|
In April, 2008 the Illinois Delegation to the
American Medical Association House of Delegates
introduced Resolution 303 (A-08) to restrict the use
of the titles "doctor", "resident" and "residency"
in medical settings to physicians, dentists and
podiatrists. [Read
resolution 303 (A-08)]. This provoked a strong
response from other health care professions and
organizations, including the American Psychological
Association, American Board of Professional
Psychology, and National Alliance of Professional
Psychology Providers:
Response from the American Psychological
Association (APA.org):
June 11, 2008
Via E-Mail to:
Roger.Brown@ama-assn.org
David Lichtman, MD, Chair
AMA Reference Committee C, Medical Education
c/o Roger Brown, Ph.D.
Director, Office of the House of Delegates Affairs
American Medical Association
515 N. State Street
Chicago, Il 60610
Re: American Medical Association House of Delegates
Resolution 303 (A-08) Restricted Use of the Titles
"Doctor," "Resident," and "Residency"
Dear Dr. Lichtman,
The American Psychological Association ("APA")
strongly urges the American Medical Association
House of Delegates to oppose proposed Resolution
303, which seeks to restrict the title of "doctor,"
"resident," and "residency" in medical settings to
apply only to physicians, dentists, and podiatrists.
APA is the leading scientific and professional
society representing psychologists in the United
States and is the world's largest association of
doctorally trained psychologists, with more than
148,000 members and affiliates. Psychologists
practice in all areas of health care and have a long
history of using the title "doctor" in all medical
settings, including hospitals, academic health
centers, medical schools, clinics, and private
offices.
Use of the term "doctor" recognizes psychologists'
extensive education and training as well as their
positions in medical settings as supervisors and
managers of patient care at the highest level.
Licensed psychologists spend an average of seven
years, beyond college, in education and supervised
training leading to licensure to practice
psychology. Psychologists complete extensive
doctoral level training in the diagnosis and
treatment of mental disorders well beyond that which
physicians receive. This training includes thousands
of hours of supervised practice in psychology and a
year of formal internship. Most psychologists also
receive supervised post-doctoral training as one of
the requirements for licensure. Psychologists are
licensed to practice independently, free of
physician supervision, in all 50 states and are
recognized as independent practitioners by state and
federal programs, including by Medicare and the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Psychologists serve
on the medical staffs of hundreds of hospitals,
supervise treatment teams, and hold senior
management positions at medical facilities.
Psychologists are also routinely referred to as
"doctor" in European and other countries.
Psychologists who receive training in a specialty
practice area are also referred to as "residents."
They train in residencies housed in academic health
centers, medical schools and other medical settings.
These programs are accredited by the American
Psychological Association, which is recognized as an
accreditation agency by both the U.S. Department of
Education and the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation.
Proposed Resolution 303 would only confuse patients,
who have used the word "doctor" to refer to
psychologists in medical and mental health settings
for decades. The term recognizes psychologists'
extensive education and training and their
high-level, independent management of patient care.
APA strongly urges the American Medical Association
House of Delegates to oppose Resolution 303.
Please feel free to contact Maureen Testoni if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D.
APA President
Norman B. Anderson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Response from the American Board of
Professional Psychology (ABPP.org):
June 14, 2008
Via E-Mail to:
Roger.Brown@ama-assn.org
David Lichtman, MD, Chair
AMA Reference Committee C, Medical Education c/o
Roger Brown, Ph.D.
Director, Office of the House of Delegates Affairs
American Medical Association
515 N. State Street
Chicago, II 60610
Re: American Medical Association House of Delegates
Resolution 303 (A-08) Restricted Use of the Titles
"Doctor," "Resident," and "Residency"
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
The American Board of Professional Psychology
(ABPP) strongly urges the American Medical
Association House of Delegates to oppose proposed
Resolution 303, which seeks to restrict the title of
"doctor," "resident," and "residency" in medical
settings to apply only to physicians, dentists, and
podiatrists. ABPP is the leading psychology board
certification organization in the United States.
The term "doctor" recognizes the extensive
education and training of psychologists (who have an
earned doctoral degree). Psychologists practice in
many areas of health care, and have historically
used the title "doctor" in hospitals, medical
centers, academic health centers, medical schools,
clinics, and private offices. Many psychologists
hold positions in medical settings as supervisors
and managers of patient care at the highest level.
Psychologists serve on the medical staffs of
hundreds of hospitals, many of which require board
certification of psychologists just as is required
of physicians. Psychologists are supervisors of
treatment teams, hold senior management positions
and are routinely referred to as "doctor" in the
United States, Europe and throughout the world.
Recognized as independent practitioners by state
and federal programs, including by Medicare and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, psychologists are
licensed to practice independently and without
physician oversight in all 50 states.
Proposed Resolution 303 would confuse patients and
the public, who are accustomed to referring to
psychologists as doctors. ABPP strongly urges the
American Medical Association House of Delegates to
oppose Resolution 303.
Sincerely,
Christine Maguth Nezu, Ph.D., ABPP
President
David R. Cox, Ph.D., ABPP
Executive Officer
Response from the National Alliance of
Professional Psychology Providers (NAPPP.org):
June 12, 2008
David Lichtman, MD, Chair
AMA Reference Committee C, Medical Education
Director, Office of the House of Delegates Affairs
American Medical Association
515 N. State Street
Chicago, Il 60610
Dear Chairman Lichtman:
Please be advised that should the AMA adopt the
proposed Resolution 303, our organization will file
a complaint before the Federal Trade Commission
against the AMA for restraint of trade and for
attempting to steal the property rights of licensed
psychologists. NAPPP is an organization that
represents licensed clinical psychologists only, and
we will fight any attempt to restrain our trade and
diminish our rights to training. As healthcare
professionals, we are amazed that our physician
colleagues are so insecure that you feel the need to
literally hijack a title that historically was never
yours. While we realize that the AMA resolution has
no impact in law, and this resolution is an attempt
restrain trade by influencing training regulations
in hospitals and other healthcare facilities, we
believe that any attempt to take what is not yours
must be fought vigorously and without hesitation.
