A Canadian law student wonders why not.
Related posts:
- Doctor ratings being called "deceptive"
- Canadian doctor defection
- Some lawyers say defensive medicine isn’t real, but this doctor shows us otherwise
- Why patients should not be called clients
- "Will suing a doctor do any good?"
- Should soft drinks be taxed and be called a public health hazard?
- California’s "doctor tax" is going to further drive students away from primary care
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 31 comments }
It would add to the confusion that is arrising with degree inflation. Now we have ‘doctors’ of everything roaming the hospital. Doctors of nursing, doctors of physical therapy, doctors of pharmacy, medical students with doctoral degrees in whatever (but not medicine yet), the list just keeps growing.
But of course we all know that when the airline stewardess (doctor of naturally) gets on the speaker to request the aid of a doctor on board we naturally assume she means a doctor of middle english liturature.
Law school is not arduous. I recieved a law degree in 3 1/2 years going to night school while practicing medicine full time. I would be embarrassed to be referred to as Dr. Dr.
My favorite local ‘Doctor’ is a prominant socialite who received an honarary Doctor of Humane Letters from a small college in honor of her fund raising soirees for various causes. Said socialite is now referenced as “Doctor” in the local press and publicity releases. Never in my life have I seen the title been malappropriated or more cheapened!
Get used to it. The misappropriation of doctor as a sole title for clinicians needs to go out the window along with the physician first broken health care system.
-Criminallopath-
What’s next, Doctor of Architecture?
Anony 1050: I bet you’re in Houston. If you are, I know EXACTLY who you’re talking about. Makes me both laugh and want to puke every time I hear it.
I don’t think that there’s anything appropriate per se about lawyers wanting to be called Doctor… The only problem is that the JD, while it does contain the word “Doctor” in it, is not the highest degree conferred in the field of law, the SJD is. And I think that one of the original connotations of the title “Doctor” is that its holder has received the highest degree possible in their field.
At the same time, however, both medical school and law school are considered undergraduate professional education, but where law has the SJD, medicine has nothing… the reason being that there is no special aspect of medical research that is not already encompassed by the PhD degree. Therefore MD can be called doctors by fiat, not because they are at a higher level of professional education than lawyers, but because the medical model lacks an academic degree higher than the MD that is specifically in the field of medicine…
In any case, MDs being called “Doctor” is a matter of older tradition being codified in the modern age, not one of principle. Because of the precedent set by MDs using the title “Doctor”, all kinds of professionals want to use it as well, but the title is, at the heart of it, an academic title, not a professional one. It has no relation whatsoever to the difficulty of the degree being earned, or the amount of prestige associated with a specific career. “Doctor” means “Teacher” in Latin. Non-academic physicians are only teachers in a metaphorical sense, and thus do not fall under the original meaning of “Doctor”. In the English language physicians were called “Doctor” as a term of relative education. Whereas most villages did not have philosophers and academics in them, they all had physicians, so physicians became the “Doctors” of the village.
Lawyers already have “Counsellor X” and that Esq. thing.
Why do they need yet another honorific?
Anon asks: “Why do they need yet another honorific?”
ummmmm…..low self esteem?
I don’t think that lawyers are even trying to be called “Doctor”, It’s just that there’s no reason in principle that they shouldn’t be addressed as such. It’s just not traditional to do so. It’s really only the para-medical professionals that are pandering to be called doctor, because of the respect commanded by physicians. But outside of the hospital “doctor” retains it’s original connotation, that of a scientist or scholar…
“At the same time, however, both medical school and law school are considered undergraduate professional education…”
That’s only in the european tradition. American docs all have undergraduate degrees before proceeding into medicine. Many in my class had masters degrees also, a few had doctoral degrees before starting medicine, and a dozen more earned doctoral degrees in addition to medical degrees during med school.
“Anony 1050: I bet you’re in Houston. If you are, I know EXACTLY who you’re talking about. Makes me both laugh and want to puke every time I hear it.”
Carol, you are correct!
Even physicians are hardly worthy of the title “doctor”.
This title should be reserved only for a handful of Catholic saints, recognized by the Church centuries after achieving sainthood.
The Catholic Church has so far promoted only 33 Saints to the title of Doctor, out of 10,000+ saints and beautified.
Nobody else is worthy of this lofty Doctor title!
So what you are saying is that you need to be a saint before you can be a doctor. Fair enough. Problem is, I’m not Catholic.
Don’t worry, there is still time to get right with God’s church.
