Curious...using the title "Doctor" for a DNP...

I know my dentist didn't go to medical school, but I call him "doctor."

I know my vet didn't go to medical school, but I call her "doctor."

And my personal fave, professors who have Ph.Ds. I know they don't have clinical degrees, but some of them want to be called "doctor."

I think the human resources department that thinks I would be confused by a DNP who refers to himself or herself as "doctor" should give me more credit. Especially when I'm staring at his or her name tag. Most consumers can figure out that an MD is not a DO. I think they can recognize that a DNP is not an MD.

Well, the thing is...I think it's a matter of educating the public.

I come from a large medical family and thought I was very well-versed in the differnet medical titles, degress, etc...however, on my first day of clinicals this semester...I saw several residents running around with DO after their name...and I was almost embarrassed that I had no idea of what the title meant.

I had never seen it before.

People who have achieved EARNED doctorate degrees have a legal right to change their title. However, some professions, such as attorney's, the American Bar Association has adopted the custom of attorney's not referring to themselves as "Dr. Smith" when the person has a Juris Doctor degree which most of us know is a 'doctor of law'.

If people earned it, they should be called that.

But you recognized that a DO is not an MD and questioned it in your mind.

Some lawyers have in fact tried to call themselves doctors only to find themselves ruled against by boards of overseers. The rationale is that for a lawyer to call himself doctor implies that he has some kind of medical training -- which a DNP does.

In graduate school, I had one instructor who was a FNP with an EDD. She did not use "Doctor" in the clinical setting because of the "confusing the patients" reason.

I plan to get a DNP one of these days. I haven't given a lot of thought to the issue for myself.

Well, on the attorney issue, I don't think the basis was for the fact that they had no medical training, just like all people that receive PhD's in a variety of disciplines such as Psychology, English, History, etc...don't have medical training, nor must be working at a college or university setting to be called so.

I think that it's a matter of practice that the ABA set as their standard and they don't want individual attorney's (who are Bar members) to make that decision independently.

Granted, I got this information from Wiki when I was looking up the difference between Esquire and JD.

That might be the ABA's standard, but boards of overseers in individual states, typically staffed by justices, issue legally binding rulings. There have been a number of cases where lawyers who specialize in medical malpractice or psychotherapy for divorcing couples wanted to call themselves "doctor." Boards have said no way because of what the title would imply. It suggests training and education they do not have, given the circumstances in which they would operate.

Why do I know this? I've researched it to shoot back at my husband, a JD who enjoys pointing out that it's a good thing we're getting a nurse in the family, since we already have a "doctor." I may be the first student to apply to a DNP program out of spite. :wink2:

Honestly? A PhD is a terminal degree. MD isn't. The DNP would be a terminal degree. Terminal degrees have every right to be addressed as 'Dr'. Physicians have done an immense job of promoting themselves with the title of 'Dr' from the turn of the last century. They devised the best possible publicity stunt in history by creating the white coat image and title to earn (well-deserved, I might say) respect.

However, they cannot fully expect to hold onto that title of 'Dr' when there are people working hard at their PhD or equivalent degrees. These folks have every right to request others to address them as 'Dr'... kinda like the respect chefs have for one another by addressing one another as 'Chef James'. They have earned their right to be called that and differentiate themselves from the rest of the cooking staff.

I don't have a PhD or DNP, but if I did... well, then I would most likely want to use that title in a professional setting while at the same time remain clear about who I am and that I'm a mid-level provider, not a physician.

i'm sorry but if i poured all those years of work into my education and i am able to have the title "doctor"...i'm using it and proudly......

What do people think when they see this?

http://www.getsmoothskin.com/index.shtml

It says Dr. Kimberly Ho. She must be a physician or maybe even DNP? Nope. It's Dr. Kimberly Ho, PharmD.

Do people understand now why patients will be confused?

Honestly? A PhD is a terminal degree. MD isn't. The DNP would be a terminal degree. Terminal degrees have every right to be addressed as 'Dr'. Physicians have done an immense job of promoting themselves with the title of 'Dr' from the turn of the last century. They devised the best possible publicity stunt in history by creating the white coat image and title to earn (well-deserved, I might say) respect.

However, they cannot fully expect to hold onto that title of 'Dr' when there are people working hard at their PhD or equivalent degrees. These folks have every right to request others to address them as 'Dr'... kinda like the respect chefs have for one another by addressing one another as 'Chef James'. They have earned their right to be called that and differentiate themselves from the rest of the cooking staff.

I don't have a PhD or DNP, but if I did... well, then I would most likely want to use that title in a professional setting while at the same time remain clear about who I am and that I'm a mid-level provider, not a physician.

What do you mean an MD is not a terminal degree? What degree comes after it?

Certainly, all holders of doctoral degrees should be afforded the title of "Doctor." I would venture to say that outside of the hospital, the general public understands that "Doctor" is a salutation applicable to PhDs, MDs, etc. But in the history of our language, we have conflated a title with an occupation. In the clinical setting, the title "Doctor" has been historically and functionally equivalent to the role of "physician." In commonwealth countries -- and indeed in almost every other country -- physicians do not actually have a doctoral degree per se but rather an MBBS, a bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery degree. In these countries, the MD is in fact a particularly rare research distinction.

Nevertheless, despite the lack of doctoral level education, physicians have been addressed with the title of doctor not, as you say, since the turn of the century, but actually since the 1700s. My point, which I suppose I am making in a very long winded way, is that in the hospital, "doctor" is not just an educational distinction, it is a synonym for a physician. That is why some institutions have restrictions on the title of "doctor" while in the clinical setting. In my hospital, PharmDs cannot introduce themselves as "doctors." I suppose that dentists are afforded the title in a clinical setting because they are technically surgeons (DDS), though it is interesting to note that in the UK, surgeons relinquish the title of "doctor" for "Mister" or "Miss."

If we follow the logic that everyone is entitled to use the title of doctor in the hospital based solely on educational degree, then we should be completely egalitarian. PhDs and the occasional JD hired by the hospital should be able to demand that they be called doctor as well -- as long as they follow with the qualification that they are not "that type of doctor."