Dr Podiatrist?

Sal, wrong guy, if you check my previous posts, and I don't blame you if you don't since there's 350 odd posts in this thread which is a joke in itself if you rate this against say the "Prefabricated vs custom made foot orthoses" thread, I repeatedly stated I disagree with anyone but medical practitioners (of the non-PhD holders) using the title.
all the best, mark c

 

Hi Mark,

I know where you stand on the whole issue.
I was just stating that Dentists are using the title and not cliaming to be medical practitioners and thats exactly what we Podiatrists who use the title are doing.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
Dr. Saleh (Podiatrist)

 

Hi Posalafin,

No, im not saying that we can take on a title "just because we think we deserve it (no matter how obscure our reasons may be)"
What i am saying, however, is that as foot health professionals and THE experts in foot health we DO deserve to use it and have just as much right to its use as Medical Practitioners. And the fact that we save lives and do so much more is far from an "obscure" reason IMO.

Under no circustance do i think that its okay to use the title in the same capacity as those who have earned PhDs (i would never put PhD after my name if i haven't earned it). That is soley the right of PhD holders.

I hope i've cleared it up a bit.

Cheers,

Dr. Saleh (Podiatrist)

 

Does anyone have any issues with calling Podiatric surgeons Doctors? I don't, but as we have seen in this thread, many people have different ideas and views about titles:boxing:.

What say you!

 

Hi Spur,
I certainly don't.

Cheers

 

Hi Mark,

By your logic, my Psychiatrist (I probably need one, but don't have one :dizzy can treat my broken leg ?

Specialisation is part and parcel of our Health Professions in this day and age.

 

Hi Posalafin,

1. Thanks for being consistent, forgive me for forgetting that you'd earlier posted that only PhD's are the 'real' Doctors.

2. Yes the Medical Practitioners have 'abused' the title for so long it has become synonymous with their job title. Whilst it may not be 'right' , it is reality not fantasy, to believe that the average member of the public (who we are seeking to tap into) considers a 'Doctor' as a high level Health Professional. Right or wrong baby.....it is what it is !

3. As for Medical Practitioners/Nurse calling themselves Podiatrists, well I am afraid you have confused Professional Titles, with Honorary Titles.....eg Registered Nurse is the Professional title......"Sister" is the honrary title......Medical Practitioner is the professional title....."Doctor" is the honorary title...

I know its only semantics, but it is important......The public is always going to choose (rightly or wrongly) 'Dr. Smith' the GP over 'Johnno' or 'Sally' the Podiatrist for higher level skills.

Personally, I could care less if my patients address me as Doctor, what I do want is for the general public to think of Podiatrists as being at least as competent at Foot / Gait conditions. Preferably, they'll think of Pod's as superior when it comes to Foot / Gait pathology......BUT this will NEVER happen in 100,000 years unless we as a profession re-invent ourselves in the public's eye.

If you've never had a patient question your judgement over their GP's, then you are a better practitioner than me ! Lets face it, GP's are often hopeless at Foot Pathology, yet they are 'doctors', the general public will ALWAYS respect them more, and this is not based on expertise, just on title, and our current model of health care with the GP as gatekeeper.


After nearly a century as being considered the 'corns' and 'nails' guys (Chiropody / Podiatry) , we need to make some significant changes in education AND public perception to get us out of our, for want of a better word, 'rut'. We can continue with Foot Health weeks and the occasional bit on radio or morning TV discussing high heels, but has this helped ?

As I have said before, if we always do (promote) as we've always done...we'll always get what we've always got...

This whole debate is not about right or wrong, academic perfection, self-illusion...what it is about is purely public promotion.....the public thinks 'Doctors' are experts....therefore, we should model ourselves as 'Foot Doctors'.

Either (A) we develop mandatory fellowships as Podiatric Physicians / Surgeons, or (B) develop a professional postgrad Doctorate as the baseline qualification (as the Physio's are )....D.Pod anyone ?

Lets use the US DPM model as our blueprint I say.....

:drinks

 

Dr a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things

An interesting discussion.

The online dictionary gave the following meanings

Main Entry: 1doc·tor
Pronunciation: \ˈdäk-tər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English doctour teacher, doctor, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin doctor, from Latin, teacher, from docēre to teach — more at docile
Date: 14th century
1 a: an eminent theologian declared a sound expounder of doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church —called also doctor of the church b: a learned or authoritative teacher c: a person who has earned one of the highest academic degrees (as a PhD) conferred by a university d: a person awarded an honorary doctorate (as an LLD or Litt D) by a college or university
2 a: a person skilled or specializing in healing arts ; especially : one (as a physician, dentist, or veterinarian) who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to practice b: medicine man
3 a: material added (as to food) to produce a desired effect b: a blade (as of metal) for spreading a coating or scraping a surface
4: a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things


Is the holder of a medical degree really a physician and not a Dr?

