Dr Podiatrist?

Well I don't know where you are based but a very quick check of Uni of QLD, UWA, Bond and Uni Adelaide all have UG Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery -double bachelors degrees...no mistakes here?

Same for Podiatrists - what's your point? Have you seen the UWA program under Alan Bryant - 4 year degree in Podiatric medicine in the Faculty of Surgery - same units for medico's/dentists and pods - ability to progress to Master and Phd studies, no quantum differences between the professional education here?

Might the PhD students say something about that? They get a title because they contribute something 'new' to a body of knowledge - you seem to say Medical practitioners should get it because they spend a long time studying?

You mean compared to the average 'doc' of a decade ago who has two bachelors degrees with a handful of lectures about the foot? Or the average dentist/chiro for that matter?

The probable future path will be PG study at a masters level, so you need to compare 'apples with apples'. That being said the vast majority of medical practitioners do refer to themselves as 'doctor', even their journal is called "Australian Doctor"

The main thrust of your argument seems to be:
1. Medico's spend a long time in study - (so do Jesuit Priests/Solicitors/Architects etc etc)
2. Podiatrists don't refer to themselves as "Doctor" (When the QLD Government at the behest of the medical board legislates against this its a bit hard to refer to yourself as Dr!)

On point 1 many of the points made in this thread compare us more to Dentists than Medico's. On point 2, the OP was acknowledging that we don't - but that we should (and some do in Victoria). Maybe its me, but respectfully - your arguments either are misleading, don't address the core issues or are irrelevant.

Just my 2 cents..
:drinks

 

I'm located in Qld, and here in Queensland, UQ and Griffith provide an accelerated science/arts/etc course for entry into graduate medicine. Thus it would be misleading to imply the whole course is undergraduate when students receive a separate degree in-between and then enter the graduate medical course.
OTOH Bond is an undergrad course. There's no denying that.

I'm not making a point. People who do a doctorate/PhD can certainly call themselves 'Dr', as suitably qualified podiatrists do now.

PhD students get the title for the same reason. Many of them contribute nothing to knowledge (negative findings). Furthermore, professional doctorate students, like medical students, also contribute nothing to knowledge.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I will rephrase my argument.
The average 'medical practitioner' of a decade ago with have a MBBS and possibly also a BSc. Then they will have internship training, resident training and 3-6 years specialty training. They'll have done more training than your average PhD grad.
All this before medical practitioners can work independently as a GP/Consultant.
As to the extent of their 'foot-training', it depends entirely on the specialty. If they do orthopedics or sports-medicine (and probably also radiology), they'll likely do more study on the foot than a podiatrist. An average GP or an unrelated specialist will have done less.

The average 'podiatrist' I've met has a 3 year undergraduate degree. As you say below, this appears to be changing.

Postgraduate study is good. If they are suitably qualified, then podiatrists certainly can call themselves doctor. I have no problem with this.

And for the record, I've never met a GP who refers to themselves as 'Dr'. Many surgeons don't either.

1. Correct
2. Could you refer me to the legislation that you are referring to. Under the "Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001", podiatrists certainly can call themselves 'Dr' if they are suitably qualified AND identify themselves. See below:

1. To be fair, dentists don't refer to themselves as doctors (although they can legally). I don't personally think they should either.
2. If podiatrists pursue post-graduate education, then they certainly can call themselves 'Dr'.

I don't believe that summing up the training of an average medical practitioner (11-16yrs) and comparing it to an average vanilla podiatrist (3yrs+ and rapidly increasing) is misleading at all. Yes I understand that some podiatrists take further study. I'm not talking about them.

In my opinion, the core issue is the amount of study.

 

Good to see this topic is still stirring emotion amongst people!

Megaphat maybe your argument is flawed in your first post.

The title of "Doctor" is bestowed upon a medical student when they graduate from from their undergraduate degree (MBBS).

So in keeping with your line of argument, I can do 4/5 yrs of undergraduate medicine and still be called a "Doctor" without any post graduate study.

It is simply a title - which in the overall scheme of things is "possibly" completely meaningless.

I cannot see how duration of time spent studying has anything to do with the title use?

