Fox News "Expert" With Cal Southern Doctorate

Well, surgeons in the UK are traditionally referred to as "Mister" (historically). This is because, way back in the Middle Ages, surgeons didn't receive academic degrees. They apprenticed to a surgeon. So you became a surgeon the same way you became a blacksmith, a tanner, a cooper or any number of other trades. So, today, UK surgeons are still referred to as Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms rather than "Doctor" even though they hold equal qualification to use that title as any other physician.

So, physicians were historically called "Doctor" and surgeons were historically called "Mister." Today, both traditions apply even though the education has caught up. Either way, those who have a Bachelor of Medicine are called "Doctor" and have been for a very long time so it isn't really a new thing. At least, that's my interpretation of everything I've read. Please someone interject if they have more clarity on the subject.

As your own quote indicates, admission to the relevant professional body is generally regarded as the source of one's title rather than the degree itself.

 

Keep in mind that in the U.S. some doctorates were awarded without a bachelors degree.

Doc Holliday graduated with a Doctor of Dental Surgery from the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery (now technically part of the University of Pennsylvania's Dental School). No bachelors.

So it seems that some individuals followed the British model (Bachelor of Medicine with the title of "Doctor") while other programs popped up that just gave you the title outright.

Chiropractors, originally, didn't require bachelors degrees (and when I was in school you only needed two years of college to be admitted to chiropractic school). So you could go out and earn a DC in lieu of a B.S., if you wanted.

I think part of it might also be that some of these professions didn't exist in antiquity. So if I'm starting up a new discipline called Chiropractic I can decide what my practitioners are going to be called. Likewise, there was a time before Optometry was a healthcare practice. So, if I'm starting up this new Optometry school, I can decide what my graduates will receive and how best to style them. Keeping in mind that in these earlier days there existed far fewer regulations about hanging out a shingle, calling yourself doctor and either twisting peoples backs or screwing around with their eyesight.

 

Why are you hating on Optometrists? I've heard denigrating comments about Chiropractors but never Optometrists. I've never met an Optometrist who was "screwing around" with people's eyesight, far from it.

 

I wasn't hating on Optometrists. I was simply pointing out that in the 1800s there was really no regulation to prevent you from hanging out a shingle, calling yourself doctor and pretty much doing anything.

That isn't an indictment of modern optometry at all. But, from what I hear, pre-Optometrists (or, perhaps more accurately, pre-Optometry licensing) eyeglass salesmen simply had you try out lenses to see what you felt worked best and then sold you some glasses.

There was really no consumer protection to guard you from someone who did intend to "screw around with your eyes" versus someone who was actually offering a reasonable treatment.

If I had one criticism for optometry it would simply be that it appears to be a somewhat unnecessary medical field. In some states (NJ for example) you don't need an Optometrist's prescription to get glasses. You can, in old school fashion, just pick some lenses that "work for you" sign a waiver (stating that you accept the risks of wearing unprescribed glasses) and shuffle along.

All of the services offered by optometrists are also offered by ophthalmologists who can also offer surgical treatment.

But potential redundancy does not equal, in my eyes, illegitimacy. So, that was the benign intention I had while using that somewhat flippant phrase. Take that as you will.

 

Because the title 'doctor' in this context is and was a professional one, not an academic one. It indicates one's position in the profession--in this case, medicine. Because the MD is now the first professional degree for physicians and surgeons, the concepts have become conflated.

Getting back to the subject, this is why using a PsyD in a profession related to psychology and/or medicine without being licensed appropriately is confusing and not very ethical. If its usage might, in situations where it matters--lead people to believe one is licensed at that level (and, thus, has the professional title of 'doctor,' not merely the academic one), then it tends to deceive. One can be mad about this all one wants, but it's true.

 

I think that's a reasonable point. As I said, if you walked through the halls of a hospital wearing a white lab coat and carrying a stethoscope you would, indeed, be misleading people to believe you were a physician despite the fact that you have every right to the title of "Doctor."

This is the point that I dispute. There is really no practical situation where the distinction would matter. "John Smith, PsyD - Licensed Mental Health Counselor" is very clearly identifying his level of licensure. It is simply foolish to assert that a sign with those words is going to somehow deceive a potential patient walking down the street into believing he is a licensed psychologist. As previously stated, that just isn't how people choose mental health practitioners.

Besides, you would presumably have no issue with an LMHC with a PhD in Counseling identifying themselves as "John Smith, PhD. - Licensed Mental Health Counselor" even though a good many licensed psychologists have a PhD.

But wait, Rich, what if I'm a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (Masters level) and then I go back to school and earn a Psy.D. in Marriage and Family Therapy?