I think we need to look at what the contemporary use of the word is. Language changes with time and in the context of culture.

I imagine the wide use of Dr by those who dont hold a medical degree will ultimately chanege the "status" of the title. It would proably lose the percieved value that some people ascribe to it.

Is there an ethical question that , despite the legal view, in using the title Dr we are misleading and misrepresenting ourselves to clients and the public?

I'm sure if I presented myself in the yellow pages as " Miss" clients would feel mislead to discover I was male. But I don't think it's illegal to do.

So if the common colloqueal use of the term Dr is for a PHd holder or holder of a medical degree. Then is presenting ourselves as "dr" misleading and possibly in breach of our own ethics.



it would be interesting to see a survey of the general public and see what the current understanding of the term was, and who is the leader of your country?

Cheers
Greg

 

Excerpt from a recent Australian Doctor article. This is being debated in the Senate currently as part of National Registration & Accreditation. Currently Dr and Surgeon will not be restricted...

 

One of the most famous "Doctors" in the US media.
He was a brilliant "physician" who gave advice on every ailment on the radio.
He was Dr. Carlton Fredricks. The advertiser of his radio show was Solgar vitamins.
His PHd was in English. His accent was almost British as he spoke eloquently on US radio.
His accent was as phony as his medical skills he grew up in Brooklyn NY.

So the US has its problems with title. Podiatry in the US is allopathic medicine and we are formally taught biochem pharmacology pathology etc. Nurse practioners in the US state they had the same courses (their courses are definitional not real) but I fail to see how a nurse who did not take college chemistry and organic chemistry can appreciate biochem etc. Nurse practitioners are allowed to do anything they feel comfortable doing (set arms legs deliver babies)Podiatrists can only treat feet and some legs in The US.

 

I have been observing this post for some years, but have refrained from posting.

I applaud Dr Saleh (Sal) for using the title Doctor. I commend you on your commonsense and efforts to ultimately advance the standing of our Profesison.

I am a final year Podiatry student. Although the Podiatry Act NSW states that Podiatrists in NSW are not permitted to use the title "doctor" (obviously sewn up by the AMA years ago), if I practice in Victoria, I will most certainly use the title "Doctor (Podiatrist)" without hesitation.

At the end of the day, you have to face the facts. Medical Practitioners, Dentists and Podiatrists are the only three medical professions in Australia that are legally permitted to perform surgical procedures on the human body. Indeed, they are the only three professions in the Country that have access to S4 prescribing rights; and in Victoria's case, Podiatrists now join this group.

It is thus mind-boggling to find that there are University qualified Podiatrists on this forum, whom are against using the title "Doctor" in their practice. Whilst I acknowledge that you are entitled to your view; to me you seem very misguided. I can assure you, there is absolutely no way we will find Medical Practitioners and Dentists whom are against the (honorary) title of "Doctor" in their professions.

We are lower limb experts. We have worked very hard in our University courses and passed countless OSCE and theoretical examinations to achieve our Registration. We administer local anaesthesia, prescribe a broad range of S4 drugs, and conduct surgical procedures. We are medically trained professionals.

Lose the past image of Chiropody guys, and stand up for the advancement of our Profession. There is a young, vibrant group of Graduates about to start practice. I have many medical practitioner friends, and I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why I also should not, as a lower limb expert, employ the title "Doctor".

I will not hesitate. Please keep up the good work Dr Saleh, you have my total support.

 

Hi Surfboy,

Maybe you should request your University bestow the title upon you and your fellow graduates...just like the medical students/Dentists also have the title bestowed upon them by their University.

Would simply legitimize the use of it even more wouldn't it! And don't worry even if you don't live in Victoria as of July 2010 ANY Podiatrist in Australia can legally call themselves a Doctor.

Also I took great note that you posted in another thread about how Dr Josh Burns was on ABC's Catalyst and you took great distaste that he was never once referred to as a Podiatrist...oversight on your behalf posting here requesting we call ourselves Doctor instead of Podiatrist?

 

Paul,

1. Correct me if I am wrong, but no Australian University 'bestows the title...Doctor' upon any graduate, purely a degree/degrees.

2. Your second point about legitimacy based on the institute bestowing the title is equally specious....ANU versus TAFE of Dubbo...who's to decide which is more deserving (even if they bestowed titles rather than degrees).