I tend to agree with some of the above posts - Podiatric Medicine is clearly being aligned more and more with General Medicine as the years go by. The line is becoming slowly blurred between people who practice General Medicine and people who practice Podiatric Medicine. The Universities want this as a cost saving/money generating exercise. It remains to be seen if the practitioners and general public want this - however in the end I think it will be dictated by the Registration Boards and the Universities.

The so called "vanilla" Podiatrists you refer to megaphat are becoming fewer and fewer. The only program in the country which is 3yrs in duration is Newcastle - I can't imagine it staying like that either. Most programs are moving towards a 5 year type of Post Graduate format. Hence I would put forward that undergraduate Podiatry is equivalent to Undergraduate Medicine in most aspects of what you would call "the amount of study". One could also argue that post graduate specialization (whilst lacking structure in the Podiatry field at present) is well on the way to modeling in a similar structure to Medicine.

Also megaphat I think you will find the acts are slowly changing nationwide (see Victoria for a good place to start). If you could let us know what field you are in it might help us get a better understanding of which position you are coming from.

Keep the flame alive, as its this sort of discussion which generates change!

**Keeping in mind that I am not supporting or condemning the actual title argument at hand.**

 

Megaphat,

I'm still not getting a cohesive argument from you.

1. As Paul states the title is bestowed on a medical graduate with probably 2 UG bachelors degrees - not after 11-13 years of study. If as you say they do not have the right to operate independently, following that logic it could be argued that they not yet be eligible for a title - after all they cannot practice without supervision, unlike Podiatrists/Dentists/Physiotherapists etc?

2. You continue to compare the 'best in class' medico's (BMedSci + MBBS + 7-9 years extra 'training') with a decade old Podiatry grad with a 3 year Bachelor degree and no further training. I can see why you would want to present this one sided comparison but it is an unfair one IMHO.

Alternatively why not compare a Podiatric Surgeon with a 4 year bachelor degree, Masters degree and multi-years of training with a decade old medical graduate GP who qualified with 2 bachelors and 1-2 years residency?

Both comparisons are unfair.

3. The medical practitioners reg board post is irrelevant as it refers to health practitioners holding a PhD. The instruction from the Health Practitioners registration board of QLD was that ONLY medico's and Dentists (irrespective of what degrees/training) may use the title Doctor, all others are precluded unless they hold a PhD/Doctorate qualification.

4. As an example, I hold a Bachelors degree, just finishing my 2nd Masters degree, have 13 years professional experience and training and am considering a PhD but cannot use the title 'Doctor', yet a 23 year old medical graduate fresh from Uni, probably with 2 bachelors degrees and unable to practice independently is entitled on the presumption of further training???

5. Last-

Sorry but are you saying an average GP has 6 years UG or 4 years PG study + 1-2 years internship + 2-3 years residency + 3-6 years plus specialty training = circa 10-17 years before they practice as a GP??

 

It takes around 10 years from start of your medical degree to finish as a GP which is actually a sub specialty of Medicine these days.

 

Yes Paul, I understand - my best friend is a GP, and I agree about the 10 years journey - no arguments.

However if you take Megaphat's upper limits it adds up to around 17 years - before - one can practice as a GP. I included the lower range trying to be fair, its the upper range I contest - I know about 20-30 GP's none of whom took 17 years to get to the independently practicing GP stage - perhaps its just me but it appears misleading?

NB// I do accept that general medicine is a specialty - no slur on GP's (just cant swallow Megaphat's 17 year educational/training journey to even get there)

 

Where am I coming from? I am a science student considering my future options. Hence I've comprehensively researched various careers (under/post grad med, dent, honors/PhD etc).
I am still considering my options.

The 16 years upper limit I've suggested refers to other consultants (not GP's). For instance, surgeons will need an extra three years (minimum).
If they take the post-grad route into med - an extra one to two years.
If they don't get into the specialty the first time round (often the case in radiology, dermatology, opthalmology), thats extra few years.

So, all-in-all, you can see how some consultants have spent 16 years (or even more) in training before they finally gain fellowship membership.