Anon 751PM (Regrets to those not in Houston who think this woman is so damned funny) You HAVE to check out her web site. It’s worth looking up. You will laugh all day long. It is written in third person and it makes it sound like she cured cancer, athlete’s foot, and pantyhose that run all in her spare time. What makes the whole thing so wild is that she didn’t even earn the money that made her such a great philanthropist. All she did was hire a good divorce attorney. And the only degree she ever earned was an Mrs.
I do hope she can save River Oaks theater…..If you want to see something bizarre, check out the Frida Kahlo in her collection.
LOL. I am a Law student.
I just call myself “Lord”. Sounds cooler.
Seriously though, “Doctor” (teacher) is just the name for a physician. Less confusion that way.
If someone asks, “is there a Doctor on board”, we know what they mean!
Whom ever left the comment regarding the S.J.D degree obviously knows very little about the academic field of law. An S.J.D is only awarded to those individuals who have obtained the higest scores from the top rated law schools. Only 4 or 5 individuals per academic year ahieve this. Simply because such a degree does exist does not belittle the accomplishment of obtaining a Juris Doctor. If we are going to allow only MD’s to be awarded the title doctor then they alone should be allowed the title. All professors at our institutions of higher education should not be referred to as doctors. In contrast if these professors with their advanced degrees are allowed the title there should be no issue with attorneys being granted the title. In fact there is no issue, lawyers who have eaned a J.D. can use the Dr. title. However because of custom they do no. Look it up on Wikipedia.
The idea that holders of JDs should not use the title “doctor” is patently absurd, intellectually disengenuous, and without foundation in logic. Lawyers were called “civil doctors” long before physicians were referred to as “doctors.” Lawyers using the title in no way diminishes its importance or stature. That nonsense is promulgated by high-hat PhDs and MDs who generally suffer from superiority complexes. Let’s be rational and say that people who hold doctoral degrees (professional or research) should be able to use the the title that accurately reflects their advanced level of education – doctor.
As a side note, a JD degree requires about 90 semester units of education, 30 units more than a PhD. They also research and write aywhere from 65-125 pages of publishable material before they graduate. They have to sit for an extremely arduous licensing exam, an exam which ventures to show that they have a foundational expertise in their chosen area of study, the law. At the very least, this is comparable to a PhD (ABA says as much).
A JD degree is a professional doctorate, just like an MD, DDS, OD, DO, DC, DPM, PsyD, etc. – it just happens to be a “Doctor of Jurisprudence.” The lack of the prevalence of the title isn’t because it is inappropriate or inferior, but because most holders of a JD like to distinguish themselves as licensed attorneys, and so they use the titles Esq. or counselor.
The title “doctor” is reserved for a select group of people who have worked hard and acheived a doctoral degree in their chosen field of study. A JD degree is no different!
I’m always amused by medical doctors that get a bit huffy puffy and try to suggest that only they should be addressed as MDs. Medical doctors recieving a doctorate degree is a modern invention and was a step taken to boost the social status of a physican and allow them the use of the honorific title Dr. It was the exact same situation with lawyers when law schools started issuing JDs. However, the law profession has been less pushy about using the Dr. title… but technically a JD has no less right to be called Dr. as an MD does! Previously, physican training was not considered as a doctorate level degree. Those with doctorates (regardless of the subject) should be addressed as Dr. PhDs certainly should be addressed as Dr. I think most MDs are educated enough to know these facts, but the occasional one that does try and get on a high horse and suggest nobody else can use the title just makes themselves look silly and ignorant.
The ABA published an article entitled “Lawyers are Doctors too” which explains fairly well the question of whether or not lawyers may refer to themselves as “Dr.” and it in fact tends to depend both on the state in which they practice, and the specific area of law in which they practice. (For instance those who do med-mal work may not refer to themselves as doctor because it is likely to mislead.) Prior to obtaining admission to the bar, however, people with a J.D. may refer to themselves as “Dr.”
To M.D.’s who believe that only they should be called doctor. This term was actually appropriated from Ph.D.’s who used it first, and it has been from “teaching” doctorates to other professional doctorates, such as M.D.’s, and, if they choose to use it, J.D.’s, LL.M.’s, and J.S.D./S.J.D’s. (all law degrees.)
So why don’t lawyer’s often call themselves doctors? It is the job of a trial attorney to endear themselves to a jury and make it appear that they are similar. Honorifics, such as Dr. serve to set one apart from others. In appellate work, it would be rediculous, as everyone in the room would likely be a doctor of law. Also, attorneys tend to prefer to indicate more than their advanced education, but also their acceptance to the bar. Hence the title Attorney, is higher than the term “Doctor” in the field of law, just as “Professor” is technically higher than “Dr.” in academia. Because in a purely technical sense it refers only to full professors and not associate professors, etc. In practice, however those titles have been mingled in academia.