3. One TV program reference to a scientist as a 'Doctor' or 'Podiatrist' is not really a compelling argument one way or the other is it? Frankly just because medical practitioners 'own' the title 'doctor' only plays to the uneducated. I ahve re-read Surfboys post and it reasonably argues (It would have been such a great opportunity, to raise the profile of our profession, if they had mentioned that such a prominent researcher was actually a registered Podiatrist.)....not at all sure how you can reasonably argue that as an 'oversight' on surfboys part, nor plays into your alternative position?

4. You have not addressed Surfboys argument (even if it is not particularly strong), merely replied in slogans and personal reproach...where's the insight?

 

ja99,

Was merely pointing out a fact or a set of facts....

Your Points:

1 - The title Doctor is an honorary title bestowed upon Medical Doctors in Australia. I am fairly certain it is bestowed at the graduation ceremony for their MBBS, along with the reciting of the creed "Thou shalt not harm.....". THe point I wa trying to make here was if it is "legal" and allowed, then why aren't Universities bestowing the title upon their graduates. Again I have no idea if Uni's are planning to (they may well be) but if we are "moving" in that direction then I think it would be logical for them to be examining the concept of doing so.

2 - Again was making a point, exactly what makes a title a title....legitimacy plays no real part as the laws dictate legally who can and who can't, and as of July next year the whole playing field changes.

3 - Again merely pointing out that Surfboy made one comment then almost backflipped on himself. He states the title Podiatrist is admirable (which I commend him on) and then intimates we should "ignore" it and use the title Doctor. I was merely asking his thoughts on both sides of the fence which he appears to be taking. Possibly Surfboy was stating that we should be Dr Surf Boy (Podiatrist). Was hoping for a clarification.

4 - I don't provide insight, I just like to participate in discussion

 

""Again merely pointing out that Surfboy made one comment then almost backflipped on himself... He states the title Podiatrist is admirable (which I commend him on) and then intimates we should "ignore" it and use the title Doctor."" --- Where exactly have I suggested that we should "ignore" it, Paul?

Wow.. I am disappointed that you would post such an offensive and mocking posting, Paul. Stating that I have "almost backflipped on myself". Unbelievable. Please, try and keep your postings professional.

I agree entirely with Julian, I am completely unsure as to how my observation can be considered an "oversight" or "backflip". I think it is a pertinent and relevant point: I simply commended Dr Burns on his outstanding research, and then made note of my observation that the program had not noted the fact that Dr Burns is a qualified Podiatrist.

Let's just remember, irrespective of title; that many younger members of our society do not even know what a Podiatrist does. What a fantastic way to improve the profile of our profession: A prominent, young Podiatric researcher on national television. However, the program disappointingly failed to mention anything at all, about Dr Burns' Podiatry background.

Please try and keep the discussion constructive.

 

Apologies - it wasn't intended to be unprofessional in the slightest, just appeared to be a "backflip" from one post to another. I even commended you on the way you raised it in the ABC Catalyst thread - hardly unprofessional, mocking, offensive or not constructive don't you think?

So to clarify Surfboy - how would you "prefer" the title to be used? Knowing full well it will be implemented in clinical practice mid next year around Australia. How will you as a new graduate be writing your business cards/practice marketing for display to the general public so as to not confuse them with the fact that you are not a Doctor of Medicine? Also just wondering - I know you mentioned the "new and enthusiastic graduates" but what about the old grads who don't even hold degree's? Are they just as encouraged to take on the title as the new graduates?

Remembering I am on the fence for this one to a large degree.....but did just notice that the majority of voters have selected "NO" in this poll. Interesting poll, but hardly unbiased due to the population on Podiatry - Arena.

I wonder if Stephen Tucker, Mark Gilheany or even Craig Payne might chip in and give us an insight into how many Victorians are actually using this down south?

EDIT: Just found a tidbit from the NSW Vet Practitioners Board:

"Doctor: All veterinary surgeons who apply for the courtesy title of “doctor” will be granted approval by the Board."
http://www.vsb.nsw.gov.au/Boardtalk/2002/aug2002/August2002_13.htm

Will the Federal Board be requiring Podiatrists to "apply" for it next year? Food for thought maybe!

Also here is an interesting tidbit from the eMJA:

"The preferred title across NSW (for urologists) was “Dr”, whereas “Mr” predominated in Victoria"

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_01_050704/whe10281_fm.html

Should we also be restricting the use of the title "Mr" in front of our names? **Insert sarcastic marker here**

I like how this debate keeps popping up - it keeps life fresh. Unfortunately next year the debate will not be "should we" it will be "who should be?"...

