Talk:Medical degree/Archive 1

Article started
A first attempt - it is admitedly US-centric and could do with some internationalization. I created this page because previously, the article was an empty redirect to the Doctor of Medicine article, which is not the only medical degree out there. Naturstud (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These are "health care degrees" not "medical degree". Seriously, Stop this POV pushing.  The word "medical degree" always infers an MD or MBBS degree (or also in the US a DO).  Jwri7474 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not acording to the US dept of education. The degrees are officialy recorded as "Doctor of Podiatric Medicine" degree, not "Doctor of Podiatric health care" degree. The facts, Jwiri. The only POV being pushed is your own narrow definition of the word medicine to mean something exclusively practiced by MDs. I am still having difficulty understanding your problem here. Do you dispute the fact that these are degrees or is it that you do not believe that they are degrees that prepare graduates to diagnose, prevent and treat disease? If you have a credible, verifiable, notable source that says that these are not degrees or that these degrees do not prepare students to diagnose, prevent or treat disease, then please feel free to add them to the article.


 * On a smaller grammar point, a term like 'medical degree' may imply many things to many people. You are the one who infers however. In this case, the inferance that you have made is based on your own point of view that the only 'real' doctors hold an MD. This POV can not be allowed to change or restrict the basic meaning of words. How could a Doctor of Medicine be a medical degree and a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine not be a medical degree?Naturstud (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking over our previous discussion I have decided that my tone was uncivil and perhaps even harsh. I don't usually acuse others of POV pushing, even if they acuse me first. I apologize. Hopefully others will involve themselves in this discussion. Please believe me when I say that I honestly can't make any sense of your argument. I would like to see some sources to back up your actions, not because wiki policy requires it, but because I truly do not understand your objection, and sources might help the discussion. 'Medical degree' is a term. It is not the property of any person or group like the AMA. It has no copyright, and I am aware of no law that restricts its usage to describe one type of medical degree to the exclusion of all of the others. Naturstud (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to ask for a 3rd party dispute resolution on this topic. We can agree only to disagree on this point.  Yes, these degrees have the word Medicine in them.  However, a podiatrist who obtains a doctor of podiatric medicine and a dentist who obtains a doctor of dental medicine would tell you in common language that they hold a podiatry degree and a dental degree respectively... I don't know ANY podiatrists or dentists who would tell me that they went to "medical school" and hold a "medical degree" as this would always infer MD.  I agree that they are "medically related disciplines" however, they could more accurately be described as "first professional degrees" (see first professional degree) or "health care degrees", however I disagree that all these should be classified as "medical degrees" and refereed to as "medical school".  Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we both can agree however that this article as you've stated is your edit stands (too US centric). If we DID list out every type of degree from other countries that is "medical" it would look almost identical to what is already listed in the "first professional degree" article.  That would be silly to just replicate a list of health degrees available.  I stick by my argument that in common usage this word "medical degree" and "medical school" is almost always used to refer to MD school (or DO school) only.  In which case I believe this article should be reset as it originally was..  as a redirect to the "doctor of medicine" article.  Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the US centrism. If you are concerned about this then we should be able to further agree that having such a general term 'medical degree' redirecting to a specific medical degree granted in North America (Doctor of Medicine) is a fantastic dead end. I believe you when you say that in your circle, the term 'medical degree' most often refers to a Doctor of Medicine, but that does not negate the fact that other medical degrees exist. You could argue 'fringe' I suppose, but with hundreds of 'non-MD' medical schools offering state-recognized medical degrees to thousands of graduates, I doubt that you will get very far. Are most people in north america thinking about and MD when they use the term medical degree? I suppose so, if for no other reason than the Doctor of Medicine is by far and away the most common kind of medical degree. The most common brand of tissue paper in North america may be Kleenex brand, but that doesn't mean that the other brands are not facial tissue, and having facial tissue redirect to kleenex would not be any more acceptable than having medical degree point to Doctor of Medicine. If you want the article to note that there are 10 times as many MDs as osteopaths and 10 times as many osteopaths as naturopaths or whatever (just guessing at these numbers) then feel free. If you think it is necessary to inform the reader that where you live (I assume Canada or the US) that when most people use the term medical degree they are thinking about an MD, then again, be my guest (although I don't think you are telling peple anything that they don't already know).


 * I disagree with your use of the term 'health care degree'. Medicine is often defined as the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease. Medical degrees are a specific kind of health care degree that train practitioners to evaluate syptoms, conduct a physical exam, obtain a relevant history, diagnose illness and prescribe a course of action. Other health care degrees may train therapists, nurses etc to deliver health services. Vets, chiros, osteopaths, podios, naturopaths etc are in all in the business of discovering what is wrong and figuring out the best course of action, which is why the word medicine appears in their degree titles. Medicine is not defined as the "prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease as perfomed by individuals who hold a Doctor of Medicine degree." If the term medicine can not be restricted in such a way, I fail to see why the adjective medic-al should be. Naturstud (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So correct me if I'm wrong.. but what you'd like to do is to turn this article into a list of all "health care related degrees" around the world?  If, that is the case.. again.  The article first professional degree I feel already adequately accomplishes this.  Also, it seems we both agree that the term "medical degree" and "medical school" when used in common language always refers to MD school.


