Can you be called "Doctor" with a PhD in Nursing?

[Jo Dirt]

This has me curious. I would imagine you could.

[PurpleHairUnicorn]

I once worked with a nurse who was also a DC. On her charts she signed her name "Sally Smith RN" Her full legal title (at least in Georgia) was Dr. Sally Smith RN BA BSN DC. She always introduced herself to her patients by saying "Hello, I'm Sally and I will be your nurse tonight"

[platon20]

Anyone with a Ph.D. can be called "doctor."

so if someone with a PhD in English was walking around a hospital and referring to himself as "doctor" you'd be OK with that?

Nope, thats wrong. If you are in a healthcare environemnt, the ONLY people who can be called doctors are MDs or DOs. Yes, pharmacists, physical therapists have doctorates to, but its inappropriate to refer to them as doctors when the general public is present.

[platon20]

Interesting post.

My clinical instructor is an ER NP in Peds. I always call her Dr. ******,

Why would you do that, an NP is not a doctorate degree. Or does she have a PhD in nursing which you failed to tell us?

[platon20]

Here's my question:

As I understand it, a physician educated in Australia or the UK does NOT recieve a doctoral degree, but rather an MBBS (Which I believe is a Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery?). I also believe that physicians are not addressed as "Dr. So and So" in the UK or Australia. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So, how come then when they come to practice in the US, do they get the right to be addressed as "Dr."?

Is it because it is confusing to call them "Mr."? If so, I can understand that and would say that's ok. But then by the same token, if you've earned a doctoral degree in something else, you should get the "Dr." moniker as well.

Yes?

Well i agree if a foreign born "doctor" does not have an MD then he doesnt deserve the "doctor" title.

HOwever, its still not right to call everyone with a doctorate a "doctor" in a clinical setting, unless you speciffy SPECIFICALLY what kiknd of doctor you are.

So the following is acceptable in the context of a hospital:

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith, the psychologist

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith, the physical therapist

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith, the pharmacist

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith, the nurse (PhD in nursing)

Whats NOT OK is this:

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith (has a PhD in anthropology)

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith (PhD in nursing)

Hello, I'm Dr. Smith (physical therapist)

IN other words, if you are not an MD or DO, you can use the doctor title but ONLY if you tell the patient specifically what you are a doctor of.

[llg, PhD, RN]

It seems to me that some of the posters in this thread have some "self esteem issues" when it comes to the profession of nursing -- and are putting physicians on a pedastal they do not deserve.

It is wrong to put physicians on a pedastal and it is wrong to encourage the general public to do so. Other disciplines have much to offer and should not be shoved aside or diminished by encouraging a glorification of the medical profession over all others. We should be educating the public about the value of the other professions, not perpetuating any existing misunderstandings or illusions about the absolute supremacy of medicine.

As I have said before, I introduce myself using my first and last name -- rarely using any title and always identifying myself as a nurse. But my PhD outranks an MD in the world of academic degrees and I have earned the title of "Doctor" with 7 years of full time graduate education plus many years of practice. In case you didn't notice, I have spent more years in school than most physicians.

I have earned the title of "Dr." and will use it when I choose to use a title. Those who don't want nursing (or other disciplines) to be given the respect and public acknowledgement we have earned should get over their desire to worship physicians. It's insulting to those of us who have done the work to earn other doctoral degrees.

Physicians chose to use the title of Dr. back when it was an elevation for them to be called the same thing as college professors with PhD's. Historically, their education was less and the "Dr." title was a way for them to be elevated in the public eye. They should not now try to kick the PhD's down by stripping the title they appropriated from them in the first place. If they want a title that is exclusively their's, they should either use the title "physician" or make up another title -- not kick the original "owners" of that title out of the club.

llg

[platon20]

It seems to me that some of the posters in this thread have some "self esteem issues" when it comes to the profession of nursing -- and are putting physicians on a pedastal they do not deserve.

