Health Teams Divided on Who to Call "Doctor"

Share:

Dr John S Purifoy III, PharmD   October 4th, 2011 03:10:3903:39:12 PM

concerning the "doctor" issue. this is a result of both schools and associations and states greed and wanting more money. you change the number of years for a degree then say it is a "doctorate", then people will want what they paid for and earned. why there are even "doctoral" degrees in nursing or pharmacy is irresponsible. it doesn't take 6-8 yrs to practice pharmacy verses the duties that a pharmacist or nurse are allowed to do. this is a problem created by YOU ALL, the associations and other professionals that are so egotistic and short sighted you are unable to have the foresight of the potential problems you cause for us, your collegues , and the public. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!! Greed!

Brad   October 4th, 2011 05:10:2705:27:51 PM

Dr. John S, Please repost. I sense you want to make something clear, but your sentence structure makes your post hard to follow. Try to order your thoughts and use short sentences. Thanks.

Nick Odiase (Pharmacist)   October 4th, 2011 05:10:5905:59:06 PM

There is nothing wrong with higher qualifications in Pharmacy, Nursing or any other profession. There is a lot to learn after PharmD. Pharmacists are facing more and more challenges and the advancement in medical practice require that we increase our knowledge base. I beg to differ from Dr John S. On the issue of "doctorate", PhD holders in any field are addressed as doctors, why should medical field be different. MDs have areas of specialty which they can add to their names, if they choose, just like a Pharmacist or Nurse should identify themselves as such, the MD should also identify themselves, e.g. Dr Ray, your Physician, your Surgeon, your Medical; doctor. As knowledge increases there will be advancement that first degree alone cannot cover. Thanks for your time

Robert   October 4th, 2011 06:10:3706:37:18 PM

The AACP has minimized pharmacists by establishing the Pharm.D. as "doctor" without including all pharmacists. As Dr. John wrote (above), "GREED!" Furthermore, the proliferation of Pharm. D. Colleges Has exacerbated the same. Today, the Juris Doctor is the enlightened one.

Pamela Hughes, PharmD   October 4th, 2011 09:10:2509:25:07 PM

Any individual that has taken the time, effort and money to advance their education and earn a doctoral degree should be addressed by their proper title. It is simply being respectful. I use the terms "sir", "ma'am", "Mr" and "Ms" to address my patients so why wouldn't I expect the same amount of respect from them by asking them to call me by my earned title of "Dr"?

Linda, RPh, MBA   October 4th, 2011 10:10:2310:23:47 PM

I agree with Dr. John because we now have the 6 year PharmD- earning the same as the BSPharm a the retail level, despite the extra schooling. So it's a new title, the college gets an extra year of your money, and you are not recognized for excelling over the 5-year program. Infact all you did was bring UP the BSPharm rate....what's the point? To me, there should have remained a two-tier degree because hospital practice is so different from retail.

Ali_the_pharmacist   October 5th, 2011 09:10:4909:49:52 AM

@Pamela. You have a professional degree, not a doctoral degree. Those that go to medical school earn the title of medical doctor and those that go to graduate school, do YEARS of research, write an extensive dissertation of their original research and have that research/dissertation judged by a committee of professors in their field earn the PhD title. If you want to be called Doctor, that is fine...but I know many more schooled folks that don't have to wear it and people still know they are mighty darn smart.
Now that the PharmD is the only degree, I wonder what makes the PharmD so special, anyway? The PharmD seems to show that you obtained the minimum requirements to be a pharmacist.

Rxvince   October 5th, 2011 11:10:4811:48:46 AM

The PharmD. is just a professional degree. Period. It is not a doctorate any more than a doctor of physical therapy is a doctorate. As a profession, pharmacists should now realize that the PharmD. is going to go the way of the BS. You now need a residency to get a good job outside of retail. Perhaps when pharmacists are required to complete 4 years of residency, then we should be called doctors. Otherwise, as Dr. John indicates, it was all a sham created by pharmacy schools under the guise of improving patient care through pharmaceutical care. If you insist on being a doctor, get a PhD. or go to medical school.