 * Naturopaths, dentists, chiropractors, nurses, physical therpists, etc (the list goes on and on) all "help people in a medically related way" in that they are helping to "treat disease". However, what they do is treat the patient in a very narrow and limited scope of practice that is limited to their field.  Yes, medical (MD) specialists treat in a narrow scope of practice as well.  However, before they do.. they must complete obtain a medical license that allows an unrestricted practice of general medicine which is provided to them by each US state (or whatever other countries equivalent body) board of medicine, which is the body who govern and license the "practice of medicine".  None of these other "health care providers" are eligible for a license to "practice medicine".  (again.. something we've both agreed upon elsewhere).  I do understand that as naturopathic provider you feel that what you do is "practicing medicine" in a general sense.  However, In the "legal" sense of the word anyone who does not hold a medical degree (MD, MBBS, or DO) is NOT eligible for a license to "practice medicine".  This view is supported by every US state board of medicine.  You are allowed to practice "naturopathic medicine" but not "practice medicine".  There is already an article on naturopathic medicine and on the Naturopathic medical degree ...so I feel these are even more reasons why I don't feel we should change this article in this way.  I feel it should again be restored to be a redirect to the doctor of medicine article.  The doctor of medicine article is a good redirect because it is written in a way which lists other countries equivalent medical degrees and even includes the US-DO degree (all degrees that allow for the general practice of medicine and/or all degrees which can in common language be classified as "medical degrees"). Jwri7474 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, I do not think that it would make any sense to turn this page into a list of health care degrees. I have never suggested such a thing. Your request for mediation has misrepresented my argument. This article should describe and list medical degrees, which is what it is doing now, rather than redirecting to one medical degree in particular. I do not agree with you that the term 'medical school' and 'medical degree' can be said to be synonymous with the Doctor of Medicine degree to the exclusion of the others. All of the degrees currently listed are medical degrees: they train doctors to diagnose and treat disease. I can not comment on your legal argument any further than i alread have without repeating myself: No medical degree legally permits its owner to practice any kind of medicine anywhere - that is something that is decided by individual allopathic, chiropactice, naturopathic boards in individual jursidictions. The fact that a naturopathic medical degree does not permit an ND to practice in Texas but does in Arizona does not alter the fact that the ND is a medical degree.


 * The legal definition of 'practicing medicine' varies considerably in different jurisdictions and is a moot point in an article that is about a type of academic degree/training. However, your asseretion that all US states restrict the practice of medicine to MDs is patently false. Please stop repeating this - it isn't relevant and it isn't true. When an ND in Oregon diagnoses her patient with diabetes and prescribes insulin, is she not practicing medcine? If your answer is no, then what would you say shee is doing? What would you call taking a history, ordering and interpreting blood tests, performing a physical exam and prescribing a treatment plan? If you were standing outside this NDs office and you asked the patient coming out if their ND had a medical degree or if they were practicing medicine, what do you imagine that patient would say? Was the insulin not insulin because it was naturopathic insulin? Was the blood test not a blood test because it was a naturopathic blood test? Was the stethoscope not a stethoscope, the history taking not a history taking, and the diagnosis not realy diabetes?


 * We absolutely do not agree that the term medical school and medical degree 'always refer to an MD'. That is what we are disagreeing about! Your semantic argument still evades me. How is naturopathic medicine not a type of medicine? How is an osteopathic medical degree not a medical degree? The fact that most apples are red means that if you offer someone an apple, they are probably expecting a red one. This does not alter the fact that a green apple is also an apple. A little context makes this clear: "Would you like a green apple?" As with apples, so with medical degrees. Anyone who graduates with a Doctor of _____ Medicine recognized by their government holds a medical degree of one type of another, as sure as god made little green... well, you get the idea. Naturstud (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is your "license" and not your "degree" that allows you to "practice medicine". However, you are ineligible to even apply for a license to "practice medicine" from the state board of medicine unless you hold one of the degrees I've listed. So, ipsofacto... again you must hold a "medical degree" (MD, MBBS, DO,) to practice medicine. The practice of medicine is not only the MD degree... however the article on "doctor of medicine" also lists and explains the other equivalents that allow the same practice (MBBS, DO, etc) ND is not one of these. Again, NDs are allowed to practice "naturopathic medicine", but not "general medicine". I feel like we agree here.. because you've said you've agreed to this point before. However, I think we are just getting caught in legal definitions. However, I stick my the fact that "medical degree" should be left to infer the practice of medicine (in general) ... and not in a specific limited sense (DC, ND, DNP, DAud, DPT, etc.) because that is the way the term is used in common every day language. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You have restated your bizarre legal argument (sorry, but it really is) over and over without adressing my concerns as to its relevence or its truth. I understand that it is your opinion that the term medical degree should be restricted to the adademic title Doctor of Medicine because of the legal wording in some jurisdictions that apears to restrict the 'practice of medicine'. You are indeed 'caught in a legal definition' here. Can you show me a comprehensive law or set of laws that says that only the Doctor of Medicine Degree may be legaly refered to as a medical degree? I have shown you a reference that the US Dept of education recognizes many types of medical degrees. Show me a reference that legaly and comprehensively defines and restricts the term 'medical degree'. It simply is not a legal term. Neither is 'medical equipment', 'medical textbook' or 'medical exam table'. Even if all of the jurisdictions in the world did have a law restricing the 'practice of medicine' to MDs (and you have never shown that they do, not even in the US), the argument is not relevant. For all I know, the supreme court may consider the 'practice of medicine' to include the 'practice of chiropractic medicine'. I half don't know and I half don't care. Can we put the 'legal' part of the discussion to rest?