It is wrong to put physicians on a pedastal and it is wrong to encourage the general public to do so. Other disciplines have much to offer and should not be shoved aside or diminished by encouraging a glorification of the medical profession over all others. We should be educating the public about the value of the other professions, not perpetuating any existing misunderstandings or illusions about the absolute supremacy of medicine.

As I have said before, I introduce myself using my first and last name -- rarely using any title and always identifying myself as a nurse. But my PhD outranks an MD in the world of academic degrees and I have earned the title of "Doctor" with 7 years of full time graduate education plus many years of practice. In case you didn't notice, I have spent more years in school than most physicians.

I have earned the title of "Dr." and will use it when I choose to use a title. Those who don't want nursing (or other disciplines) to be given the respect and public acknowledgement we have earned should get over their desire to worship physicians. It's insulting to those of us who have done the work to earn other doctoral degrees.

Physicians chose to use the title of Dr. back when it was an elevation for them to be called the same thing as college professors with PhD's. Historically, their education was less and the "Dr." title was a way for them to be elevated in the public eye. They should not now try to kick the PhD's down by stripping the title they appropriated from them in the first place. If they want a title that is exclusively their's, they should either use the title "physician" or make up another title -- not kick the original "owners" of that title out of the club.

llg

So in other words, you think its OK for a professor of middle eastern studies in a hospital who has a PhD to introduce himself to patients as "Doctor"

Sorry but thats wrong. If he was in a college classroom, fine. If he said "I'm DR. X, professor of middle eastern studies", thats fine. But its WRONG to refer to himself as "dr. x" with no qualifiers in a hospital setting

[platon20]

But my PhD outranks an MD in the world of academic degrees and I have earned the title of "Doctor" with 7 years of full time graduate education plus many years of practice. In case you didn't notice, I have spent more years in school than most physicians.

PhD and MD are different, not superior or inferior to each other. Just like the new DNP (doctor of nursing practice) programs. A PhD is not superior to a DNP, its just different.

PhDs are widely divergent. Some people get their PhDs in 3 years. Other take 10 years. PhDs are not standardized like other degrees are.

Did you do a postdoctoral fellowship? Residency should be included as training time, so the absolute minimum for MDs is 7 years. Like I said, some PhDs are 10 years, some are 3 years. So it really depends on what specific program you are talking about.

I have earned the title of "Dr." and will use it when I choose to use a title. Those who don't want nursing (or other disciplines) to be given the respect and public acknowledgement we have earned should get over their desire to worship physicians. It's insulting to those of us who have done the work to earn other doctoral degrees.

Physicians chose to use the title of Dr. back when it was an elevation for them to be called the same thing as college professors with PhD's. Historically, their education was less and the "Dr." title was a way for them to be elevated in the public eye. They should not now try to kick the PhD's down by stripping the title they appropriated from them in the first place. If they want a title that is exclusively their's, they should either use the title "physician" or make up another title -- not kick the original "owners" of that title out of the club.

llg

So I take it you ahve a problem with the new DNP programs, because their graduates will be called "doctor" despite the fact that they do NOT have any kind of PhD. Do you also consider that "stealing" the title from PhDs?

[llg, PhD, RN]

So I take it you ahve a problem with the new DNP programs, because their graduates will be called "doctor" despite the fact that they do NOT have any kind of PhD. Do you also consider that "stealing" the title from PhDs?

I agree with you that MD's and PhD's are equal. That's my whole point about both being entitled to use to the designation of "Dr." I have no qualms about professional doctorates and clinical doctorates being called "Dr." My point in bringing up the history was not to say that physicians are not entitled to use the term "Dr." but rather it is wrong to believe that they somehow have some special ownership of it and that PhD's are somehow not legitimately qualified to use it.

As for the DNP and other clinical doctoral degrees in nursing. As I have said in other threads, I think nursing is making a big mistake in creating so many new degrees. The different faculties at the various schools should meet and come to an agreement on 1 clincical doctoral degree. Then each specialty could be a "major" or "focus area" of that clinical doctoral degree.