Dr John S Purifoy, III PharmD   October 5th, 2011 11:10:4911:49:13 AM

I'm responding from an iPhone. So, Brad, after re-reading my post I agree it could be made to read smoothly, occasionally the iPhone predicts words that I did not want to include in my post . In addition, I was unsure of word count allowable. I will try to make this shorter and easier to read. What I was trying to say is this: I believe a requirement or even a choice of a "Doctoral" degree to practice ANY profession leads to the individual being addressed by the formal degree they worked hard in obtaining. However, there are some professions where the responsibilities (allowed by law) or the individual's "scope of practice" does not require an advanced degree. However, in some cases (like pharmacy) you can not practice without the advanced degree , so you must acquire a "Doctoral" degree. The reason for the changes in educational requirements is not a demand of the "student" but a demand of the educational institutions; this results in more money for the schools and the professional boards as well as the professional associations. To scew just a moment, I say again, there are very few situations where the PharmD is an advantage in practice (other than the change in LAW). The states are making changes to the educational requirements (not the Feds);this change brings a significant increase in revenues just through licensing fees, not including the revenue from 2 or 3 or 4 more years paying for the education (this is the greed I was referring to in my las post ). If people are required to obtain a Doctoral degree, then their professional title is "Doctor". If you ( not you personally but the institutions) want to reduce the "confusion" ; allow individuals in pharmacy for example , to get a 4 year degree. However , if states want to allow individuals to take on more responsibility and people want that responsibility , then allow the option of the longer 6 or 8 year degree. Then at this point, the RPh can be a "pharmacist" and the "PharmD" can be referee to the "Doctor" they spent the time and money acquiring. I hope this makes my stance a little more understood; if you're going to offer a "Doctoral" degree, and people study and finish that degree, no one should be surprised that those people will want to be called "Doctor". Again, at this moment , the need for "Doctors" in nursing , pharmacy, and any other field other than MD seems to be little more than a title that we acquire due to changes in state laws which is leading to more state revenue. Because, except in very, very rare cases....few people can do nothing close to an MD (unless working under a physician). But, you charge people for a Doctoral degree and most will want to use the title for which they were charged! Again, this is nothing more than a revenue building decision by educational institutions. If it were not, then all us "Doctors" would be able to have a more leading and independent role in healthcare. Well, Brad, I hope this helps some. I hope my structure is easier to follow. Sorry for not being clear the first time.

John

John Purifoy   October 5th, 2011 12:10:1812:18:59 PM

I think I was misunderstood , I'm for PharmD's being called "Doctor", that's what we are( but by default only and due to political greed of state legislature, "law"). I was just trying to give a reason as to MY argument for the premise concerning the questions "should or shouldn't, why or why not". I was trying to be as thorough as possible regarding my stance. I also thought my stance ( as it was stated) could have been inferred as well via the language I used. Sometimes long sentences are kinda needed
, sorry. But I tried to make my comment better at the request of Brad. To whom I have no resentment and appreciate the criticism. BTW, I am aware of many issue most may not know. I've sat in front of Congressmen and Lobbyist for this field. It is a money deal, I promise!

john purifoy   October 5th, 2011 12:10:3812:38:29 PM

ok.....to all u na sayers. the PharmD is recognized by all medical institutions as "Dr.", that is what they (the institution) both allows and will put on your lab coat! it's a "Doctor of Pharmacy "; hence , the title "Dr." on the coat of ANY PharmD. and to you critics, don't get all over the pharmacist , we didn't call ourselves "doctor" . the schools and institutions did. and yes I am correct, the PharmD is nothing but a revenue builder. there is nothing out there a RPh can't do (intellectually) that a PharmD can do. it's nothing but 2 more years of money and school. and yes, it is a scam the way the states have arranged the programs. and I'm a PharmD. if u want clinical work, make a tract for such, if you want retail , make a shorter tract. but with the pay better in retail, the schools would lose lots of money because most would skip the 2 extra years and go straight to the cash. hate to be so.....harsh, but THINK !

john Purifoy    October 5th, 2011 01:10:1401:14:03 PM

@Ali...let's do this. since MDs don't have PhDs , let's not call them doctor either , since this is the basis of your argument .