Excluding the irelevant and unsourced legal argument, your claim that non-MDs do not practice medicine is not something that you have ever been able to back up. We know (to use the example with which I am best acquanted) that NDs are legally entitiled to perform medical evaluations, diagnose medical diseases and provide medical treatment in 21 jurisdictions. They get their authority to do so from their 'state board' - not the allopathic one that you will soon be apearing before, but a state board nonetheless. The naturopathic state/provincial boards permit the medical act of diagnosis and the treatment of disease, sometimes including such acts as surgery, prescribing drugs, delivering babies etc. Some local laws are so bold as to use terms like 'primary care' and 'physician' when describing non-MDs.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question above - about the naturopathic doctor who diagnoses and treats diabetes with the same tools as a GP. Sure, she may reach for gymnema sylvestre before glyburide - but is it realy your argument that the addition of naturopathic modalities to her treatment options somehow negate the fact that she has recieved a medical degree? Does her training in botaniclas somehow undo her training in pharmaceuticals? Her training in hydrotherapy negate her training in how to perform a DRE or gyne exam? Does her training in naturopathic philosphy cancel her completion of the basic medical science courses (anat,phys etc)? Does her knowledge of acupuncture reverse her knowlege of PCD, lab Dx and basic pathology? Do you honestly believe that her degree was not a medical one? If so what would you call it? A 'naturopathic medical degree' perhaps? If so, can we agree to abandon the dead-end legal argument 'non MDs do not practice medicine' above and focus on your semantic/common usage concerns? 207.112.65.250 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not some jurisdictions. All jurisdictions. Every US state has a state board of medicine which controls the "practice of medicine". You are probably correct in that the title of "Medical degree" is not protected, but yes.. "practicing medicine" is protected.... furthermore each state board of medicine states that it is illegal for anyone who does not hold a medical license to project themselves in the community as being someone who is licensed to "practice medicine" or holds a "medical license" from the state board of medicine. A license to practice "naturopathy or naturopathic" medicine is different. It is not a "medical license" granted to those with "medical degrees", it is a "naturopathic license" granted for those with "naturopathic degrees".. similarly a nurse who also treats patients "medically" still does not hold a "medical degree" and is not licensed to "practice medicine"... they hold "nursing degrees" and are licensed to "practice nursing".. not "medicine", (it may be related) but it is not the same thing. A dentist may diagnose and treat periodontal disease, but he/she equally does not hold a "medical degree" or a license to "practice medicine", they practice "dentistry" which is (although related) .. still a different profession. Jwri7474 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Every US state has a state board of medicine which controls the practice of medicine" is inacurate, misleading and irelevant. It is the state itself, not an individual board that defines and restricts the practice of medicine and likewise enforces punishments for those who practice without a license. Individual states recognize allopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, osteopathic medicine, etc. Allopathic boards govern allopathic medicine. Chiropractice boards govern the practice of chiropractic medicine. Naturopathic boards govern the practice of naturopathic medicine. Osteopathic boards govern the practice of osteopathic medicine. None of these boards can promote or discipline each others members. The fact that in the absence of an adjective, the term medicine defaults to mean 'allopathic (or conventional) medicine' does not mean that it is the only kind of medicine, just the most common. A green apple is still an apple. All of which is moot, since we are talking about a type of academic degree. Once again you have simply repeated your argument without responding to any of my criticism of it. I am still wating for an answer to my question about the ND who prescribes insulin for a patient that she diagnosis with diabetes. If the patient had been diagnosed and treated similarily by an MD, would you say that he is practicing medicine but the ND is not? Does it bother you that the state permits both to practice these medical acts? Naturstud (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the Board of Medicine does not "enforce laws". However, It is the state Board of Medicine that sets the guidlines for the state. The board of medicine who governs the profession and practice of medicine then tells the state what to enforce. If the board of medicine identifies someone as "practicing medicine" without a medical license. They have the right and the power to tell the state to prosecute them. Yes, in those 16 states who do regulate the profession of Naturopathic medicine, you are allowed to practice naturopathy/naturopathic medicine, but you are not "practicing medicine" even though you may do some similar things as an MD physician who does "practice medicine". Again, a nurse may do a pap smear and might diagnose and treat someone for an STD, but this is within their scope for "practicing nursing", they are still not considered as "practicing medicine" because they do not hold a "medical license", they hold a "nursing license". Jwri7474 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is fine as long as you are practicing within your specific scope of practice granted to you by your naturopathic board. The prescription of 1 or 2 classes of diabetic medications which may be within your naturopathic scope is fine. But if you are doing anything outside of this (for example.. if you biopsy a potentially malignant melanoma yourself instead of referring the patient to a licensed MD/DO) then yes, the state board of medicine may identify you as "practicing medicine" without a "medical license" and may reccomend to the state that you be prosecuted. If that patient who you biopsied experienced complications you would then be held liable and would have no recourse.

A podiatrist can do surgery on someones foot or ankle, but if he was doing surgical procedures on someones face or chest, he would be considered to be no longer "practicing podiatric medicine/podiatry" but instead "practicing medicine" and could similarly be identifed by the board of medicine and prosecuted. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an allopathic state board (which is an agent of the state, not the other way around!) has the power to ask the state to charge a non-MD for operating out of scope is not relevant to a discussion of what constitutes a medical degree. A chiropractic state board could similarily go after an MD for performing spinal manipulations. A naturopathic state board could go after a chiropractor for prescribing an herbal medicine. Such turf wars are not relevant to this discussion. All doctors have restrictions on their practice: the MD in general practice can't operate on your face or abdomen anymore than the podiatrist can. Again, not relevant to a discussion of medical degrees.

Again, without any references from you to support your point of view, we are kind of stuck. If I told you that in Oregon there are three (not one or two) diabetic drugs in the naturopathic formulary would that take the NDs there 'over the threshold' where 'naturopathic medicine' becomes a form of medicine in your mind? Or do you need five?[] Or would it take 10 or 12 to convince you? Or perhaps if I told you that indeed, excisional and shave biopsy of suspicious lesions is within scope in multiple jurisdictions? [], [].