....and a great quote I keep getting reminded of by my patients. "When I go to see Doctors I don't know I call them "Doc", when I go to see my GP I call him "John!"

Food for thought!

 

I've just spent the last few hours reading this thread from start to finish and thought I might throw in my 2 cents. The debate seems to be clearly divided into the "for and against" categories, with a few who claim to not particularly care either way; in that respect I probably fit into the "fence sitter" at this stage because I agree with many salient points from both sides.

To clarify up front, I'm a Vic podiatrist who is currently NOT using the title..however, I am not opposed to using it and will readily adopt the title when I feel it is appropriate for me to do so. Let me explain my position, which possibly many non-vocal podiatrists may also find themselves in.

I don't think it particularly helps to compare ourselves to GP's or other allied health fields in regards to course structures, course length or ENTER scores; you can't compare apples and oranges aside from saying they're both fruit....All specialities have their set course structure, length and ENTER score and it will change from year to year depending on many factors...The issue is purely whether our SCOPE of practice warrants the use of the title.

In regards to our scope of practice, aside from GP's & dentists, we are the only ones allowed to breach skin, perform surgical procedures under anaesthesia, obtain S4 rights, and refer for radiological imaging. If this is our scope of practice, we should all be able to proudly call ourselves "Dr." (Podiatrist).

I feel that providing the wording (Podiatrist) following the name and title is sufficient to distinguish that we are not pretending to be GP's...I certainly don't think dentists have any issues here either. The public aren't going to get confused that we don't treat anything other than the foot and ankle.

My reasons at this stage for not calling myself "Dr." predominantly lie in the discrepancies within our profession's scope of practice. I feel we do have 3 levels of podiatrist working in Australia...
1) Podiatric surgeons
2) General podiatrists that undertake all aspects of podiatry inc. biomechanics/sports, nail surgery, paediatrics, diabetic wound management (whether they predominantly specialise in one area or not).
3) Podiatry/Chiropody incorporating basic nail cutting; the aged care sector.

I think our biggest problem lies in the fact that there is such a huge discrepancy within our profession in regards to our scope of practice. I don't feel that those who trained many moons ago, who have failed to continue any professional development and who only cut toenails should be calling themselves "Dr"; this is where the public would get confused. Before anyone jumps on me here for any perceived attacks on basic podiatrists, I don't mean this to sound derogatory towards those who just cut toenails...I cut nails every day. I believe it's an essential area of our practice that shouldn't be blithely palmed off to pod assistants as menial work. My point here is that the public would perceive that a podiatrist calling themselves Dr. should have a wider scope of practice than what they can get from their friendly shopping mall pedicurist.

I'm waiting to see what happens with National Registration next yr. Personally, I think we really need to have uniformity and a standard in our scope of practice that needs to be adhered to, achieved and maintained before we should call ourselves Dr.

I currently work as a general podiatrist doing everything from nails/corns/callus to biomechanics & nail surgery. My personal decision is that I will call myself Dr. when I have gained S4 endorsement and can give my patients that full scope of practice. I am prepared to do the further study required for that. Working in the private sector I feel at a disadvantage in regards to my apparent access to this at this stage, (but that's another issue and forum thread).

I am happy to undertake as much CPD as possible and feel it is essential to stay current and would go so far as to say it should be compulsory. I graduated from LaTrobe in 1994 and after working for a few years I left the profession without intending to come back...7 years later I returned to the fold. It was only through my own nerdy dedication to get my skills & knowledge back up to speed that I have been able to successfully establish myself in private practice again. It was not easy. There was no set pathway to follow and very little support. I'm glad to see greater avenues now for CE opportunities...this yr alone I did the First Aid refresher, booked in for the Injection therapy seminar in Sept and Craig's Bootcamp in Nov.

It is all too easy, especially in private practice to isolate oneself and fall behind the current training theories and practice. Until we establish a set standard for skills maintenance and competency, I do feel that some are more worthy than others of calling themselves Dr. If we want to be taken seriously we have to show that we respect the honour involved in the honorary title.

Just my 2 cents.

(Not yet) Dr. Nat Smith

 

Some healthy disussion happening here now. Good to see the spirit is alive.

I agree mostly with what you say, Nat. Great post.

The current phase of Graduates coming into practice, are extensively trained in all modern aspects of Podiatric medicine.

You are totally correct Nat with respect to the SCOPE of Podiatric care provided. S4 rights, surgical intervention, diagnostic radiography/sonography, local anaesthesia. With these abilities, we are clearly on the same standing as other MEDICAL counterparts within Australia.