People possessing Juris Doctor, or Juris Doctorate (depending on the university issuing it) degrees may refer to themselves as doctor, however, as this is a professional doctoral degree. Normally, however, we do not do so. I have a J.D. and normally never insist on being called doctor. It is nice, however, whenever someone demands that I call them doctor in a vain attempt to show their superiority, that I can make the same demand of them.
Personally, I believe it is appropriate for people possessing J.D. degrees to be referred to as “Doctor”, however once they have gained admission to the bar, the higher honorific is “Attorney”. Many attorneys, for inexplicable reasons choose to refer to themselves as “Counselor” or “Esquire”. These honorifics, however, are less specific than “Attorney.” A high school guidance counselor or a drug counselor can use the title counselor. Anyone may use the title esquire, except for someone who is in law school or has obtained a Juris Doctor degree, but has not passed the bar, as this title does not specifically refer to lawyers, but is misleading when used by others, in violation of the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys. (Which is somewhat binding upon law students, and in some rare contexts binding upon others, such as when they attempt to practice law without a license.)
What we can be sure of is that it is inappropriate to use multiple honorifics indicating the same thing. Hence Attorney XXX, J.D. is inappropriate. Nevertheless, for one with a J.D. and an LL.M., Atorney XXX, J.D., LL.M. is not necessarily inappropriate. While XXX, J.D., LL.M. is a more common usage. (Similarly with a J.S.D. or S.J.D.)
In short, as with many other questions involving attorneys, the question of which honorifics to use is a question of complex interpretation. But a good rule of thumb is, don’t make people call you Dr. unless you are intentionally trying to be a jerk, in which case, it is usually fine. (assuming you aren’t in a state which bans this, or involved in med-mal work)
I have an MBA and am applying to law school. For now, you should call me “Master” and then in a few years, “Master Doctor”.
The truth of the matter is that both the MD and the JD are on an equal level to a master’s degree from an academic perspective. Since the title Doctor was originally intended for “teachers” thus refering to academic attainment, then all of the years of practice, interships, residency, etc, etc, etc, that is part of Medical Training certainly adds to the prestige of the medical degree but in no way substitute for pure academic training. In other words, a million years of experience cannot substitute a dissertation and the contribution to knowledge. So if just the academic training is counted, then it is clear that actually neither lawyers nor physicians shoudl be called doctors, except for those who have continued beyond that level to attain a real doctorate in their field. But since the village doctor will always command the respect of the villagers, and it can’t be expected that the general public will know the difference between a real doctor in the academic sense and a highly trained technician (or professional), then both lawyers and physicians should be called doctors in the informal sense. From a legal perspective the American government does not recognize either the MD nor the JD as doctorates and because of that they are listed as professional degrees usually under the real doctorates such as Ed.D, and Ph.D. But honorifics are certainly useful for attracting new customers/clients…
A doctoral degree earned does earn the right of being called doctor. I started off in a Psy.D program. Earning that degree is no less deserving of having the title doctor than somebody who did a Ph.D. And for the record, the school I attended required a dissertation for the Psy.D (while some schools don’t.). The degree is called a doctorate for a reason; and once earned the person who earned it has the right to be called Doctor. As for the plane analogy, I don’t think anybody is so ill-informed that if the flight attendant did ask for a doctor they’d assume it was anything other than a medical doctor. I don’t care if they have a doctoral degree in every field. Colleges will need more instructors to teach, and therefore more university jobs would open up. That works for me.
I’m getting ready to start law school, and realize that 90 hours of credit (four years of school in the program I’m attending) IS equivalent to a doctoral degree. So, I will wear the title with pride. Although, since I hate when people adress me as Ms. I probably won’t like to be called Doctor either. I plan to sit for the CA bar, so I guess I’ll have to figure out what goes on the business card once I pass it. Yes, I’m being optimistic as I know many people don’t pass the CA bar.
I’m an MD and I would just like to make a few points:
1) In my experience, anyone who frostily INSISTS on being called “Doctor” is usually a chiropractor, or occasionally an educrat or a PhD university professor. I’ve never in my professional life corrected someone who called me “Mr.” unless it was to clarify things in a medical emergency. We physicians don’t mind sharing the “Doctor” honorific (but are quite jealous indeed about the letters M.D.)
2) The guy who equated the JD with the PhD? You’re insane. Academically, you couldn’t hold my MD jockstrap, much less a hard-science PhD who may have been working at the bleeding edge of research for five or six years to get his degree. Think I’m kidding? Just say it with me: Joe Biden, JD
3) Forgetting to call any kind of doctor “Dr.” is nothing next to forgetting to call a British surgeon “Mr.”