Your grounds for not considering 'naturopathic medicine' to be a type of 'medicine' are becoming increasingly subjective. What personal criterion are you using to judge here? It seems that you have assigned 'medical degree' to mean MD a priori so that anything that is not exactly like an MD can not be a medical degree. Drop the a priori equation just for a second -- just long enough to ask the question "What do these non-MDs actually do?". I think the answer - that they diagnose and treat disease - will become obvious. I am not asking you to say that they are the 'equivalent' of anything. Just to recognize that the training is medical, and that your own knowledge of that training is as incomplete as your knowledge of their scope. Chances are pretty good that we both had to endure Robbins. Naturstud (talk)

Third option - opinion
It is my opinion as a neutral third party that the article is superfluous and shouldn't exist except as a redirect to Doctor of Medicine or Medical education. all of the hits for the first two pages on Google refer to either medical doctors or else medical doctors' degrees. Just about everyone who edits English wikipedia would recognize the term "medical degree" to refer to the qualifying degree for medical doctors. The argument that "Doctor of Medicine" is a US degree is not correct as many countries use the MD as a PhD level research degree rather than the professional doctorate that the US uses. My advice would be to blank the article, redirect to Doctor of Medicine or Medical education and merge any relevant information here that doesn't occur there. Good luck Fr33kman talk APW 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion. A search under 'naturopathic medical degree' brings up lots of hits describing naturopaths as well, but here's hoping that wiki never becomes a summary of the top two pages returned by google. Do you have any specific reason to believe that 'just about everyone' would say that the term 'medical degree' actually excludes all non-MDs? Can you support your opinon with any sources? Naturstud (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is entitled "Medical degree" and not "Naturopathic medical degree". The article also contains little new information (new to wikipedia) and basically consists of links to articles for degrees related to medicine or osteopathic or allopathic medical degrees themselves. Historically the terms "physician" & "surgeon" denote a person trained in medicine and only those with an allopathic or osteopathic (in the US) "medical degree" can be described as such. The term "medical degree" is similar to the term "medical student". We all know that a medical student is a person training to be a medical doctor. The term "medical" has always been related to allopathic medicine in Western society and this is backed up by any number of dictionary references Medical, Medicinesee: 4) and Oxford Online (need account, sorry). The best thing to do here would be to merge whatever unique material exists in Medical degree to elsewhere (other relevant articles) and to set Medical degree up as a disambiguation page. That would probably satisfy everyone. It's either a compromise for the two of you or WP:AfD. I can come up with Ghits for anything I choose to, the term "medical degree" is what matters (as it's the title of the page; and that brings up only allopathic or naturopathic medical degrees leading to one becoming a medical doctor. An ND doesn't practice medicine, they practice naturopathy! I have to agree with the opinion that these other degrees are either health-care degrees or else degrees in their respective subjects (without categorization), Hope this helps! Fr33kman talk APW 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have made the same error as JWri: that 'naturopathic medicine' is not a type of medicine. How can it be? Is a green apple not an apple? A spaniel not a type of dog? A frustrated wiki editor not a wiki editor? Naturstud (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, but you have misunderstood the differences. Medicine, is the practice of an art of healing by physicians and surgeons (of any discipline, allopathic or osteopathic), naturopathy is the practice of an art of healing by naturopaths just as nursing is the practice of an art of healing by nurses. By your logic, paramedics have medical degrees because they are practitioners of pre-hospital medicine: not correct. Your logic further requires that we stop referring to "medical doctors" because it's confusing and should now refer to  these people as "allopathic doctors" or "osteopathic doctors". Sorry, but society calls these people " medical doctors" because they were " medical students" who got a " medical degree". This also means that "naturopathic doctors" must have been "naturopathic students" who received "naturopathic degrees". Historically society has refered to the qualifications that doctors get as "medical degrees" (even where, like most of the world, they are not degrees, but diplomas) and Wikipedia must reflect society, not the other way around! I take it you are a naturopath? Don't take this as a personal attack against your very noble profession (if you are one), but take it for what it is, a true reflection of how society sees things, and not how you see things. In most countries there exists legislation that says what is and what isn't "medicine", you won't find homeopathy or naturopathy in The Medicine Act in the UK, therefore the term "medicine" has come to mean that which physicians and surgeons do. That's not to say that there can no, and does not, exist a field called "naturopathic medicine", it's just not "medicine" unqualified. Take the example of an IT engineer and an engineer. They both do engineering, but there's only one engineer as the US, Canadian and UK governments would recognize the term. Fr33kman talk  APW 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No misunderstanding at this end. Could you provide a refernce that defines medicine as narrowly as you have? By the way NDs are physicians in nine north american jurisdictions. Without a modifier, 'medicine' may make most people think about an MD. The fact that this is the most common usage does not erase the other possibilities: naturpathic medicine, vetinary medicine, chiropractic medicine etc. To use your own example, there is no "Doctor of Paramedic Medicine". But there is a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine". My logic does not demand that 'allopathic' be used as a modifier in contexts where medical doctor could only mean medical doctor, only in contexts where there is potential for confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturstud (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery is a legal allopathic equivalent of the MD, the Naturopathic degree is not, and it does not allow for a "medical license" from the state board of medicine. It is no more a "medical degree" than a dental degree or a physical therpy degree, etc.   Jwri7474 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You have justed added the pre-fix "naturopathic" which is different to what we are discussing. And Again, there already is a wiki article on "naturopathic medical degree". The term "medical degree" however, (which is what we are discussing here) as it used by every state board of medicine and also its usage in common English is used to refer to "allopathic" MD, MBBS (and in the US, DO as well) training only. The wiki article on "Doctor of Medicine" which this article was originally redirected to.. explained this already.

Naturstud, we are arguing over the definition of the word "medical degree". It is my view that I don't believe that every health care related training program who graduates people who can treat some form of disease (i.e.: nurses, chiros, podiatrists, naturopaths, dentists, etc) should be referred to as a "medical degree" or "medical school". I think the term "health care degrees" or "Health care training" or something along those lines would be a better definition for this sort of list. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you state that (in the United States) naturopaths use the term "physicians" in 9 US states. Podiatrists, Chiropractors, Optometrists, and Dentists sometimes use these terms too... so what? Jwri7474 (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Medical degree seems a good general term which can embrace the many differences of time, place and school. In looking around, I notice the article Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery which gives a comprehensive account of the Commonwealth countries.  And I have found an entertaining source Becoming a physician which contains much relevant history.(talk) 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery is a legal allopathic equivalent of the MD. The Naturopathic degree is not, and it does not allow for a "medical license" from the state board of medicine. It is no more a "medical degree" than a dental degree or a physical therpy degree, etc.   Jwri7474 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturopathic medical licenses are issued accordingly. I am begining to suspect that the controversy here is less about professional jelousy and more about how adjectives work. Naturstud (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute above, the term Health care degree or some such seems fanciful and less useful as a search term than this current title. The current content seems a reasonable start in providing a general survey of medical qualifications of the sort listed. It would be best to build on this rather than start some new article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, I believe we agree that the term "medical degree" as used by the state board of medicine and in common language refers to MD (and DO) training only. I still stick the already cited fact that Nurses, Natropaths, Dentists, etc do not legally hold a "medical degree" which would allow for the "practice of medicine" in any state. This is clearly stated by every US state board of Medicine.