Even with the AMA kicking and screaming.. the tide is finally beginning to turn. The time has come for our profession to embrace the title of "Doctor" (Podiatrist), in light of our increased and enhanced clinical responsibilities. As stated earlier, I will not hesitate to use this title in NSW as of July 2010.

Even with respect to Podiatric pharmacology education.. for me this included extensive year-long study and comprehensive formal examination in pharmacology; including the cellular mechanisms and actions of many, many drugs. (Not just Podiatry-relevant drugs, but even chemotherapeutic agents, psychiatric drugs, beta-agonists/antagonists, the full facet..) It wasn't just simple antibiotics/antifungals/etc. Whilst not expecting to prescribe these other drugs, the point however needs to be made that recent graduates have a full MEDICAL working knowledge of pharmacology. - NOT just a Podiatry-based understanding.

 

Hi Surfboy,

Just wondering which program you are about to graduate from? It sounds as though the Pharmacology component of it is extremely thorough and well done.

Although we must keep in mind simply being able to prescribe (limited) S4 drugs does't give you a "full medical working knowledge of pharmacology". I am interested to see that the title Doctor seems to be inherently linked to S4 drugs by Nat and Surfboy. What are the thoughts of people regarding this and the public perception? Do you think the public perceive Doctors as such because of their right to prescribe? What exactly is a Doctor in the eye of a member of the public?

It raises several key questions - and one of them would be that we would hate to take on a title and have it seen as a "joke" outside our own profession, and for it not to be taken seriously by members of the public. Que Seinfeld: "But you're not a real doctor are you" argument.

Im also interested in Surfoys opinion (as a potential new grad) on what exactly he thinks the benefits to the profession will be by taking the title? Obviously I can see your enthusiasm for it which is fantastic, but at the nuts and bolts level what will title enable us to do that we cannot already? ...and why is the AMA kicking and screaming exactly? The legislation is already written and has been for a fair while. I am under the impression the AMA has bigger battles on their hands at present than anything Podiatry could possibly throw at it.

I hark back to my previous post - the public perception, the external professional perception and the internal professional perception are three completely different issues (or are they?) and it is may not be as simple as a "title".

 

I would like to thank Podiatry arena for allowing this exchange of ideals.

I became a Podiatrist in the US because I was a first generation American and thought Podiatrists were doctors and was not aware of their low prestige I could have gone to Medical school on scholarship. Many members of my class that were not qualified to be doctors had not completed Organic Chemistry or physics in undergraduate school. We have objective means of determining people's ability to comprehend what they read for example in the USA. They are called the SAT exams. There were foreign students who were intelligent and also did not know about this lack of Prestige of Podiatry but contributed to our profession. There are many brillliant FMG Podiatrists in my hospital who were not aware of the lack of prestige in podiatry and decided to become Podiatrists. Therefore there are many podiatrist who are objectively of High IQ and well educated in the USA and are truly qualified to be called a doctor.

This was especially true after world war two in first and 2nd generation Podiatrists in the USA they caused my profession to grow and develop to the point that in The usa Podiatrists are really doctors and well respected.

I am selling the last 40 years of APMA journals for anyone interested in understanding the development of this necessary profession.
It is an interesting journey through the development of our profession in the USA.
it appears to me that the UK and Australia and Asia in General :drinks:drinksis going thru a similar evolution and this collection would be a welcome addition and great investment to a profession that is in desparate need by most of the world. I understand that there is only one Podiatrist in India with the highest rate of DIABETES. Podiatrist are needed they must be very intelligent and well educated world wide.

Please reply to this post if you have any interest. Asking $5000. + shipping and insurance costs for 40 years of the APMA Journal approximately 500 journals. Included free will be journals from ACFS the US surgical organization from 1993 thru 2007. Most surgical developments in our profession ten years prior to that were discussed in the APMA Journals.
The level of Podiatry is now very high in the USA and in addition to providing comfort we are with out doubt those who save legs and are recognized by the medical community for this.

 

Are degrees in Australia purchasable?

Can A stupid person with wealthy parents find a school that will graduate him as a doctor or podiatrist? 5 EVEN TEN YEARS OF EDUCATION IF BOUGHT NOT EARNED ARE WORTHLESS.

A doctor should be person well educated with a high IQ.

If your ability to read is poor for example you may be good politician but will be a poor Doctor.

IN THE USA WE CAN MEASURE THIS WITH SAT SCORES.

 

Hmmm...your last two posts cause me to ask, have you taken all of your meds today?