Having so many degrees -- and vastly different standards for earning those degrees -- confuses everyone and does not serve nursing well. I believe there are political and financial forces at work that encourage schools to create new titles and new degrees rather than to open a new program using an existing degree title. I believe that new degrees and new titles are more apt to get funding and the faculty is more apt to get articles published and more prestige that way. But the profession and the public would be better served by a consistent degree and title that everyone would recognize and understand -- whether you earned a clinical doctorate as a CRNA or as an NP or whatever.

PhD programs do that. You simply earn a PhD and whether your focus was on administration or teaching or adult health research or pediatric care etc. it's still a PhD. I believe there should be a similar clinical doctoral degree that all the different clinical doctorates could use. Some other professions do that and it is easy to understand. For example, educators have PhD's and Ed.D's. Pharmacists can get a PhD with an academic focus or a Pharm.D. with a clinical focus. I believe nursing should have a simial pair of degrees -- not multiple degrees that seem to be multiplying like rabbits! It's no wonder that so many people are confused -- and the resources get spread thin as different programs compete with each other.

By the way ... I am going to out of town and off-line for a couple of days. Please don't interpret an absence of posts as some sort of "hissy fit" or political statement. I won't be at a computer for the next 3 days.

llg

[midwife2b]

Here's my question:

As I understand it, a physician educated in Australia or the UK does NOT recieve a doctoral degree, but rather an MBBS (Which I believe is a Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery?). I also believe that physicians are not addressed as "Dr. So and So" in the UK or Australia. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So, how come then when they come to practice in the US, do they get the right to be addressed as "Dr."?

I know several physicians in the UK and Oz. None of them are "doctors". They are "physicians".

It seems physician is the descriptor in many parts of the world. One of our residents is from Nigeria and he has never been called "Doctor" until he came here.

Any person who has an earned doctorate may correctly identify themselves as "Doctor". We should not presume that person is an MD.

[Papadoc]

It seems to me that some of the posters in this thread have some "self esteem issues" when it comes to the profession of nursing -- and are putting physicians on a pedastal they do not deserve.

It is wrong to put physicians on a pedastal and it is wrong to encourage the general public to do so. Other disciplines have much to offer and should not be shoved aside or diminished by encouraging a glorification of the medical profession over all others. We should be educating the public about the value of the other professions, not perpetuating any existing misunderstandings or illusions about the absolute supremacy of medicine.

As I have said before, I introduce myself using my first and last name -- rarely using any title and always identifying myself as a nurse. But my PhD outranks an MD in the world of academic degrees and I have earned the title of "Doctor" with 7 years of full time graduate education plus many years of practice. In case you didn't notice, I have spent more years in school than most physicians.

I have earned the title of "Dr." and will use it when I choose to use a title. Those who don't want nursing (or other disciplines) to be given the respect and public acknowledgement we have earned should get over their desire to worship physicians. It's insulting to those of us who have done the work to earn other doctoral degrees.

Physicians chose to use the title of Dr. back when it was an elevation for them to be called the same thing as college professors with PhD's. Historically, their education was less and the "Dr." title was a way for them to be elevated in the public eye. They should not now try to kick the PhD's down by stripping the title they appropriated from them in the first place. If they want a title that is exclusively their's, they should either use the title "physician" or make up another title -- not kick the original "owners" of that title out of the club.

llg

Lig, congratulations on your accoplishments. Nobody is taking it away from you. But it's a renegate way of introducing yourself to the patients as a "Dr" if you are not MD,DO,DDS,DPM,OD, or DC (in an outpatient setting). It's very confusing for your patients, and you may find yourself in the hot water, if the patient complains that s/he thought s/he was dealing with the "Dr" (medical/osteopathic etc) . Are you sure you are not projecting self-esteem issues on "some" posters here?

Take it easy

[elkpark]

PhD and MD are different, not superior or inferior to each other. Just like the new DNP (doctor of nursing practice) programs. A PhD is not superior to a DNP, its just different.