NAPPP is a strong believer in collaborative
practice. We try to instill in our members the value
of working with physicians. This resolution will
have the effect of creating an adversarial
relationship that psychologists have tried to avoid.
We remain surprised and clinically interested as to
why some physicians need such a resolution. Does the
AMA not think that there are no other more pressing
issues to deal with?
Other psychology organizations may feel the need to
try to appeal to your sense of reason but NAPPP has
no such intent to do this. It is clear that the AMA
seeks hegemony over all of healthcare at a time when
consumers need choice and access to competent
practitioners. So, go ahead and pass your
resolution. We accept that in a democracy, people
and organizations have a right to engage in any
activity or activities even if outright ridiculous
and destructive.
However, these selfish activities must not butt up
against the nose of the next person or limit
consumer's access to care from other professionals.
I would think that physicians would want to devote
more attention to gaining more competencies and
helping patients as opposed to spending time and
resources trying to convince the public who are the
"real" doctors. Psychologists need no such
resolutions or laws because we have a degree and
independent license that says we are doctors.
Perhaps, you should take another look at your
degree. If you do, I'm sure this will be all the
validity that you will need to establish your
appropriate title.
Very truly yours,
Dr. John Caccavale
Executive Director, NAPPP
|
What's in a Name
John McCoy, Ph.D.
The Clinical Practitioner. 2008 Jun, 3(6), 6-8.
National Alliance of Professional Psychology
Providers
William E. Benet, Ph.D., Psy.D.
Editor, AssessmentPsychology.com
The doctoral status of psychologists is often not
recognized by the media, particularly the Associated
Press and Reuters. This informative article by John
McCoy, PhD, a former president of the Tennessee
Psychological Association, which appeared in the
June, 2008, issue of
The Clinical
Practitioner, examines the editorial
policies of AP and Reuters in regard to use of the
title.
Here
are some excerpts, with suggestions for addressing
AP's position in regard to using the title in
reference to psychologists.
"The Reuters Handbook for Journalists explains how
‘doctor’ can be used: 'When used as a title for a
physician, abbreviate to Dr. without a full stop. Do
not use Dr. for doctors of philosophy, etc, but it
can be used for archbishops and the like in
preference to honorifics like Very Rev. or the Most
Rev.' "
"Recently, faced with increasing criticism about the
media problem, APA staff corresponded with the
overseer of the AP Stylebook, Darrell Christian, in
March and April of this year, presenting the case
for showing psychologists as doctor, or with their
degree, and simply asking AP to change their
stylebook. AP response was that the stylebook would
remain the same."
"I recently testified in a trial that was covered by
a newspaper from a small city with a population of
14,000. Initially in the article, I was mentioned by
my name only, followed by "a clinical psychologist."
From that point on, I was listed as "McCoy," such as
McCoy said this, etc. A psychiatrist there, who had
almost no role in the trial, was addressed as Dr.
throughout the article."
"I was amazed that a newspaper this small had this
policy so I called them. They stated without apology
that they were 'just following the AP style.' "
Dr McCoy suggested several ways to rectify this
"onerous" editorial policy:
"There are several more effective ways that the
media problem might be addressed. The AP and Reuters
policies can be perceived as mean spirited and
unfair. The public would view the Reuters policy as
carelessly written, a trait that editors aren’t
supposed to have. More troubling is the likelihood
that they are they have been manipulated and
influenced by the medical lobby. As supposed
independent and fair operations, they certainly
wouldn’t like publicity to this effect."
"Neither AP nor Reuters wants the public to see them
as mean or easily manipulated. After all, their
credibility and independence is their most important
asset. I suspect that this would happen if it came
down to a lawsuit against AP or Reuters. For this
reason alone, they might make favorable changes.
And, of course, it might be illegal or a valid case
for civil action. That would correct the problem
quickly."
"When physicians, dentists, osteopaths, and
podiatrists want to make a claim for the word
doctor, and when media outlets oblige, they
discriminate against not only us but optometrists,
veterinarians, scientists, etc. Coalitions with
these and other similar groups would help to change
the onerous media style."
A letter-writing campaign by APA members calling on
AP to revise its stylebook guidelines for using the
title 'Dr' may also be effective by demanding that
AP and the Associated Press Managing Editors
Association, uphold APMEA's ethics code, which
states in part:
ACCURACY
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies,
carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis,
omission or technological manipulation.
You can contact APMEA at:
Mark Mittelstadt, Executive Director
Associated Press Managing Editors
450 W. 33rd St. New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212-621-1838 Fax: 212-506-6102
E-mail: apme@ap.org
You can contact AP at:
William Dean Singleton, Chairman & CEO
Tom Curley, President & CEO
Board of Directors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
E-mail:
feedback@ap.org
You can contact Dr. McCoy at:
John W. McCoy, PhD
Clinical Psychologist
4515 Poplar Ave., Suite 404
Memphis TN 38117-7508
Tel: 901-647-1042 Fax: 901-405-2014
E-mail:
psychmccoy@mindspring.com
|
