressed like slobs, were pasty and out of shape, came in late and left early, and generally exhibited a tremendous lack of self-discipline. In short, just a bunch of over-grown college students.

 

[Ypo.]

Thats all fine and good, but a profession that operates that way should NOT be considered "doctors"

Massage therapists make people feel good too. Chiro is a one trick pony, and yet they wrap themselves up in this "doctor" bull****. Last time I looked, a "doctor" should be able to treat more than one symptom.

To be called a doctor implies that you have a somewhat wide skill set, use appropriate diagnostic and treatment techniques for a variety of conditions. To call somebody a "doctor" because they manipulate somebody's back to make them feel better is a joke. Massage therapists deserve the "doctor" title is thats the standard you are going to use

Your quote says everything about your attitude...but...I just have to say I think you are being way too close minded and judgemental. A lot of other 'doctors' do good for their patients. They have a different education than us, yes, but you shouldn't think that western medicine came up with the term 'doctor' and that it has the exclusive right to be called doctor. There are other forms of medicine (as I'm sure you're aware) that are much older.

Like it or not, a more professional way to voice your opinions would be to cite articles that have shown that chiropractic techniques were not helpful for this or that symptom.

And btw-chiropracters do have some usefulness-a lot of their techniques they borrowed from DOs. There have been studies that have shown some of their manipulations to be helpful in treating more than one symptom. Just don't be too quick to judge. Although I agree with you that we should be skeptical of accepting non evidence based medicine, we shouldn't be too hasty to rule things out simply because they haven't been tested yet. Human experience and trial and error count for just as much as RCTs in my opinion. We all know that much of what we do in the clinic ends up being experimental, anyway.

 

[Law2Doc]

uh huh, so besides "social situations" and "at his residency" a resident should call himself doctor...what else is he doing?

What I was trying to say was that it's not all that unusual for someone you meet/know/are related to to find out from you that you are a doctor and try to get free medical services -- the old "doc, can you take a look at this?". You aren't licensed but potentially have given the impression that you are, and not insured, and thus it's a double whammy -- when you screw up it's a high standard of care expected of you and unshielded personal liability.
Do not delude yourself into thinkng that someone won't sue you if you do them a favor or act for free.
Thus my conclusion was that in general it's perhaps a mistake to use the "doctor" title until you are licensed and insured. Lawyers are ahead of the curve on this notion and do not let (per professional ethical rules) a JD without a license to assert that, or sign documents indicating that, they are an "attorney". Hence why I said using "doctor" when merely degreed is "problematic".

 

[Firebird]

I disagree with this sentiment, we should look down on and criticize these professions. Part of our job is to be educators and that includes calling BS when we see it. You even admit that what they are doing is likely false (esp homeopathy) and I think you are irresponsible if you don't discourage things that are false AND potentially harmful. For example, if a patient thinks some sort of homeopathic remedy is going to help and it delays treatment it can be harmful. Giving them the title of doctor legitimizes what you say is unproven.

Also, he has every right to look down on whom ever he wants - that's the whole point of the 1st ammendment. Note that you also have the right to call him a pompous a$$ if you want.

I would discourage any patient from using any treatment if it was going to interfere with the way they seek real medical treatment. That being said, if they can do both (financially, etc.) and chiropracty, homeopathy, etc. works for them, then who cares? If it's just in their mind, then who cares? Let them feel better.

But you missed my point in that paragraph anyway...I was just saying it's irritating when people raise the profession of MD/DO above everyone else. A chiropractor is performing a legitimate business. Our society has chosen to call them doctors. My point was medical doctors are no better than anyone else. I may have been a little too specific when I said that earlier, but that was the point. Maybe I missed my point for you?

Oh and you knew what I meant about not having the right.

 

[THP]

I would discourage any patient from using any treatment if it was going to interfere with the way they seek real medical treatment. That being said, if they can do both (financially, etc.) and chiropracty, homeopathy, etc. works for them, then who cares? If it's just in their mind, then who cares? Let them feel better.

But you missed my point in that paragraph anyway...I was just saying it's irritating when people raise the profession of MD/DO above everyone else. A chiropractor is performing a legitimate business. Our society has chosen to call them doctors. My point was medical doctors are no better than anyone else. I may have been a little too specific when I said that earlier, but that was the point. Maybe I missed my point for you?

Oh and you knew what I meant about not having the right.

I agree with your first paragraph. I disagree with your second paragraph however. I think medical doctors (as a whole, obviously there are individuals who should never be allowed to practice) are better than chiropractors.

I knew what you were trying to say about rights I just wanted to make the point because your language betrays a deeper problem in our society. There seems to be a recent phenomenon where everyone has all these imagined rights and they are constantly clamoring for them.

 

[Firebird]

I agree with your first paragraph. I disagree with your second paragraph however. I think medical doctors (as a whole, obviously there are individuals who should never be allowed to practice) are better than chiropractors.

So to all the patients who swear that the chiropractor helps them, what would you say? Would you say, "I'm better than your chiropractor, even though he's helping you and I'm prescribing meds that don't seem to help you." I don't think chiropractic manipulation would do me a bit of good. But there are some that it helps...whether it is psychosomatic or not, they feel better. Their goal is to help people, just like ours is...it's not like their going town to town selling snake oil just to make money. They have a noble cause. So cut them a break and don't look down on them...science isn't everything...it can't explain everything. Maybe one day science will discover the reason behind why all these patients swear by their chiropractor.