And yes, I understand that after 5-7 years of medicine study one can call themselves a 'Dr'. But its a bit pointless without registration, no? Even after an intern year, you'd only be a JMO, restricted to some internal medicine and administrative duties.
Hence why virtually every doctor is a specialist, which is why I include the time taken.

 

Thanks for clarifying, puts us all on the same page!

Sure - you are talking about specialists who work in an extremely small field. Podiatric Medicine is really no different. 5 years gets a degree which enables registration and some generalized duties (including now S4 drug rights).

Further study gets you fellowship in Podiatric Surgery or Podiatric Sports Medicine (I am sure others will come online eventually). This can take anywhere from 3 - 10+ years.

Really it is no different to what you are describing for General Medicine.

Sure - but realistically we are discussing use of title here - pertaining to your argument of "time taken to study". The time taken, subjects studied, specialty areas are all extremely similar in both fields.

Only those living in the dark ages or those who just will never admit it consider Podiatry (or "insert other specialty here") to be inferior to any other branch of Medicine.

The only people who "dismiss" Podiatric Medicine as a subservient profession are those who know nothing about it.

 

Sorry to 'split hairs' megaphat, but that's what you posted...

 

Yup. The three years is for GP and the (five)six years for most other consultants.
I should have written that more clearly. My bad.

Anyway, I was not aware of some of the recent developments in podiatry (especially S4 proscribing - wow!). It does seem like specialties such as podiatric surgery deserve recognition.

From what I've heard, the rules may be changing under the National Registration and accreditation scheme, to the allied health benefit.

I do however have one question. Where does foot & ankle orthopaedic surgery/general surgery/general practice end and podiatric surgery start? They do seem to cover the same turf.
It gives me the strange impression that podiatric surgery might be better off as a sub-specialty in medicine/surgery.

 

The difference between God and an MD?

God doesn't want to be an MD!

The difference between an MD and a Podiatrist?

An MD doesn't want to be a Podiatrist!

It matters not what Title we use. What matters is how the public and other professionals perceive us in our own communities. And that's up to us.

Regards

 

I have read all the above with some amusement and also with some knowledge of the historical context. As a Pod, then a geology grad, then a PhD in Biological anthropology (foot evolution), I was fascinated to see the reaction to "Doc" in the unis I worked in. And when I got there, and was Doc myself: to misquote - frankly Maam, who gives a dam??!! A Little more time spent on patient care, and a little less on titles, perhaps we would all be able to lie straight in bed at night. Rob

 

The trend is that Dentists, Osteopaths, Chiropractors and soon Optometrists will be using the title Dr. Do Podiatrists want to be seen as being on a lower level by the public?
In the UK Chiropractors use the Dr title and osteopaths are not allowed too. However a large percentage of the public see this as meaning the chiros are trained to a higher standard!
Whatever you decide ( I am not a podiatrist) you need to ensure that you are looking to the future and the development of your profession. From what I have seen in the UK too many have tried to hang on to the past.
Look at what the DPMs have done in the Sates and take your profession in that direction and be the real Foot specialists worthy of the title DR.

 

Hi Bob,

You were one of my lecturers back in the Curtin days in the early 90's. I remember you well and also interned with your dear Wife (Ros, I think?) at RPH. Your relaxed style and interactivity was always great educationally (and a good laugh!).

I agree with your thoughts, to a point. Certainly clinical excellence is the first priority - but should it be the only focus? Should we not as a profession be also addressing the 'public perception' angle as well.

Lets face it - our wonderful profession has been around since the year dot, and in many ways the local GP is still the point of call for most Foot related conditions. So historically we remain widely considered as 'supplementary' or 'ancillary'. So innumerable Foot Health weeks and/or practitioners on Kerri-Anne etc have not achieved a deeper penetration into the public's psyche as practitioners who 'own' the foot.

I agree that in Tertiary institutions (I am just finishing my 2nd Masters prior to probably embarking on a PhD in 2010) the title is not the be-all and end-all. As a Prof. you know far better than I do about such matters. But the Universities are not an environment to weigh the validity of titles for a professional body.