Naturstud, Can we compromise by creating an article called "Health care education" or "Medical careers" or something similar.. where you would be able to create your list of all different types of health care fields and their degrees? I would be happy with this solution. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) s
 * Agree with this view! Fr33kman talk APW 21:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: In the United Kingdom a doctor is a "registered medical practitioner" and only a person with a "qualifying medical degree" can register as one. That means in the UK (and we're world-wide here) the only person who can practice medicine is the holder of a "medical degree". Medical Degree is a legal term in the UK! The General Medical Council. [[User:Fr33kman|Fr33kman] talk APW 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, and the US equivalent of the UK General Medical Council are the State Boards of Medicine which regulate the "practice of medicine" in the United States. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This nonsense has been dealt with above. You are discusing allopathic boards of medicine. Other boards exist to regulate the practice of other types of medicine. The article specifically lists medical degrees, not health care degrees. Moving the debate to another page 'medical education' or 'medical careers' wouldn't fix the problem. Besides how could a chiropractic medical career exist without a chiropractice medical degree? Naturstud (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The UK usage indicates that there are medical degrees which qualify the holder to practise medicine and there are medical degrees which do not. The situation seems to be somewhat similar in the US.  The point is that medical degree is a general term.  To find out who can do exactly what where, one needs to look at the fine detail of the qualification and any equivalence which obtains.  We are not writing a legal text here - just providing a general account which will be useful to an international readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We may need to review the GMC statement in more detail, but what I believe they mean by "medical degrees that do not" is that they may only license those with allopathic medical degrees from the EU (unless they hold a pass in the PLAB exam) which is their exam for foreign doctors much like the ECFMG process in the United States. In that case it is the PLAB certificate that allows for the Medical license. But again, in order to obtain a PLAB certificate (or an ECFMG certificate for that matter) you must still hold an MD, MBBS, etc. and it must be listed in the IMED and WHO list of medical schools. The IMED/WHO lists all "Medical degrees" in the world and there are no schools of chiropractic or naturopathy anywhere in this list. The GMC is NOT inferring that a naturopath holds a "medical degree" that simply doesn't allow for licensure in the UK and/or EU. They are referring to regional licensing regulations only (regulations that still only pertain to those that hold IMED listed "medical degrees"). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could show me a school that granted a naturopathic degree that was listed in the IMED directory of Medical schools then I would agree that naturopaths obtain a "medical degree" and are eligible to "practice medicine". Until then, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses, dentists, physical therapists, etc practice other "health care" professions, but they do not hold "medical degrees" and they don't "practice medicine". Jwri7474 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed switch to disambiguation format
A compromise is needed here, I suggest a disambiguation link to the various degrees in the medical professions! Comment? Fr33kman talk APW 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fr33kman, I would be happy with this solution. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the current structure - listing various sorts of medical qualification. How is the proposed compromise different?  As for the items listed, what is User:Jwri7474's position on osteopaths and vets? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would not have the introductory and explanational textual portions of Medical degree but would simply have a list of internal wikilinks to articles about the various "medical degrees"; ie: Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Doctor of Medicine, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, and even Doctor of Dental Medicine. So if we do this, we allow the list of all clinical practitioners (ie: practice a hands on art of healing) who have professional autonomy and practice in an area of medicine? Can we have agreement? :-) Fr33kman talk APW 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, the US osteopathic schools are listed in the IMED director of world medical schools so I have no problem with these because they allow their graduates to obtain a license to "practice medicine". Vets are what they are.. they do practice medicine, but not on humans. So, take that for what it is.

I believe by creating a "disambiguation" page for the term "medical degree" it would at least acknowledge the difference between "medical schools that grant medical degrees" and the other "medically related" professions Jwri7474 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FR33Kman's compromise is acceptable to me. But I do not see how it adresses Jwri's concerns or fixes the basic problem. All along I have offered JWri the opportunity to add his reservations to the page - noting that the most comon usage of medical degree refers to Doctor of Medicine etc. Also there is some interesting info about the fact that a medical degree is not itself a license to practice medicine. As the Colonel has pointed out, changes to the use of the term in space and time may also be interesting. All this info would be lost in a straight forward disambiguation page. Still, I would go for it as a comprimise. We may have just postponed the debate however if Jwri is going to insist on calling NDs, DCs etc 'medically related' professions, instead of medical degrees, which is what they are. Such a 'medical degree' disambiguatiion page would have to simply list without judgment all of the "Doctor of _____ Medicine" degrees recognized by various jurisdictions as medical degrees, without indicating JWri's favorite flavour of medical degree.
 * I agree that its usage may change over time, but remember WP:CRYSTAL :-) Fr33kman talk APW 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jwri: Agreed. Everyone please note: By listing these degrees under "medical degrees" no one is either admitting that they are or are not medical degrees in either the 'classical' or 'modern' contexts. We are simply agreeing to a compromise solution so we can move on. The use of a disambiguation page here is a very good idea because it is essentially a list of redirects (if you think about it) and redirects are almost always a very good thing for wikis! Since this is not going to be an encyclopedic article but a disambiguation page it does not matter what wikipedia's position as an encyclopedia is on this subject. It's just redirects. I think this is a good solution and everyone walks away with their heads held high: very rare in these debates! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the disambiguation page simply lists all of the degrees on an equal footing without creating a heirarchy of some kind, I am willing to sign off on this. Geographical distinctions become unimportant since the wiki links Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine all include a discusion of which jurisdictions they are used in. Naturstud (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest alphabetic listing, ignoring the words "doctor" and "of" and "bachelor" in whatever order they exist;


 * IE:


 * Incomplete, example proposed order
 * Doctor of Chinese Medicine
 * Doctor of Dental Medicine
 * Medicinae Doctor
 * Doctor of Medicine
 * Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery
 * Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine
 * Bachelor of Naturopathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr33kman (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
 * Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine
 * etcetera (Ignore the redlinks, they are degree's I'm personally aware exist but have no particualr wish to create them.)


