Are they really "doctors"?

Audiologists I mean. I know that the various programs have adopted the Au.D. degree. Why not? Everybody else is doing it, right? What gets me is how hard the profession is pushing that "Doctor" title in advertising their practices, at least around here. I haven’t seen anything like it since chiropractic. I understand that their diplomas contain the word "doctor" but are they really "doctors" in the health care sense?

 

Is DBA a Doctor? Asking of my future self.

 

If your business is in trouble, yes. If it's your thyroid - no.

 

I think they are doctors in their respective medical fields. They have certain knowledge of a particular body part or specialization which allows them to distinguish themselves. I would consider an audiologist a doctor myself. Some of them work in hospitals where they run departments and normal physicians are referring them over to the audiologist because they have advanced training rather than general training.

This reminds me of the orthopedist vs podiatrist argument. Which doctor is correct for a broken ankle?

 

I was in a hospital and saw someone in scrubs wearing a surgical cap. His shirt was embroidered as Dr. So A. So, DPharm. Apparently, the hospital felt comfortable with that designation. I am fine with it as long as it is clear who I am dealing with. Already can be hard to tell if the person in scrubs is a nurse or respiratory therapist.

 

Well, a dentist and a podiatrist are both physicians and surgeons within the limits of their licenses. Does that make any difference? Maybe not. I don’t know.

 

"Doctor" shouldn't be conflated with "physician." In some countries, they don't call their physicians doctors because they don't have doctoral degrees.

 

Just thinking here: An MD is three years of classroom/clinical instruction followed by a year of full-time residency. So is the AuD, albeit in the science and medicine of audiology. It seems to me that the AuD is a doctorate in the healthcare sense. I personally think Chiropractic is pseudoscientific and thus not comparable. In any event, One of my children was born deaf. While I am thankful she gained her hearing over time, the audiology department at our local children's hospital was phenomenal.

Another observation here regarding professional degrees: The AuD and MD are about four years of education beyond the undergraduate degree. The average minister typically earns a baccalaureate degree (usually in a related field) followed by an MDiv (three years of coursework in specific subjects) or its equivalent through the relevant alternative graduate program(s). Then, most either participate in an internship for at least a year prior to their first associate pastorate. DMin admission typically requires at least 3 years of pastoral or related ministry experience and the degree constitutes about 3-4 years of study including a substantial research component. That is, the DMin equates to about 10 yrs of formal study while the MD, for example, amounts to 8-9-- and all of this without either the BMW or an enormous salary. An adjustment is needed somewhere, and I don't mean the chiropractic variety.

 

My local hospital color codes scrubs according to profession (light blue = CNA; grey= phlebotomy; dark blue = RN; light green = doctor). Having been there more times than I can count (for visitation mostly), I have found that practice helpful.

 

Forget the diploma. You, of all of us, know that's not the deciding factor.

They either are or are not doctors according to their positions in their professions. Thus, an audiologist is a doctor while a nurse practitioner with a DNP is not. (But that DNP WOULD be considered a doctor in an academic setting. And I've seen lawyers addressed that way, too.)

When I am in a clinic as a patient or (in younger years) as a trainer, I am not a doctor because that connotes something that is not accurate. And I think that is what matters: the truth.

 

In academic and in almost all professional settings, yes.

 

And in others the Bachelor of Medicine leads to the title "doctor" because it is the position in the profession, not the degree, that determines the title. (As I understand it, medical doctors in the UK who go on to get a degree in surgery are then called "mister.")

 

Or the janitor.

 

Or not. Market forces and all that.

 

Never seen this. But I like it.

 

Good point. It can be misleading. I recently saw a news story about a county health officer who was killed (Dr. Calandra Green). I assumed as I imagine others would, that she was a medical doctor. It turned out that she was an RN with an Ed.D. and an MBA.

 

Is it that they are not a doctor in their position or that the use of the title would cause confusion in certain settings?

For example, a counselor might go by doctor in an independent practice, but might not use the title when working with psychologists and psychiatrists.

Or, is it that what really matters is the degree required for licensure? A psychologist has a doctoral-level license (in most cases) whereas a counselor or social worker has a masters-level license even if they have doctoral degrees in counseling or social work.