Using "Dr" for a profession you do not have a doctorate in

MarkAnthony

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Proper convention is only to use it within the field.

Exactly. While we just have to suffer the insecure knobs who insist that their PhD is some pointless, ego-satisfying, underpaid and definitely not tenure-track hobby requires the entire world to address them as "Doctor", it's when they use the title to give a misleading impression as to their training and capability in an area beyond their PhD that the knob becomes shady, in my view.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

1. Flattery
2. It's handy to know if you have a medical doctor on board if there is an emergency.

Except, when they ask for "Dr Murphy" who, it then transpires, has his doctorate in 'The role of papyrus in Early Irish manuscripts' it's doubtful he'll be of much use. :P

Grolschevik

Physicians may also be increasingly unwilling to draw attention to themselves in such circumstances for fear of being sued! :-) :pac:

Stanford

Please allow me to try to clarify the situation if I can.

The PhD is regarded as the highest earned academic degree which can be awarded by a University. A person holding such a degree is entitled to call themselves 'Dr'" amongst fellow academics but it is considered to be bordering on misrepresentation to call oneself Dr. with regards to another profession e.g. the guy with the PhD in Pig Farming practicising Acupuncture under the title 'Dr.' is incorrectly giving the impression that his PhD expertise relates to Pig Farming which is illegal under the Tort of Passing Off (i..e alluding to have an expertise which you do not have).

Honorary PhDs are awarded to those who are deemed to have given excellent service in the Arts, Sciences, Humanities and have no value academically, it is considered crass to use the title Dr if your doctorate is honorary and you do not possess a PhD earned by research.

Finally medical doctors are allowed to use the term "Dr" following an old convention as, strictly speaking, they are not conferred with a PhD on graduation. However if a medical doctor undertakes further academic research he/she will be awarded the medical title equivelant of MD. As usual our US colleagues have misunderstood the whole thing and now bestow their medical students on graduation with the MD title, Finally beware the ultimate asshole of all who refers themselves as the double whammy Dr. Joe Blogs, PhD. Either Dr. J. Blogs or J. Blogs PhD is fine, both together indicate ignorance and arrogance of which there is much about.

ballsymchugh

https://twitter.com/KennedySinger

anyone with medical questions should go here for the laugh....

Gongoozler

seamus wrote: »

Is there any legal protection here? If the guy is calling himself "Doctor" and "prescribing" homeopathy, then it's easy to argue that he's pretending to be a doctor of medicine.

While anyone with a Ph.D. can call themselves "Doctor", is there anything specific in relation to purporting to be medically qualified, in the same way that someone purporting to be a solicitor can get in trouble?

Anyone can call themselves Dr. There's nothing to stop you or me from doing it. It's in the way you represent yourself, if you're leading people to believe you're a medical practitioner and you're not then that's not ok. If you're saying you have a medical qualification and you don't then that's not ok. If you actually try to treat someone as a doctor, that's not ok. Just using the term Dr is nowhere near a concern to the likes of the Medical Council.

ambro25

The legal terminology is 'protected titles', which exist for all manner of medical and non-medical suitably-qualified and -registered professionals and are ensconsed in a variety of (frequently profession-specific or -related) Statutes.

E.g I am a registered patent agent and a registered trade mark agent, both of which are protected titles in Ireland (the 'attorney' variant is also protected in the UK).

Not sure what the legal position is in Ireland, but in the UK the protected title is "doctor of medicine" ("doctor" in and of itself is not protected).

Gongoozler

Doctor is not a protected title in Ireland

Gyalist

Deleted User wrote: »

However, when I checked, his PhD was in Agricultural Science. If the PhD were in the general area - e.g. somebody with a PhD in some specialised area of psychology practising as a councillor - it would be understandable but this seems like false advertising, or at the very least misleading advertising.

I would hope that if my elected local government representative had academic and professional qualifications in psychology that he would have the good sense to keep the two roles separate.

johnnyskeleton

conorh91 wrote: »

It is of considerably less importance that doctors of theology, women's studies, and statistics should be readily identifiable. Unless of course one wants to avoid their company at a conference or during a long bus journey, which perhaps has some utility.

Maybe we should go back to calling medical doctors physicians. The word doctor come from teaching or study. Remember to ask if there is a physician in the house in case of medical occurences, because a doctor of theology will come in handy only in existential or spiritual emergencies.

One thing Ive wondered about though, should the Judge of the Court of Appeal be Dr. Justice Hogan instead of Mr?

johnnyskeleton

Stanford wrote: »

Honorary PhDs are awarded to those who are deemed to have given excellent service in the Arts, Sciences, Humanities and have no value academically, it is considered crass to use the title Dr if your doctorate is honorary and you do not possess a PhD earned by research.

Thats something thats always puzzled me. I mean if a university gives a Judge or a TD or even a lowly lawyer an honorary doctorate for writing good judgments, passing insightful laws or advancing legal advocacy, surely that is more valuable than a doctorate from spending years researching a single topic? I mean clearly it is awarded on merit in both instances, but the merit of the honorary doctorate is exceptional.