 

Firstly: Paul. Regarding my comments concerning the attitude of the AMA. The AMA's attitude to Podiatrists presribing S4 drugs has been made clear in the following submission. They state, continually in their earlier submission relating to Podiatry/S4 Prescribing rights:

"AMA Victoria has significant concerns about Podiatrists prescribing S4 substances.. Podiatrists lack the training support, experience and regulatory structure to adequately reduce the risk of harm to the community".

It is clear, from reading this document, that they do not want Podiatry advancing or encroaching on the turf of Medical Practitioners in any form.

http://www.amavic.com.au/icms_docs/...ule_2_3__4_drugs_for_endorsed_podiatrists.pdf



I am curious:

What is it, that is so particularly distinctive about our Profession, that causes the NSW Podiatrists' Act to specifically state that use of the title DR is ILLEGAL for Registered Podiatrists. - Meanwhile, Dentists and Veterinary Surgeons continue to use the title.

On a personal level, I think that the public perception of Podiatry is long overdue for a decent shake-up. I have friends whom have studied both Dentistry and Vet Science. Why should they be able to use the title, whilst I be denied it ???

I am, however, not particularly focussed on the contrasting views as to why Podiatrists should/should not use the title of DR. It is clear that we will be here until the cows come home arguing each side.

I accept that there will be Podiatrists whom are for and against using the title, in every jurisdiction.

What I am more interested in exploring, however; is WHY there has been a specific LEGISLATIVE PROHIBITION, to prevent Podiatrists in NSW from using the title DR.

It is not so much an issue of whether ALL Podiatrists should be using the title of Doctor. To me; it is a question of WHY the use of the title by Podiatrists has been SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED in NSW legislation.

Why has it been PROHIBITED for Podiatrists; but NOT Dentists and Veterinary Surgeons.

I do not accept any argument that it "is to prevent public confusion between Medical Practitioners and Podiatrists". Clearly, as is the case in Victoria, one can simply use the differentiating title of DR (Podiatrist).

What is so limiting about our Profession, that has caused such prohibitory concern with respect to the title we use in NSW.

I guess it is a further indictment of the esteem we are held in by the NSW Government. Let's face it, S4 prescribing rights won't be through in this state for at least another 10 years.

Food for thought!

 

So I gather you are a NSW Podiatry student. Thanks for indirectly answering that question.

The AMA will always take that stance - in fact I think you will see that in the recently accepted S4 submission and approval for Victorian Podiatrists the AMA's concerns have been equally accommodated by all parties concerned including the Podiatry profession. My personal opinion is that they have been far too well accommodated for - but my personal opinion means diddly squat.

I hate to point out, but as a Podiatry student I think the AMA's concerns outlined in the document you presented are probably warranted. Taking the single line:

"AMA Victoria has significant concerns about Podiatrists prescribing S4 substances.. Podiatrists lack the training support, experience and regulatory structure to adequately reduce the risk of harm to the community..."

I would argue that no undergraduate Podiatry program in the country currently offers the appropriate "training support" or clinical "experience" necessary for S4 prescription drugs (bar possibly La Trobe but even then it will be extremely new curriculum). Please feel free to prove me wrong by posting the hours you have personally spent in your undergraduate degree out in the clinical workforce or placement prescribing medications... The simple fact you did some subjects for 12 months, followed by a written examination means very very little. If you look at most of the major medical degree's around the country (including post graduate medicine) you will see that a vast majority of the pharmacology training is clinical in nature - it makes sense really. Medical Doctors learn most of their pharmacology out in the field in Hospitals. We as Podiatrists unfortunately don't have that luxury...yet!

The fact we actually do not have (or did not have at the time of writing that) any regulatory structure to police Podiatrists prescribing is also true. So what exactly is there to disagree about that statement from the AMA? It would seem reasonable beyond all doubt to me - no matter how much I think my own profession should get prescribing rights. Do they really "not want" the advancement of the Podiatry Profession as you so suggest, or are they merely being extremely careful and diligent?

To my knowledge nowhere has it been "prohibited" for Podiatrists to call themselves Doctor, as you so describe it in NSW legislation. It was/is simply part of legislation which is probably outdated and long overdue for change. You can quite rightly call yourself a Doctor in NSW as a Podiatrist if you have the relevant qualifications. In fact I can think of several Podiatrists who already do this, so it is not exactly "prohibited" is it?

As of July 2010 Podiatrists in NSW will have exactly the same S4 rights as every Podiatrists in any other Australian state (whatever the Board decides that may be). The real crux is that S4 etc.. prescribing laws are state governed by the therapeutic goods and poisons act (amongst others). If we want S4 rights in NSW we must lobby the state government for a regulation change to those acts - no easy feat. In fact there are people already doing this in NSW and they have been doing so for the last 10 years or so. Might pay to throw some of your enthusiasm their way!