PhDs are widely divergent. Some people get their PhDs in 3 years. Other take 10 years. PhDs are not standardized like other degrees are.

Did you do a postdoctoral fellowship? Residency should be included as training time, so the absolute minimum for MDs is 7 years. Like I said, some PhDs are 10 years, some are 3 years. So it really depends on what specific program you are talking about.

Actually, academically, there are big differences between PhDs and all these other doctorates. I know many MDs and JDs who would be the first to tell you that their degree is definitely "inferior" to a PhD, that the PhD is a scholarly degree and their MD or JD is a "technical" degree. Other disciplines get this; nursing seems to be having a harder time grasping the the subtleties. There are other threads here discussing the newer nursing doctorates where the differences are discussed in greater detail.

The difference in length of time in completing a PhD is usually determined by the amount of time an individual takes to complete the dissertation once s/he has completed the formal coursework. Some people buckle right down and knock off their Ds in short order, some drag it out to the last possible week before the final deadline (traditionally, seven years after you finish the classroom work). However, that is up to the individual. Perhaps the most glaring, obvious difference between PhDs and all the "practice" doctorates is that the basic, traditional, universal requirement for earning a PhD is that you must complete and defend substantive research and a dissertation reporting and analyzing that research that contributes new knowledge to your discipline, i.e., that you have established yourself as a scholar in your field. The formal coursework is fairly standardized, and there is actually much more uniformity among PhDs (within and across disciplines) than there is with the other types of doctorates. If you have a PhD in nursing, or physics, or French literature, or British history, or anything, everyone (in academia, at least) understands exactly what that means and what you accomplished to get it. The same can certainly not be said of the other types of doctorates -- there is huge variation between disciplines, and, within nursing, at least, quite a bit of variation within the discipline. Every school's DSN, or DNS, or DNSc, or ND, or (now, the newest fad -- ) DNP , is different, and just hearing the name of the degree doesn't really tell you anything about what the person did to earn it. Heck, there are nursing "doctoral" programs out there now that literally require less time, effort, and scholarship to complete than the v. rigorous, demanding MSN program I completed ten years ago -- but their graduates have a doctorate, and I "only" have an MSN ... I'm not complaining about that; those are the rules of the game and I understand that. I'm just saying that it seems kinda silly to talk about degrees being "not superior, just different" in a discipline where many of the doctoral degrees are easier to get than some Master's degrees ...

I agree (as usual) with llg; if nursing really feels it's so important and necessary to offer "clinical" doctorates, let's at least standardize the system so that everyone can understand clearly what they mean/represent.

llg is also right that physicians in this country originally started calling themselves "Doctor" in order to boost their social status and prestige back when they didn't have much (and they were so proud of themselves for finally having standardized the American system of medical education into a 3-year "doctoral" degree). Physicians in most (all?) of the rest of the world are not called "Doctor" -- that title is generally reserved for university professors and other scholars, and physicians are just referred to as "Mr." or "Mrs." However, since the general public in the US is so accustomed to "Doctor" in healthcare settings meaning "physician," and I doubt that's going to change any time soon, I strongly agree with those here who say that, if you (as something other than a physician) are bound and determined to use your earned title of "Doctor" in a healthcare setting, it's v. important that you make darned clear to clients and others that you are not a physician.

[platon20]

Yes I understand that PhD requires adding new knowledge to the filed.

But thats really not that hard.

All you ahve to do is get a couple of publications in low tier journals and the PhD is yours.

We are not talking NEJM, JAMA, Cell, Science, or Nature here. Thats why I said PhD programs are widely divergent in quality.

If you got East Texas State University and get a PhD there, all you need to do is publish a very low quality paper in a third tier journal. You do know that there are high school students that have been published in these journals right? Its not that hard.

Now if you are talking about a PhD at MIT, Johns Hopkins, or Harvard, thats a different story. There they hold you to a very high standard and they want 5 or 6 top notch publications in journals like Nature, Science, or Cell. Totally different animal