?Cee?view

Stanford wrote: »

... the Tort of Passing Off (i..e alluding to have an expertise which you do not have...

Deliciously ironic

riffmongous

conorh91 wrote: »

I would take a more practical approach than a semantic one.

It is of huge importance that medical doctors should be readily identifiable, and that by and large, they should tend to be identifiable by a universal prefix.

It is of considerably less importance that doctors of theology, women's studies, and statistics should be readily identifiable. Unless of course one wants to avoid their company at a conference or during a long bus journey, which perhaps has some utility.

Does this really hold up though? Medical practitioners arent required to go around wearing an armband or anything that identifies them during their day to day life where they are more likely to be needed than when they are staying at a hotel

riffmongous

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thats something thats always puzzled me. I mean if a university gives a Judge or a TD or even a lowly lawyer an honorary doctorate for writing good judgments, passing insightful laws or advancing legal advocacy, surely that is more valuable than a doctorate from spending years researching a single topic? I mean clearly it is awarded on merit in both instances, but the merit of the honorary doctorate is exceptional.

Not academically though, a regular doctorate will be from years of research and results and should have some sort of new knowledge, which makes it special

MarkAnthony

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thats something thats always puzzled me. I mean if a university gives a Judge or a TD or even a lowly lawyer an honorary doctorate for writing good judgments, passing insightful laws or advancing legal advocacy, surely that is more valuable than a doctorate from spending years researching a single topic? I mean clearly it is awarded on merit in both instances, but the merit of the honorary doctorate is exceptional.

It's a bit different in the legal field I think. How many top academics in law have PhDs? They certainly aren't used much if they are. Seems to me some of the best barristers don't even take silk.

conorh91

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

One thing Ive wondered about though, should the Judge of the Court of Appeal be Dr. Justice Hogan instead of Mr?

I think the general rule with all titles is that they are used in order of rank as opposed to being blended, so for example a judge of the Superior Courts who has been awarded a PhD might be referred to as Mr. Justice Dr. Hogan/ Barrett/ McMahon etc.

Well, that's a guess. Unfortunately the former Mr Justice Carney didn't earn a PhD, so nobody seems to have been instructed precisely on the etiquette.
(miaow)

Peregrinus

conorh91 wrote: »

I think the general rule with all titles is that they are used in order of rank as opposed to being blended, so for example a judge of the Superior Courts who has been awarded a PhD might be referred to as Mr. Justice Dr. Hogan/ Barrett/ McMahon etc.

Well, that's a guess. Unfortunately the former Mr Justice Carney didn't earn a PhD, so nobody seems to have been instructed precisely on the etiquette.
(miaow)

I think the convention is that the "Mr Justice" title is only used in the professional judicial context, and a the title "Doctor" for someone with a Ph D (or "Professor" for somebody with a university post which carries that title) is only ever used in the academic context. So ne'er the twain shall meet.

Judge Carney doesn't have a Ph D but he has a various times been (and for all I know may still be) an adjunct professor. But he was only ever Mr. Justice Carney.

JuliusCaesar

Deleted User wrote: »

If your PhD is in pig farming and you're using it as a qualification when advertising a service that treats somebody's body, I disagree.

"Dr Mick Murphy, acupuncturist" would imply, to most people, that the doctorate is in that area. Leaving aside the obvious insecurity and pretensions, it gives a misleading impression of the degree of expertise behind the advertised service.




PhDs in acupuncture ("Doctor - Psychology: Health & Wellness Psychology"; "Doctor of Psychology - Clinical Specialization", etc)

Fuaranach, are you saying that psychology is not a legitimate science? Are you equating psychology with acupuncture and other non-evidence-based health treatments?

:eek: unbelievable.

conorh91

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the convention is that the "Mr Justice" title is only used in the professional judicial context, and a the title "Doctor" for someone with a Ph D (or "Professor" for somebody with a university post which carries that title) is only ever used in the academic context. So ne'er the twain shall meet.

There is no such convention. All teaching judges, as far as I can see, use the honorific in their academic contexts. Both titles would be appropriate if you were introducing the judge at an academic event, or they were publishing a paper in a journal, or appearing on a list of speakers, there are plenty of examples.

Anyway, it's not a big deal considering the small number of individuals for whom this has any practical application.

johnnyskeleton

riffmongous wrote: »

Not academically though, a regular doctorate will be from years of research and results and should have some sort of new knowledge, which makes it special

Well if a poet gets an honourary doctorate for writing good poetry, surely thats adding more new kjowledge than the person who reads his poetry and critiques it?

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well if a poet gets an honourary doctorate for writing good poetry, surely thats adding more new kjowledge than the person who reads his poetry and critiques it?

Yes, but an academic Ph D is primarily a recognition for original research and scholarship. An honorary doctorate may be awarded for all kinds of signficant and beneficial contributions to human well-being, but it's not a recognition of original research and scholarship.

It's a bit like being made honorary colonel-in-chief of a regiment. It may be a signficant and richly-deserved distinction and possibly marks a far greater contribution to humanity than anything an actual colonel has ever done, but it doesn't indicate any military attainment or aptitude.

