I’m saying that when someone refers to themselves as a doctor, we expect medical knowledge. Referring to oneself as a doctor with a PhD in communications is technically correct but misleading. The exact thing she’s accusing.
Here it is in joke form, topically from a current shitpost
You know Drs as PhDs (starting in the 14th century) predates it’s usage as a medical practitioner (19th century). Every PhD still calls themselves Drs.
It’s not manipulation if it’s your own ignorance that causes the misunderstanding.
Yes, I’m aware of the history. It goes back further than that. It means teacher, really, not doctor as we use it, as it’s an obligation to pass on knowledge learned, which is a nice concept.
I do find it odd that you are questioning my ignorance while not understanding simple concepts. Or maybe you’re feigning ignorance. Well, when you feign ignorance and then show you do, in fact, understand, it shows your ethics more than your knowledge.
As it happens, it’s enough of a problem that AHPRA have specific recommendations on it’s use in advertising and other media. As they only regulate healthcare, I wouldn’t expect them to have journalism guidelines, but if one is writing about ethics in journalism, shouldn’t they follow best practice?
You’ll note the journalists bio blurb does not mention her titles origin, but her author page which requires a click through does. She could simply have Dr. X (comms) and there is no ambiguity.
It is not a protected term, like other terms, due to the valid, but less common usage with a PhD. However, there have been moved to make it so, including removing it from healthcare practitioners that are not medical doctors, like dentists, for instance.
I’m sorry i just don’t agree with the view that PhDs should always have to add a disclaimer of “oh but not that kind of Dr” every time they use that title.
I’m not sure why you referred to the APHRA guidelines on protected titles. Is your point that medical practitioners should have the term doctor protected for them? They already have protected titles under the law and it explicitly does not include the term doctor.
Or is your point that PhD doctors should have to spell out their area of expertise because that’s a dumb argument too. What decides the area of expertise you annotate? The department you obtained the title from? What if your area of research, while sponsored by that department, is actually in an entirely different field? What if the topic of research doesn’t have a clearly defined field? So in the end it’s completely meaningless, which is why people don’t append a Dr title with a field. In this instance either the author or her editor through writing her bio, or you through reading her bio, has judged that her speciality is “comm”. But someone else could claim that’s wrong and misleading as you have done.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I’m saying that when someone refers to themselves as a doctor, we expect medical knowledge. Referring to oneself as a doctor with a PhD in communications is technically correct but misleading. The exact thing she’s accusing.
Here it is in joke form, topically from a current shitpost
https://lemmy.world/post/1859157
You know Drs as PhDs (starting in the 14th century) predates it’s usage as a medical practitioner (19th century). Every PhD still calls themselves Drs.
It’s not manipulation if it’s your own ignorance that causes the misunderstanding.
Yes, I’m aware of the history. It goes back further than that. It means teacher, really, not doctor as we use it, as it’s an obligation to pass on knowledge learned, which is a nice concept.
I do find it odd that you are questioning my ignorance while not understanding simple concepts. Or maybe you’re feigning ignorance. Well, when you feign ignorance and then show you do, in fact, understand, it shows your ethics more than your knowledge.
As it happens, it’s enough of a problem that AHPRA have specific recommendations on it’s use in advertising and other media. As they only regulate healthcare, I wouldn’t expect them to have journalism guidelines, but if one is writing about ethics in journalism, shouldn’t they follow best practice?
You’ll note the journalists bio blurb does not mention her titles origin, but her author page which requires a click through does. She could simply have Dr. X (comms) and there is no ambiguity.
It is not a protected term, like other terms, due to the valid, but less common usage with a PhD. However, there have been moved to make it so, including removing it from healthcare practitioners that are not medical doctors, like dentists, for instance.
I’m sorry i just don’t agree with the view that PhDs should always have to add a disclaimer of “oh but not that kind of Dr” every time they use that title.
I’m not sure why you referred to the APHRA guidelines on protected titles. Is your point that medical practitioners should have the term doctor protected for them? They already have protected titles under the law and it explicitly does not include the term doctor.
Or is your point that PhD doctors should have to spell out their area of expertise because that’s a dumb argument too. What decides the area of expertise you annotate? The department you obtained the title from? What if your area of research, while sponsored by that department, is actually in an entirely different field? What if the topic of research doesn’t have a clearly defined field? So in the end it’s completely meaningless, which is why people don’t append a Dr title with a field. In this instance either the author or her editor through writing her bio, or you through reading her bio, has judged that her speciality is “comm”. But someone else could claim that’s wrong and misleading as you have done.