Wikipedia (Not hard core research on my part here, but I’ll post it anyway).
Throughout most of the academic world, the term “doctor” refers to an individual who earned a degree of Doctor of Philosophy, or Ph.D. (an abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiæ Doctor; or alternatively Doctor philosophiæ, D.Phil., originally from the Greek Διδάκτωρ Φιλοσοφίας, Didaktōr Philosophias, meaning Teacher of Philosophy), or other research doctorates such as the Doctor of Science, or Sc.D. (an abbreviation of the Latin Scientiae Doctor). Beyond academia and in the classical professions, such as medicine and the law, the professional doctorates emerged such as the Doctor of Medicine M.D. (an abbreviation of the Latin Medicinæ Doctor), or Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery MBBS, MBChB, MB, BCh, etc. (an abbreviation of the Latin Medicinae Baccalaureus et Baccalaureus Chirurgiae), and the Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence.
The first academic degrees were all law degrees, and the first law degrees were doctorates. The origins of the doctorate dates back to the ijazat attadris wa’l-ifttd (”license to teach and issue legal opinions”) in the medieval Islamic Madrasahs that taught Islamic law since the 9th century.[3] The foundations for the first European universities were the glossators of the 11th century, which were schools of law that taught Canon law and Roman law.
There’s much more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)
I think anybody who insists on negating somebody elses hard work and education leans toward being a bit of a snob.
And as for the MD and JD degrees being equivalent of a Masters degree, that is just not true. I don’t know any Masters programs that require 90 credit hours past the undergraduate degree. Most are between 30 and 45, with the occasional 60. Maybe a little more depending on the field of study. Our MFT program (at the university where I worked) was 60, while the doctoral degree in the same concentration was 95 post Bac degree.
Shadow Merchant – Thanks so much for your Point #2! I couldn’t agree more. Equating a PhD (or I suspect to an MD) to a JD is ridiculous! JD’s are mostly an extension of undergraduate stress. Law students may be stressed out for 8-9 months a year, but they wrap everything up with a nice tidy bow before each summer after final exams. On the other hand, PhD students, and especially ones in science and engineering, have constant stress to produce not only good results in the classroom, but to conduct research upon which their degree depends. I would consider a 3 year JD program a blissful interlude compared to doing a 4-6 year PhD program.
As far as using the title, go nuts. I don’t care if the garbage man calls himself “doctor”. It’s not going to change my life. I think of my PhD as a work permit, buried somewhere in a filing cabinet….I think…
Shadow Merchant – Clearly you don’t have a rudimentary understanding of logic; what a schock. My comparison of the JD to a PhD was right on, hence your inability to refute the content of what I said. A doctor degree is what gives one the ability to use the title. If it were otherwise, then the use of the title would be wholly arbitrary and left up to discursive (that means “rambling” before you go look it up) imbecils like you.
I am fully aware of the fact that some PhDs are more difficult to achieve than others. A PhD in Physics is more arduous than a PhD in Kinesiology. Does that mean the PhD in Kinesiology doesn’t deserve to use the title? The implication of your argument is that only academically difficult subjects are deserving of the title. Typical reasoning by an pedantic MD. Your critical thinking skills are on par with a 16 yr. old. My wife’s brother in law has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, so I am fully aware of what he went through and what it takes. I can assure you the level of time he put in certainly does not outweigh what I did – not even close.
Oddly enough, despite your rigorous defense of “science,” MDs are generally considered horrid scientists by … guess who? … research scientists. So spare me your sanctimonious defense of science or the “bleeding edge” of its research.
If we were to follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion (of which I know you’re genetically incapable), we would have to allow the use of the title only to those who have demonstrated that their education met the “Jockstrap Standard” of condescending MDs like you.
The glaring irony of all this is that MDs have shared the exact same path as JDs – they both began as undergraduate fields of study and now both are professional doctorates. I wonder if your visceral hatred of JDs also extends to people who hold a Psy.D, DDs, OD, DO, etc.? I have met multiple MDs, like you, who hold MDs but have an IQ in the low 120s. If you didn’t harbor such strong feelings of intellectual inferiority deep down then you wouldn’t feel the need to run down another degree. I guess that’s the only way you can feel superior … ever.
Just say it with me: Howard Dean, MD
I don’t think anybody should be called “Dr.” It’s a way of putting somebody up on a pedestal. No wonder some of them think they’re gods. We can thank the AMA and our dear government for giving us a monopolized medical system that’s NOT geared towards making us healthy. It’s a medical cartel, and we’re giving them honorary titles. Go figure.
Comments on this entry are closed.