Would still love to know what program you study at if you could spare a few seconds to quickly post back.

 

A registered podiatrist must not use the title “doctor” in the course of the practice of podiatry unless the podiatrist is the holder of a qualification conferred by a university that entitles the podiatrist to use that title and that qualification is a recognised qualification at the time the podiatrist uses the title.

Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

(2) In this section:
"recognised qualification" means:
(a) a qualification that is prescribed by the regulations as a recognised qualification, or
(b) when no qualification is prescribed under paragraph (a), a qualification that is for the time being recognised by the Board for the purposes of this section.

Note: See also section 105 (Use of misleading titles etc) of the Medical Practice Act 1992 .



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pa2003160/s18.html


Interesting points there Paul. However, my reading of the Act infers that one can't use the title of DR in NSW (at the moment) unless you have a PhD or doctoral degree.

Correct the young rookie if I am wrong?

Keep the spirit burning mate...

 

Correct and they would be the appropriate qualifications I refer to. So as you can so no one is "prohibiting" you calling yourself a Doctor in NSW, you just don't have the appropriate qualifications.

Time to start rethinking that 4th year extrinsic "honours" offer hey SurfBoy!

 

Hi have not read all, but wondering have those talking bout prescribing rights actually looked at the current content/workload one has to do in Victoria to gain these rights?

Just off the track a smidge?

cheers

 

And as if a Dentist has an extrinsic honours degree.

Yet they still use the title DR.

What a farce!

 

Heather I think the issue arose because we were talking about SurfBoys alleged linking of S4 drug rights to the title Doctor.

Yes I have read the documentation - its a lot of work and very thorough. Good platform for the rest of the country.

SurfBoy I think with your last post you are missing the point. Dentists can legally call themselves Doctors in NSW because they have the appropriate qualifications and legislation. Podiatrists can also call themselves Doctors in NSW if they too have the appropriate qualifications (according to the legislation).

I was suggesting you enrol in your honours degree, complete it, earn a University Medal for it then get accepted into a PhD scholarship so you can legally call yourself a Doctor in NSW.

You can argue until the cows come home, the simple fact here is legislation and qualifications. As I have described in my last two posts (which you haven't yet addressed) is at this point as an undergraduate Podiatry student, regardless of your locality in Australia do not have the ability legally graduate and A) Call yourself a Doctor (except in Victoria) or B) Prescribe S4 drugs...

No one is prohibiting you doing these things and if anything parties are being pro-active to facilitate the profession being able to progress to this level. It all takes time. Stop seeing the medical profession as a hindrance and start seeing what they can actually do for us. They are not all "bad people" and most medico's I have ever met are extremely supportive of Podiatry and the excellent work we do.

Umm what Podiatry school do you attend again?

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on here, Paul. We'll have a few wines sometime and discuss it passionately.

I do look forward to introducing myself to you at the next conference. Aim to have it on the gold coast again so I can go for a surf after hearing about feet all day.

 

There is no such thing as disagreement - just difference of opinion.

Still would like to know what Podiatry School you attend if possible?

 

........................................

 

from Sydney mate but studying in Brisbane.

 

If some thuggish rapper can call himslef DR. Dre then anyone who is a podiatrist regardless of the counrty should be not only addressed as one but rightly entiled to be addressed as Dr.... I am sick of laymen having the nerve to use such a once upon a time noble title while those sufficiently TRAINED in the medical sciences has to justify be addressed as Dr. Maybe we should STOP with embrassing these nurse practitioners as our equal because they are NOT! The last time I interviewed for a VAMC position at Lexington, KY, the phone interview consisted of a nurse practitioner. WHY?! What the blank they know about podiatry especially one with 24 plus residency training like the pathetic excuse for a surgeon not born in this backward nation who should have been man enough to object to being interviewed by a barely 4 year college trained personnel. Instead he acepted the postion! I bet you real money no MD from the mundane GP to a thorascic surgeon would put up with such insult! We better start ACTING like doctors and stop this second guessing with regrards to offending these insecured MDs who no matter what we do will always find something wrong with our existence and when we separate ourselves with in-fighting it only makes their anti-podiatry efforts easier!