Vickie Davis   October 5th, 2011 05:10:2905:29:51 PM

I have and earned Ph. D. in electrical engineering (electromagnetics, to be precise.) When I was hired as a pharmacist after the Ph. D., my director insisted that everyone address me as Dr. Davis. It still felt odd, knowing that it wasn't a PharmD, which many of my co-workers had. As to why I went back to pharmacy after the Ph.D. -- a ruptured cerebral aneurysm 2 wks after I defended my dissertation; lucky to be alive and working on "all" cylinders! Didn't want the stress of a tenure track position in my 50s.

jerome   October 5th, 2011 10:10:2710:27:13 PM

Since the title of doctor is associated with various fields of study,why don't MD's just go by "Physician" (i.e Physician Jones). Patients will not be confused and physicians will have their stand alone title- everyone is happy :)

Dale   October 6th, 2011 01:10:5301:53:26 AM

After 27 years in community pharmacy I took my PharmD over to the hospital setting. It was a difficult transition but like most things difficult, it has been rewarding. Regardless of my practice setting I have always felt the whole Doctor title has a very high potential to intimidate my patients. I am rewarded by my interactions and relationships with them, not by how they address me. The physicians I work with are reluctant to share the Doctor title, and I just don't care. Let me do my job, dose your antibiotics and warfarin patients, and life is good down on the Pharm.

Gene   October 6th, 2011 12:10:1312:13:20 PM

As a licensed, registered plain "old time" Bachelor of Science Pharmacist for over 40 years, I believe that I have earned the right to speak my piece. The PharmD "movement", which started back in the 1970's, was an arrogant, egotistical ploy by hospital pharmacists (mainly Directors of Pharmacy) to put themselves on a higher level than they perceived themselves. Back then the Director of Nursing had a office in the "Administrator's Wing", while the office of the Director of Pharmacy was typically found in a small, cramped, windowless closet located as part of a small, cramped, windowless room, located in the basement between the morgue and the laundry room or heating system. This newly expanded education-less program has only served to be a money maker for the pharmacy schools, where they seem to content to churn out hoards of second rate pharmacy type drones with a title. Most of these people cannot read hand written prescriptions and couldn't pronounce "secundum artem ", much less prepare anything pharmaceutical in nature. If a patient ever needs a prescription where calculating the amounts of ingredients to actually compound something is needed, you better look for a pharmacist over the age of 60 (before they are all dead). Many of the PharmD's I have met cannot even put a complete, coherent sentence together, apparently in any language, in order that they may properly convey simple, plain, easy to understand information to a patient. Now I see signs everywhere for free flu shots, because the pharmacists are being shown how to give injections. Next they will probably want to do rectal exams to compensate for the extra years they have endured to "assume the identical position" in order to receive the identical degree as the PharmD Drone in front of the class and who probably graduated the year before. By the way, to the genius who made the reference to RPH v PharmD, that just confirms my assessment of the quality level of the intellect and extra education of a typical PharmD. A PharmD is merely an overpriced, overeducated version of a college degree; similar, but less meaningful as a Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy ever was, with one other huge exception. Back in the Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy days, the students were taught by real professors and learned how to make real things just like real pharmacists. An R.Ph. is a Registered Pharmacist licensed to perform the duties of a pharmacist in a particular jurisdiction. See the difference?

Vman   January 29th, 2012 06:01:4506:45:14 AM

Gene has no clue. "Real" pharmacists have transitioned to the clinical area. The lick-stick-and-pour RPhs are either being let go from their jobs or not hired..Go ahead ask around Gene, your RPh'ers are not being hired because of the MTM that is being thrusted upon the industry. Medical Home Model is the new game in town and much more profitable; albeit we are waiting to see the pay module/scale. Walgreens is gearing up with Project One where the PharmD is moved from the back of the pharmacy to the center in a new office setting. Dispensing is being done by central filling. I admire the new flock of kids that are coming in, they are no longer the passive agressive dweebs of the past that did not have the self esteem to rise up to industry or challenges brought on by MDs; perfunctory expertise is no longer needed by PharmDs. These kids have the tools to shine and stand their ground when challenged by MDs. I have seen them in action in our hospital. In fact, MDs treat them as professionals and respect their answers. I notice that when an RPh gives an answer to an MD, the RPh usually gives a "horse sense" answer that they would give to a patient. This makes the MDs uncomfortable, and seem not to trust the answer. The PharmD gives a clinical answer speaking the language of the MD, thereby the MD seeing the PharmD as a collaborator. Our MDs always as for a PharmD for answers ( They usually ask - "PharmD please" when our techs answer. and they mean it.). Seeing that RPhs are being rapidly discounted, I am getting my PharmD with BCPS. The RPh world of the 70s 80s and 90s are gone my friends.

Your comments are valuable to us. Thank you.