Squatman

coylemj wrote: »

Female medical consultants tend to go by Dr. xxxx

thought that was only in pornos

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but an academic Ph D is primarily a recognition for original research and scholarship. An honorary doctorate may be awarded for all kinds of signficant and beneficial contributions to human well-being, but it's not a recognition of original research and scholarship.

It's a bit like being made honorary colonel-in-chief of a regiment. It may be a signficant and richly-deserved distinction and possibly marks a far greater contribution to humanity than anything an actual colonel has ever done, but it doesn't indicate any military attainment or aptitude.

Well that would be wrong IMO to give someone a military title for a non military purpose. But even where it has happened, such as maybe a dictator suddenly jumps to general, they sill wield he power of the office.

It seems a bit silly to me to give someone a doctorate for merit outside the college but then say "by the way, its not a real doctorate so dont go around pretending that youre one of us". Why dont they give an honorary lunch in the canteen or an honorary pat on the back instead?

Persumably the original purpose of an honourary doctorate was to reward someone who reached the same level as an academic doctor through work outside the university and would be given, as the other poster said, to people who have excelled in that field. Giving Roy Keane a doctorate in law for his football achievements is a publicity stunt at best, and undermines the whole institution of a doctorate in law at worst. It's duplicitous of the university to give out honorary degrees for excellence but then to say that they are meaningless parchment IMO

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Persumably the original purpose of an honourary doctorate was to reward someone who reached the same level as an academic doctor through work outside the university and would be given, as the other poster said, to people who have excelled in that field. Giving Roy Keane a doctorate in law for his football achievements is a publicity stunt at best, and undermines the whole institution of a doctorate in law at worst. It's duplicitous of the university to give out honorary degrees for excellence but then to say that they are meaningless parchment IMO

It was never the purpose of an honorary doctorate "to reward someone who has reached the same level as an academic doctor". If somebody reaches the same level as an academic doctor, he gets an academic doctorate. The point of an honorary doctorate is for the university to recognise and honour non-academic contributions to the community. Universities who award honorary degrees absolutely do not "say that they are meaningless pieces of parchment", but nor do they say that they recognise the same attaintments as substantive degrees.

As far as I can see honorary degrees are actually a way for universities to aggrandise themselves, by suggesting that they act on behalf of the wider community in recognising and acknowledging contributions to public welfare, or that they are specially or uniquely qualified to recognise and ackowledging such contributions.

A few universities have a policy of not awarding honorary doctorates - MIT doesn't - and there are a few distingished individuals who are known to have rejected several offers of honorary doctorates - Vladimir Nabokov was one.

challengemaster

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why dont they give an honorary lunch in the canteen or an honorary pat on the back instead?

You seem to be missing the point - that's what an honorary doctorate is. A pat on the back from the university, public recognition of achievements. It's akin to an award such as a trophy.

Persumably the original purpose of an honourary doctorate was to reward someone who reached the same level as an academic doctor through work outside the university and would be given, as the other poster said, to people who have excelled in that field.

Perhaps originally, however now that holds no merit, considering you can be awarded an actual doctorate through publication.

conorh91

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point of an honorary doctorate is for the university to recognise and honour non-academic contributions to the community.

One of TCD's most recent honorary doctorate recipients was Prof. Margaret Murnane (PhD), the Irish physicist, for her contributions to the academic literature on lasers.

Honorary doctorates are not strictly awarded to honour non-academic work, they are simply awards that are not dependent on a formal doctoral thesis. In many cases, such as that of the esteemed Professor, they recognize major contributions to academic literature.

dibkins

Victor wrote: »

1. Flattery
2. It's handy to know if you have a medical doctor on board if there is an emergency.

When i had just got my phd i put Dr. on my tickets to fly to Singapore. My friends messed me no end about it and told me if there was an emergency they would ask me to help out. I got worried enough about it that i made clear at check in that it was just a phd title. The check in guy just laughed at me and said that they would never do that.

coylemj

Some people are treating this thread far too seriously. It's the silly season folks, lighten up FFS.

Gary Neville awarded honorary doctorate by University of Salford for sustainability work

Kanye West gets another Graduation as he receives honorary doctorate degree

What exactly is the point in giving celebrities honorary degrees?

JuliusCaesar

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Fuaranach, are you saying that psychology is not a legitimate science? Are you equating psychology with acupuncture and other non-evidence-based health treatments?

:eek: unbelievable.

hehe. I better not stick me head in the doras of the Psychology forum for a while.

I did a simple - and granted 'simple' is possibly the keyword in all this :P - search for "Phd acupuncture" and got this. Then I clicked the third result and under "PhD in Acupuncture", I clicked View schools and got this. See first result.

Are you saying the internet is wrong? :eek:

I was under the impression that honorary doctorates are given because you've got some form of success already and the universities want to be associated with it, in precisely the same way as successful people get titles from royalty in other countries. (in the case of successful business people, they obviously also want money as a result of this sort of plámás).