 

Hi everybody! Let me tell us that here in Mexico its a new speciality in Podiatry but you have to be a medical doctor first to enter in that carreer. Since 5 years ago the carrer of podology its for people that only have to finish the high school to start it, so its considerate like a technical carreer. That is why our postgrate had to been called different that podology because we finish already the career of medicine. I invite us to see our website www.colegiodepodiatria.com . In other hand I think that the means of the word doctor is for someone that provides relief, so in the future maybe we recognaize doctor even at the pshycologist. However the principal interest that we have to look for is be preparing as much as possible for the benefits of our patients, we have that responsability.

Im so glad to be in contact with us, because here in Mexico we are in pampers in the podiatry.

Here us have your house and friends podiatrists.


pd. sorry for my bad english....=)

 

Just wanted to make my appreciation of everything that Dr Brooks said in his wonderfully ponient and relevent post known. Here in Belfast UK, I work in a small private practice and have been calling myself a foot doctor for a few years now. i always make it clear that if using the title that I point out that I am a fully qualified podiatrist.
If we as a profession would get a grip and take the bull by the horns the world over, life would be much easier. Thats my two pence worth.:drinks

 

Central European countries prohibit anyone except for those holding a PhD from using the title Dr. A "doctor" as we know it (one of the ones that treats disease) must only use the title of "Physician". I think this is just one of those ridiculous things that has evolved in the English language.

Even professions which I dubiously view with a measure of some deserved respect study for 6yrs r.e. chiropractic. Dentistry is a 5yr degree with extremely high expectations (just as podiatry)... Medicine 6yrs... Vet science 6yrs. I think the point is that the honorary title was given to recognise this length of time. Podiatry has and still remains a 3-4yr degree. It is unacceptable that those with the undergrad ALONE should use the title Dr. However that is only an argument of semantics e.g. that it could be found misleading +/- offensive to members of the public.

Really the point is in the US that those with a Podiatry degree have done an undergrad science degree (inc. the "hard" subjects such as biochemistry, etc. which are not currently taught at the same length as it is there). The also importantly are taught a bit more internal medicine.

The reasoning that the "level" of the US degree not being quiet as high as you might expect for 3+4= 7yrs of training - in terms of what we might expect of our institutions here is because of a philosophical difference and a deficiency of their highschool education. Consequently 1/4th of their degree is dedicated to "electives" in non-scientific areas. At least that is my understanding.

Despite all that... when the current Pod graduates start graduating (as in Western Australia) with the Masters in therapeutics where the additional internal medicine and therapeutics are covered... that recognition of the additional knowledge and application of that variety of Pod should be welcomed! Let's be fair to the poor old Dentists, Vets and Chiros... after all the convention in most countries is to give them the title Dr. but you would never hear them saying "Oh I'm a doctor" unless they were completely nutty (the would be a bit of a joke amongst their own profession). They still call themselves by their professional undertaking.

To ever suggest a Dentist or a Vet were any less worthy that a Medical Physician of the "honorary" variety of title is just downright crude. These degrees also hold merit in their own right. Often they also complete similar, if not, the same units as the medics.

 

At risk of wakening up a giant, I feel I must add a few points to this. Time and time again I see people referring to medicine as a '6 year undergraduate degree'. By and large, this is incorrect.

In terms of direct university study, school leaver entry medicine is 6 years. I don't use the term 'undergraduate' because in most school leavers courses you complete two degree's (i.e. BMedSci and MBBS). So either way, you are no longer an 'undergrad' when you start the medical course.
Graduate medicine is four years in addition to the previous degree (usually adds up to seven).

This just gets you a degree. You certainly can't start work as an independent doctor.

Where medicine stands apart from (most) of the allied health fields is the immediate requirement for further education (required for registration). One year internship. Then most will do a minimum of one year residency (often more). Once you get into a specialty (exams required, can be very tough), you start your specialty training. The vast majority of doctors will do this, including GP's (yes it is a specialty). This is a multi-step process including various modules which must be covered and minor and major exams. Generally it takes from 3-6 years, depending on specialty.

So how does this all add up? Well an anaesthetist for instance will have spent a minimum of 13 years in training and frequently more. Surgeons will do a year more. GP's about 2 years less. Then there's always the potential for sub-specialization and/or various masters degree's. Either way, you average 'doc' has probably earned that title through the arduous journey.

Compared to the podiatrist down my road who's done a 3 year bachelor a decade or so ago?

NB: I'm not saying that podiatrists don't do a lot of study. Some certainly do, especially those in the surgical fields. But the one's I've met haven't and don't refer to themselves as doctor. In fact most doctors don't either, but thats another story.

 

Hi,

Don't label all chiropractors as being "subluxation based". Yes the subluxation theory is seriously flawed, but most chiropractors know this and are using EBM and patient centred approaches. Those clinging to subluxation theory do so for their own reasons.