AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Resolution 232 as Introducted
[NOTE THAT IT WAS NOT ADOPTED IN THIS FORM]
Introduced by: Illinois
Delegation
Subject: Protection
of the Titles "Doctor," "Resident" and
"Residency"
Referred to: Reference
Committee B (Craig
W. Anderson, MD, Chair)
Whereas, Certain specialty societies recognize that many
allied health care professions have improved their educational standards and
incorporated doctorate designations in their training programs; and
Whereas, Many nursing schools have re-titled their training
program as a Residency and their students as Residents, despite the traditional
attribution of these titles to medical doctors and their training programs; and
Whereas, The growing trend of this title encroachment is of
concern because patients will be confused when the titles of Doctor, Resident
and Residency are applied to non-physicians who hold non-medical doctorates or
to non-physicians in training; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association adopt that
the title “Doctor,” in a medical setting, apply only to physicians licensed to practice
medicine in all its branches, dentists and podiatrists (New HOD Policy); and be
it further [NOTE: iN DISCUSSION
RESOLVED, That our AMA adopt policy that the title
“Resident” apply only to individuals enrolled in physician, dentist or
podiatrist training programs (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA adopt policy that the title
“Residency” apply only to physician, dentist or podiatrist training programs
(New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA serve to protect, through
legislation, the titles “Doctor,” “Resident” and “Residency.” (Directive to
Take Action)
Fiscal Note:
Staff
cost estimated at less than $500 to implement.
Received: 04/30/08
_______________________________
Comment: One wonders if these leaders of the Illinois Delegation, and of the AMA
House of Delegates, truly believe that they can set back the clock.
The cows are already out of the barn. And there are millions of
consumers who clearly like them there. Many politicians and policy makers believe these professions have significant roles to play, for instance, in easing the primary
care shortage.
| |
|
| |
I have long argued that all
of the distinctly
licensed
complementary healthcare
disciplines owe the chiropractors
a
deep debt of gratitude for Wilk.
But I never imagined that the
chiropractors' victory would one day
be used by the nurses.
|
It is fascinating, in this context, to note some rifts inside the fabric
of organized medicine. First, Resolution 303 was not passed. The
House woke up the the plain fact that, as was said in the final report
of House action to the AMA, "any individual who has received a terminal
degree in their area of study has the right to be called 'doctor.'"
Yet the item still made it onto the agenda, attesting to the hold this repressive concept still has.
Second, the National Board of Medical Examiners - the MD examining agency - apparently thought it within its mission to enter into dialogue with
the nursing profession on that profession's examination needs. How will NBME respond to this slap? How responsive will the NBME, a nominally independent entity, be to the AMA pressure?
Non-allied health
On the other hand, parallel positions of chiropractors, nurses and naturopathic physicians underscores the depth of shared interest in the Coalition for Patients Rights. Finally, the nurses' use of Wilk v. AMA drives home just how powerfully mis-allied the AMA is, on this issue, from what used to be known as the "allied health" disciplines. I have long argued that all of the distinctly licensed complementary healthcare disciplines owe the chiropractors a deep debt of gratitude for Wilk. But I never imagined that the chiropractor's long battle would be cover for the nurses.
br>