However, as a professional group our primary non-clinical focus should be on the public, not Academia, nor other professional groups - with this in mind, and being cognizant of the excellent degrees at UWA with Alan embedded in the Faculty of Surgery - S4 advances in Victoria - the great work at the ACPS etc. surely debating this issue is timely as we look to the future. By and large we as a group have done great work for decades -but again the public perception has not changed greatly.

IMHO whether we like it or not 'joe public' will always defer to Dr.GP than Mr/Mrs.Pod. If we always do what we've always done - we'll always get what we've always got...

Julian

 

My most dear Julian, One of the problems (challenges??) one has as a teacher is that after a while, one cannot remember who fitted where, if one remembers at all. I have to say that I cannot put a face to you. What I can say, however, is that my 5 years at Curtin were the happiest of my teaching career - if I made a difference to you and many others, I am seriously glad. I am retiring next year, at least from full time. I am available for locums, though! Rob

 

Hi Julian, Unlike the last, this reply is not for you, but for the world. Titles............ Who cares? What is the real problem? Is it patient perception, or podiatrists' perception of credibility? I wonder? One of my mentors as a child was a surgeon called Cyril Cregan; he wrote a text I think. I knew him as a toddler through to being a pod final year student (he died soon after). His title was Mister; two things. The public never noticed what his title was while he and I were replacing their hip joint (me decidedly in the do this, do that, seat). Second, the nurses in the hospital said "Mister" in such a way that it left you in no doubt! Rob

 

Some months ago I was treating a patient at uni.

I had an eminent Sydney Podiatric Surgeon supervising me at uni. This particular surgeon is fantastic with patients, presents himself extremely professionally, is friendly and approachable, and will definitely be getting future referrals from myself and my colleagues.

I digress: The patient had bilateral HAV and I was preliminarily explaining the surgical options available to her. The patient was aware that my clinical supervisor on this particular day was a qualified Podiatric Surgeon.

Interestingly, the patient asked me very directly: "whether or not this podiatric surgeon goes by the title of DR ?".

I hesitated, and the patient proceeded to quiz me further.

Whether others here like it or not... It was made very clear to me from her expression and tone of voice, that the title of "DR" conveyed a certain level of perceived professional standing to her, being the average healthcare consumer.

Food for thought.

 

Forgetting about the cans and cannots of using the tile Dr everywhere else in the world , in the state of Victoria Australia the victorian Podiatry Board state its legal to use the tile Dr simply by having a relevant quailfcation and current registration. (Podiatrists share this right along with a long line of other health care professionals)

 

GBC if read the original post, recognition was given to your statement

 

...and just to confuse the matter more Congratulations to the 4 Victorian Public Sector Pods who now have S4 prescribing rights. Shall we now call them Dr? I wonder how many of them are actually already using the title considering they are in Victoria.

Time has mellowed me on this and although I like to play devils advocate, I personally don't care either way.

The main thing is that the general Joe Public know what a Podiatrist is, the value which Podiatrists have to patients/community/health-care and when to visit them!

I respond to Paul, Bowlsey, "Hey You", Mr, boofhead and "hey wanker" most times - so I really don't think adding the title of Dr in front of my name will change the way patients think of me personally.

However for patients who have never met me, then their perception may be a whole other story. The real question to them should not be:

"Do you know your Podiatrist is a Dr?"

It should be:

"Do you know what a Podiatrist is and when to use one?"

I hope with all my heart that APodC is planning furiously to bombard the populous and medical community at large with "Podiatry Propaganda" come mid 2010 (lets face it it would have been nicer earlier, but I will take what I can get). The tag-line to their campaign should be:

"Call me whatever you want - just make sure you call me when you have a lower limb problem!"

 

I think Dr Wanker has a nice ring to it might use that myself.... I´m sure some my old students might agree

 

http://admissions.wvu.edu/undergraduate/spotlight/spotlight.asp?iSpotID=431

Bob might have something to say about that!!!



"A 1971 graduate of the WVU School of Dentistry, Dr. Wanker is an avid fan of Mountaineer football and basketball."

Absolute classic!

 

Too many 1 liners...... School must have been a nightmare for Bob. Brilliant research Paul !!