 * I think this is fairest. The only other "fairish" way is the order that they are added, but I dislike that because a new editor could just go ahead and enter them in the order of their WP:POV. But that would probably work also.


 * I also believe that a neutrally worded introduction should be on the page, perhaps;


 * "This page is a disambiguation page for the term 'medical degree. It lists degrees of clinical practitioners who practice in a medical profession." ???
 * Fr33kman talk APW 00:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Degrees do not authorize one to practice any kind of medicine. Perhaps "It lists degrees that prepare graduates to practice in a medical profession." To make it clear that the disambiguation page is not implying that all fields of medicine are practiced everywhere? Naturstud (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you MUST hold a certain type of degree to be "eligible" to apply for a medical license. So therefor an MD, MBBS, or DO IS a pre-requisite to practice medicine. There is no way around this fact. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we're very close to a solution here, so let's not derail. The wording you have proposed is acceptable. You should note, however, that someone may come and change it one day. The UK doesn't have a "license" to practice medicine (doctors who don't prescribe or work for the NHS[including surgeons] don't have to register with the GMC). In their case it is the degree itself that allows them to practice medicine and it always has been (hundreds of years). But, what you propose is fine. A better wording would be "It lists degrees that enable graduates to be eligible to practice in a medical profession."

Eligible means possible rather than allowed in this case.

Everyone has a win of sorts here so let's just get this solved! :-)

Who would like to tackle the reformatting of the page?

Fr33kman talk APW 01:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The page as it stands now I have updated hopefully clearing the problems with US centric language and structure and I added more "medical" degrees/Health professions as defined by Naturstud. I also alphabetized them. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks great. I think that we can call this issue resolved. Thank you all for participating and for reaching a compromise. Well done! Fr33kman talk APW 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'd like to add is that if we are following Naturstud's definition of "practicing medicine" and what a "medical degree" is, then you must also include Nursing degrees, physical therpy degrees, chiropractic degrees, dental, accupuncture diplomas, and every other program in the world that educates people to "treat illness and disease". Jwri7474 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (moved by Naturstud for clarity)