It has very little to do with being "mad" and everything to do with your opinion on this topic simply lacking consistency or any basis other than an extreme hypothetical that you have thus far declined to elucidate.

I go onto my insurance carrier's website and look for psychologists. It gives me licensed psychologists. It doesn't care about education. I do not have to worry about getting a PsyD LMHC just because they have a PsyD. If I search for Psychologists, I get Psychologists.

If I look in the phone book (I think that's still a thing) for psychologists, I should only be able to find people who are licensed as psychologists.

The typical sign outside a medical arts building might list me as "Joseph Neuhaus, PsyD LMHC - Psychotherapy and Counseling" but 1) that isn't incorrect as those would be services I am licensed to offer and 2) I've never seen a sign outside of a medical arts building that even includes a phone number. So that sign isn't really serving as advertisement.

So who is getting misled? Who are these throngs of people you feel are looking at this hypothetical sign and engaging the services of this hypothetical individual BUT who wouldn't have engaged those services if they had known they were only licensed as a lowly LMHC (despite the fact that the license type is clearly displayed)?

Because so far you've only alluded to some incredibly vague circumstance whereby you, "in a healthcare setting," avoid the use of the title of "Doctor" to avoid confusion to point out why this is a problem.

Yet, you've not pointed to a single professional association or licensing body that shares your view. So I respect that you feel that you have an opinion on this matter.
In short, you're wrong. And having two doctorates does not make your unfounded opinions fact.

You'll notice, however, that I respect your right to have a wrong opinion and continue to publicly present it and that I, unlike yourself, have not demanded that you immediately cease from speaking these falsehoods.

 

There are also some people who genuinely believe that non-physicians who call themselves "doctor" do so purely out of vanity i.e. PhD, DBA, EdD, et al. They erroneously believe that only a physician can legitimately be called a doctor.

 

In this world today you can find people who believe virtually anything (please see my conspiracy theory thread) so your statement really doesn't mean anything. On the other hand there are people who spend their time researching the origins of words. Here's what they have to say on the topic:

etymology - Which was the first doctor, M.D. or Ph.D.? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

 

I particularly love this portion:

"In OE and ME, a doctor was a leech (lǣce in OE) which gave us many other words:
leechbook — book of prescriptions
leechcraft — art of healing; medicament, remedy, prescription
leechcraftig (leechcrafty) — skilled in medicine
leechchest — medicine chest
leechdom — medicament, medicine; salvation
leechdomlic — salutary, beneficial, health-giving
leechdomness — cataplasm, poultice
leechfee — doctor's fee
leechfinger — fourth finger
leechhouse — sick room, hospital
leechiren — surgeon's knife, lancet
leechsalve — medicinal ointment
leechseax — lancet
leechwyrt (leechwort) — medicinal herb, drug."

It seems appropriate in one sense in this day and age as the overcharging of unnecessary medical procedures and treatments amounts to a severe "leeching" of the economy.

 

Another interesting read on this.

The first "Doctor" degree awarded was in Law (Civil Law), oh my, in the 12th Century in Bologna, Italy.

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/d20fd39e-586c-45e7-a90b-f0c366bbe974.pdf

 

Ahh, Bologna. My favorite mystery meat.

But seriously the Italian system also had, until 1999, the laurea di dottore which conferred the title of "Doctor." Laurea was a pretty weird system. You entered the program fresh out of high school and studied for 4-6 years but you studied some pretty high level work and had to complete a thesis. Plus side was you got to be a "Doctor" at the end of it.

So, if you think about it, is it really a surprise that the American system seems to be a mishmash of things? Sure, the Commonwealth system has roots in the U.S. But I can't imagine that other systems, like the Italian, which are completely different probably also influenced things.

 

With particular relevance to the discussion at hand here is a portion of the article (which was written in 1973!).

As of year-end 1970, there were, in the United
States, 8,050 podiatrists (D.P.M.), 19,560 chiropractors (D.C.), 20,611
optometrists (O.D.) (year-end 1969), 118,175 dentists (D.D.S. or
D.M.D.), 13,129 clinical psychologists (Ph.D.),4 approximately 25,000
veterinarians (D.V.M.), 45 and thousands of other "Doctors" who are
Ph.D.s, Ed.D.s, D.B.A.s (Doctor of Business Administration), D.Sc.s
(Doctor of Science), and D.D.s (Doctor of Divinity). This number of
"Doctors" is to be looked at in comparison with the approximately
369,123 physicians across the United States and its possessions.46
Obviously, the public is constantly being exposed to a great many people
who are called "Doctor" and are not medical doctors and it would appear
safe to say that the public is not confusing them with physicians. 47