 

Geez this is a long thread!! Personally, i think its a bit of a joke. there is no way we should call ourselves doctor. Forget about other professions, thats neither here nor there, but as someone who has met, been lectured, and even had a beer with them, i think its disrespectful to those of our profession, such as Josh Burns and Hilton Menz, who have invested a lot of hard study time and research to have earned their title. In my opinion it is these Podiatrists only who deserve the right to be called Doctor.

 

Paul,

I only just saw this, and being one of the 4, and knowing the other 3, none of us have any intention of using the title Dr. It has almost become redundant in hospitals anyway. Most of the medical staff introduce themselves to patients as "Hi I'm Sarah Morrison, the endocrine registrar"

 

Or in the case that Paul Highlighted " Hi I´m Bob" I really hope he does not have a brother Neil

 

Stephen,

I only just found out the Board is only initially recognizing the academic component from a course held in Victoria over 15 years ago?

Surely this is not correct and I am being misled by people! The current UniSA and previous Curtin Masters post degree's with Pharm and Advanced Pharm must surely be considered more current that a 15 year old qualification?

I am still a little confused about the whole process but I am sure as more come online it will get clearer.....

Out of interest Stephen how many scripts did you write in week one personally and do you know the stats on how many were issued by all the Pods registered to do so?

Thanks

 

Paul,
The board initially approved the components of the 1998 LaTrobe course (as this what was in our initial submission. It has taken a long time...) so this included all LaTrobe Honours graduates and those who have a grad Dip from LaTrobe (even though its old) Hence there was a need for some intensive update/revision. Re other courses. they are all being assessed by a retired optometry professor against the 1998 LaTrobe Pharmacology hours (not necessarily the actual content, but more the content structure). So far the UG CSU course and the 2010 UG UniSA course have been approved as similar. The UniSA masters review is almost complete, then we will look at the Curtin Masters and others.


The Process

Have an approved or equivalent qualification.

then either

have 7 years experience in a prescribing environment
have 2 current prescribers sign off that you are safe

or

complete a mentoring process
complete some case studies


then

16 hours of extra Pharmacology
14 hours of Advance Life Support
(both of these must have been completed within 12 months applying for endorsement)

then apply to the board for endorsement.


How many scripts did I write? Well I was off sick for most of last week, so none.
Also not likely to write many, as in most of the clinics I work I have very ready access to medical staff, and they have PBS access...

 

Thanks Stephen,

I would have thought it to be the other way around - approve the current courses first and the old ones last. As long as they all get done I suppose it doesn't matter.

So Pods have no PBS benefits on prescribed S4's in Victoria?

 

PBS funding is a Commonwealth matter.

No scripts by any podiatrist in the country attract a PBS rebate. As opposed to optometry, who are a lot further along with nation wide prescribing endorsements.

IMHO we will need uniform and consistent prescribing regulations across the country before any application for PBS rebates will be accepted by the Commonwealth. Would like to be proved wrong though...

Nurse practitioners and midwives are next in line, providing the legislation gets passed.

LL

 

I think that it is time for us to use the title.

Here in South Africa we have the same problems / issues as I think most places.

I often get called Dr by patients, and I am tired of explaining why we are not called that

 

Podiatry Board of Australia - Guidelines:



6.4 Advertising of qualifications and titles
A practitioner should state clearly his or her professional qualifications. Credentials and a practitioner’s expertise in a particular field should be clear to the public.

Use of titles in advertising
S. 117 of the National Law prohibits a practitioner from knowingly or recklessly taking or using any title that could be reasonably understood to induce a belief that the practitioner is registered in a regulated health profession or a division of a health profession in which the practitioner is not registered.
S. 116 prohibits a person who is not a practitioner from knowingly or recklessly taking or using a title that, having regard to the circumstances, indicates or could
be reasonably understood to indicate the person is a practitioner or authorised or qualified to practise in a health profession.

There is no provision in the National Law that prohibits specifically a practitioner from using titles such as ‘doctor’ or ‘professor’.