 * This is a deal breaker for me. The medical degree disambiguation page should list medical degrees, not all health care degrees. If you can find a "Doctor of Nursing" degree, a "Doctor of Physical Medicine" degree or a "Doctor of Paramedic Medicine" degree, then go ahead and add them, but since these important professions are not primary care providers with medical degrees, I can't see why they should be included. Naturstud (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and paramedics still all diagnose some "medical conditions" (regardless of how minor).. Naturopaths aren't allowed to diagnosed everything either. But according to your original definition (the one we are going by for this disambiguation page) as long as the professional is able to "diagnose and treat" (even if it is only 1 minor disease).. technically means that they are "practicing medicine" and therefor ALL degrees, diplomas, or certificates that train someone for such a profession anywhere in the world should be listed. You can not "cherry pick" only certain professions you want in the list. If you want to make a definition.. then stick by it. alright? Jwri7474 (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, You're stated definition for the "practice of medicine" and "medical degree" is "anyone who diagnosis and treats disease". That is what I have listed. Nothing more. You need to make up your mind what "medical degree" means. You can't twist your own definition to suit your profession of Naturopathic medicine. A DNP and DPT (nurse practitioner and physical therapists are primary care "providers" of health care) Jwri7474 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jwiri: you have created a strawman that any reasonable editor would reject. I have corrected you before on your misrepresentation of my position, three times before before in fact: I have never suggested that the medical degree page should list all healthcare professions. Your edit apears to me to have been made in bad faith. Naturstud (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my edit is fair. I have compromised. I have listed "medical professions" who "treat disease" as defined by YOU Naturstud. Please accept this compromise. All of the "health care professions" I have listed fit EXACTLY YOUR definition of a "Medical degree" you earlier posted. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No! Sorry, but those are globally recognized as professions allied to medicine and will not be acceptable here. I think you know this and are hair-splitting for the sake of it. We are very close to reaching a consensus for a solution. Let's just get this done! Fr33kman talk APW 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri: I feel you are editing in bad faith, and misrepresenting my position. Your 'compromise' has been a riduculous strawman argument that no reasonable editor will accept - a not so clever way of getting what you want, since it clearly is an edit that is even further away from your position than my version was. Some of your items you have added aren't even degrees! No one is going to go for a list of medical professions on a page called 'medical degrees'. Also, what happened to the terms of meidiation? Have you summarily dismissed our mediator? I really thought we were close here. Please revert the article back, or I will have to, and then we are in edit war mode. Also, please refrain from misquoting me in your edit summaries. Naturstud (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud: In some countries even the equivalent of the MD is a "medical diploma" not a "degree". All I did was list degrees and diplomas that are granted to people who fit into your definition of what a "medical degree" was and people who "practice some form of medicine". Please list specifically what you now disagree with. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To all: I believe that we have a consensus. I have read over the debate and at some point everyone agreed to the page that became the first disambiguation page I proposed. Let's not ruin this when it's so close to resolution. The debate has degraded again somewhat and new arguments are not needed at this stage. Nurses and podiatrists wouldn't want to be classed as "medical professions" (my mother's a nurse and she'd vomit at the idea). As such I am going to edit the page as we had agreed and then see if it's reverted. If anyone changes the page beyond the scope of the agreement that I believe exists (or simply reverts back), I think that we may need to send this debate to the mediation committee. They can decide content as well as conduct, arbitration cannot. Yes!? Fr33kman talk APW 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I know that there are MANY podiatrists and nurses what would disagree with you and just like Naturstud they would argue that they do "practice medicine" (usually because they wish to expand their scope of practice). If you later have podiatrists and nurse practitioners changing the article to add in their professions afterwards, don't be surprised. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall withold any further edits tonight in the hopes that things will cool down by tomorrow. I am not sure what the 'first compromise page' is, but I trust your judgment to leave us with a more neutral page, at least temporarily. It would be a pity to lose the good refs to the US dept of education. Naturstud (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the edit to what I believe the page should be based on own conversation here. Please look at it and let's get together tomorrow to review. Thanks!! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 02:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have asked for page protection for the article. Please refrain from editing in the mean time. Fr33kman talk APW 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The agreement was to list ALL degrees. That is what I have done. You also can't make the article US centric. If we are going to make an agreement, everyone needs to stick to it. ok Jwri7474 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that everyone should print out the debate from the moment that I joined as WP:3 and come back tomorrow. In the mean time, let's all review what was said. All have a hot chocolate, a sleep and we'll talk tomorrow. In the mean time the page has been fully protected from editing until this dispute is resolved. Good night and good luck! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand. We agreed to create a page following Naturstud's definition of "practicing medicine" which means ANY profession that allows its graduates to "treat disease". That is what I have done. Please point out anything on this list that you do not feel falls under Naturstud's all encompassing definition of "practicing medicine". Also, if we are to list "degrees" only and not list professions, then we must keep to an equal world view. This includes listing every degree around the world (bachelors, masters, doctorates, diplomas, etc). You say nurses practice nursing. Well under Naturstud's definition they diagnose and treat very basic medical conditions in community clinics so they are as Naturstud says "practicing medicine". I personally feel that Naturopaths, podiatrists, dentists, etc. similarly practice naturopathic medicine, podiatric medicine, and dental medicine... and that they do not "practice medicine". You either narrow the definition to the legal sense of the word as defined by the state board of medicine as I originally suggested, or we include everything. You cannot pick and choose whatever "you personally feel" is "practicing medicine" and what isn't. (this is the problem everyone is having.. so we either include everything.. or nothing, or back to just the original redirect we began with). Jwri7474 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri, there are professions that are health-care, but not medical. A pharmacist does not have a medical degree, they don't diagnose people (traditionally). To my understanding, you want a narrow definition and Naturstud wants a wide one. We've all proposed a compromise one, the middle ground. ie: that a medical degree is one where the holder is eligible to practice a medical profession, and that a medical profession is one where the clinical practitioner diagnoses and treats. They must do both. Other professions allied to medicine are advanced practitioners in their own rights, but they don't hold "medical degrees". I believe that Naturstad and you are closer than you think. I think that Naturstad also wants a more narrow definition, but not a classical one. I agree with this, I thought you also did. Where did I get the wrong impression from? (I'm signing off now, bedtime, goodnight all!) Fr33kman talk APW 04:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition we are going with of what a "medical degree" is as I understand is anything that teaches their students how to "diagnose and treat" some form of disease that affects humans or animals. (we all in agreement?) Ok... Now. I'm happy to go through each and every profession currently on the list one by one and we can discuss them here and come to a consensuses if they "diagnose and treat" disease. Fair? Also, feel free to nominate another profession that may not already be on the list and we can discuss. 1) I'm happy to remove all pharmacy degrees from the list if you want because I agree with you here under the argument that pharmacists do not "diagnose".

Which degree/profession do you want to discuss next? Jwri7474 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New proposal: The page is a disambiguation page that lists academic degrees (or their foreign equivalent) that confer upon the holder the eligibility to practice a medical profession and that medical profession means an autonomous registered clinical practitioner of medicine, for humans or animals and shall include; naturopaths, physicians, surgeons, dentists, orthodontists, chiropractors and their ilk, but shall exclude; nurses, paramedics, accupunturists, pharmacists, physiotherapists and their ilk (the professions allied to medicine). ??? I believe this is what you want Jwri, I believe it is also what Naturstad whats, please don't be so obstructive. Let's discuss tomorrow, good night :-) Fr33kman talk APW 04:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose rather than deciding this on a degree-by-degree basis in the talk page that we take the following steps:
 * 1) Agree on some basic clean up - some degrees are mentioned twice etc.
 * 2) Agree to add 'citation needed' tags to all uncited degrees.
 * 3) Agree to add title abreviations to every degree (MD, DO, ND etc).
 * 4) Develop a consensus on what sorts of citations are needed to demonstrate that something is a bona fide medical degree. (Started below)
 * 5) Apply to have the page unlocked and proceed with the business of referencing/cleaning up.

As regards Item 3 above, I further propose that the following are good sources - they are not obligatory or comprehensive or definitive, but should help the reader to make up thier mind -
 * 1) References to state organizations that recognize the "Doctor of _____ Medicine" degree.
 * 2) References to state accredited schools which offer a "______ medical degree", extra points for those that puroprt to train praimary care practitioners.
 * 3) References to state laws which describe the legal basis for practice of "______ medicine" with extra points for refs that grant primary access to otherwise restricted medical acts. Performing a physical exam, ordering and interpreting lab tests, communicationg a diagnosis, prescribing treatment (as distinct from delivering treatment prescribed by others) are strictly controled medical acts in most jurisdictions.
 * 4) Media coverage which describe a given practitioner as holding a "______ medical degree" or a doctor of "______ medicine".
 * 5) Practitioner sites or patient blog sites which employ the '_____ medical degree' or doctor of ______ medicine in describing services offered by the type of practitoner in question.