If practitioners choose to adopt the title ‘Dr’ in their advertising, and they are not registered medical practitioners, then they should make clear that they do not
hold registration as medical practitioners; for example, by including a reference to their health profession whenever the title is used, such as:
Dr Isobel Jones (Dentist) or
Dr Walter Lin (Chiropractor)

The Psychology Board advises registered psychologists that use of the title ‘doctor’ in their practice, has potential to mislead members of the public. Specifically, patients or clients may be misled into believing that the practitioner
is a psychiatrist when they are not. Therefore, registered psychologists may not use such a title unless they hold a doctoral qualification from an approved higher education

 

i agree! Podiatrist should be internationally known with the Dr. title since podiatry is also part of medicine and we treat health problems in patients!!!

 

Very Interesting reading the above thread.

I have been using the title "Dr." since the beginning of this year.

In the past 7 months i have received nothing but praise from pt's and peers alike that using the title Dr. will undoubtedly further the Podiatry as a profession.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: Why would we not do everything in our power to develop and further Podiatry as a whole?

rather than restrict ourselves and stay locked away in the back-rooms of multidisciplinary clinics and basements of hospitals?? I think it is a huge shame that a large percentage of the population still think of podiatrists as "nail and callous cutters". We need to change and influence the way the public and our colleagues view our MEDICAL PROFESSION.

Lets step out of the shadows of our Chiropodist past and step into the 21st Century!


Jens

 

If you are a Podiatrist and you have completed a PhD then you should use the term DR.
Until then you are a Podiatrist with either a 3 or 4 year degree.

If we use the fact that we have sat a degree and are specialists in our subject then why doesn't every one who has completed a degree just call themselves DRs.

We have no rights to call ourselves DR.

We are specialists in the foot that is all.

I am currently researching for my PhD, when I qualify I will be a Podiatrist and a Doctor of Philosophy, Not a DR. of Podiatry.

 

This is rediculous ill get my Dr. in Surfing and retail management then!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1589385.stm

Jens your an idiot its practitioners like you that give our profession a bad name, you think you deserve the same level of professional recognition as DR. Simon Spooner , DR. Kevin Kirby and DR. Kilmartin.............i think not,

Its up to the Society to publicise and promote our profession to the public not cheap scams like your practice of using DR.

To everyone who has rightly earned their title, congratulations.

 

Well, after almost 3 years since the original post it is interesting how the 'Yes/No Poll' on this issue has swayed from a complete negative to near even balance!!!

Times are a changing!!

 

Equating Surfing with Podiatry, calling a colleague an idiot because you disagree with their opinion/practicing within legal & professional boundaries and writing 'your' instead of you are or 'you're'......well done!

 

HI ALL

I guess the APODA Vic support and encourage the use of the title 'Dr':

http://www.ahwo.gov.au/documents/National%20Registration%20and%20Accreditation/Bill%20B%20Submissions/A/Australian%20Podiatry%20Association%20(Vic).pdf

Case closed, at least for Victorians doubting

 

This seems to be an Australian issue but we in the US have had this for many years.

Some Podiatrists were accepted both to a Podiatry and a Medical school.
This means in the US they had very high grades and high abilities to reason in courses in Undergraduate school. Chemistry biochemistry physics biology. Their prpearatory courses were high in both. On the other hand many Podiatrists in the US barely passed their undergraduate science courses and still were able to qualify for admission to Podiatry school and had succesful careers and were respected as doctors.
An American trained MD (he went to an american Medical school) always had the highest of grades and is truly worthy of being called a DR.

On the other hand not so bright men and women I just met one who is going to Ross a Caribean medical school with lower standards will be called DR.

Are they DRs??

Nurses in the US who got Cs and Ds in highschool biology become nurses and then take courses and become PHDs. Can we call them DRs? They opemly admmit they hate the "sciences". Their SAT reading comprehension scores are low and they are legally allowed to be called DRs.

I feel dumb people with no background that is exemplarary cannot be called DRs.

You may be a good technician have great people skills and get people well but if you are dumb you are not a DR.

IQ is as important as EQ. IQ, reading comprehension , calculus, Biochemistry, anatomy, can all be judged objectively. You must have passed all these hurdles before calling yourself a DR. Do you have courses that test reading comprehension and math skills before entering a Professional graduate school in Australia?

Does this add to the Australian study do you have really smart people in Podiatry? We have some in the US but not all.