Given the tremendous legal and geographical variation, I don't think that any one formula for determining if something is a bona fide medical degree. I think that the best we can hope for is to provide good quality references, a wikilink where possible and then leave the reader to decide. The stability of the page will rest on the quality of the references provided. My fear is that we could go days hashing out the degrees on the talk page only to have our deliberations wiped out later on down the road. Naturstud (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an odd proposal to be honest. Orthodontist? first of all an orthodontist must hold a dental degree. If you are going to list Orthodontists.. then why not every other dental specialty who equally treat patients? Or should this not be included under dentistry? If we are going to list specialties, then you must equally every medical, surgical, podiatric, osteopathic, optometry, etc specialty as well. Do we really want to do that?

Again, the problem continues.. what is a "bona fide medical degree" as you just stated. Bona fide by whom? This entire problem is because we are in disagreement on this point.

So, again... I feel that we should do as I just suggested and list out every profession one by one and come to a consensus if they fit the agreed upon definition of "diagnosing and treating disease in humans or animals". ok Jwri7474 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

More problems I see with this proposal:


 * 1) Agree on some basic clean up - some degrees are mentioned twice etc. (well.. do you feel that BSc (nursing) might be different than a BNurs even though they are both bachelors degrees in nursing? If you feel they are the same.. then which one do you choose to use as a reference?  I propose that we list the degree this way: Bachelor of Nursing: (BNurs, BSc, BSN, etc) however, that is almost identical to what I had already done (which was deleted)  See the formatting of the first professional degree article.)

As regards Item 3 above, I further propose that the following are good sources - they are not obligatory or comprehensive or definitive, but should help the reader to make up thie mind -
 * 1) References to state organizations that recognize the "Doctor of _____ Medicine" degree.  Ok, this is in keeping with a very US centric viewpoint... some countries don't grant "doctorates" as their basic entry level professional degrees.  ie. Bachelor of Dentistry and Doctor of Dental Medicine are both degrees that allow the exact same practice of dentistry.  Also, every degree doesn't have to have the word "Medicine" and "Doctor" of in the title for them to qualify for this list. ok?)
 * 2) Media coverage which describe a given practitioner as holding a "______ medical degree" or a doctor of "______ medicine".  Again, same problems apply with wording of degrees and bachelor vs doctor. Also, what does "media" coverage have to do with it.  Jwri7474 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For two days you argued that only DOs and MDs should be on the list of medical degrees. Tonight, you spammed us by adding "Herbalists", "Traditional Medicine" etc. And now all of the sudden you have a problem with Orthodontist? No, JWri, I am not interested in helping you dismantle your own strawman strand by strand. We need a cooling off period, followed by a gradual collection of evidence. Some of the items on the list will gather lots of good citations, some will have less, and some will have none. Eventually, the more obvious frauds will be cut away, like a suspicious skin lesion under an ND's knife. Naturstud (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the duplications left in the article - Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Podiatic Medicine appear twice etc.
 * I am of course using the general meaning of the word 'state' to mean any political association with sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. This could be a any city, county, province, state, country or territory in the world.
 * Again, I am not proposing that we try to deliver a definitive list, just agree upon what makes a good citation and what doesn't. I was not proposing a checklist or an algorithm.
 * Media coverage is relevant to the concept of 'common usage' raised by your good self. A news story about 'Paramedics doctors" or a new crop of 'nurses graduating with medical degrees' would support the existence of a nurse or paramedic on the list.

No problems with most of that. However, I don't consider that "spamming". Yes, I DO still stick to my original view that it should be only MD,MBBS/DO because as I've said, they are the only degrees approved by the state boards of medicine. However, if we are going by YOUR definition... then I don't see how Naturopathic Medicine can be included and Traditional Medicine or Chinese Medicine excluded. I find the fact that you only want your profession but not others who equally fall under your very own definition to be quite hippocritical to be honest. Optometrists also refer to themselves as Optometric Physicians in some US states and can diagnose and treat (in Oklahoma even with minor surgery). Soo.. Again, I don't see how this is ANY different than the Naturopathic profession. ok? Jwri7474 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only recomend that you reread what I have written. Nothing in my definition could be construed to include nurses, parameics, pharmacists. If you have evidence that the term is used to describe TCM practitioners, then they should certainly be on the list. Have I ever said that they should not be? Sounds to me like you might be able to make a case for the optometrists as well. Naturstud (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you maybe misread my post as well. I don't have a problem with orthodontists being on the list. However, why only list 1 dental specialty if you aren't going to list the rest of them... all of which fit the criteria for diagnosing and treating disease. However, to be an orthodontist you must first be a dentist. Should we list dentist and orthodontist separately or include orthodontists under dentistry. If we are to include something like orthodontists (a specialty of dentistry) then we must equally include certificates and degrees of all medical specialties as well (general surgery, pediatrics, dermatology, etc.) Do you now understand what my point was concerning orthodontists?

You said, I was "spamming" by listing TCM, etc. So I apologies, but I interpreted that as you not agreeing that TCM should be on the list under your definition.
 * On an important note of etiquette: Please stop refering to your definition as if it were mine. This is not the first time I have had to ask you to do this. The editor who has to resort to mis-stating his opponent's argument rather than simply advancing his own argument is editing in bad faith. Naturstud (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nurses can as I've stated before diagnose and treat minor medical conditions in the hospital and in community centers. So yes, this also falls under your (sic - Naturstud) definition ... as does paramedics who diagnose and treat people in emergency situations (drugs and surgery (ex: emergency tracheotomy) until they can get them to hospital.
 * So do mother's and first aiders. They don't have medical degrees either! Fr33kman talk APW 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Pharmacists: If you read one of my most recent posts.. I already stated that I have no problem with removing all pharmacy degrees under the argument that they do not fit your (sic - Naturstud) criteria of "diagnosing". Jwri7474 (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Here are some sources that would argue that Pharmacists do (in some regions) "diagnose" which means that they should therefor equally remain on the list. ,,,, Jwri7474 (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I have no intention of debating individual degrees with you on the talk page, if for no other reason than evidence given on the talk page can easily be forgotten/ignored two months later. Best advice is for you to go out and find references that support the use of the term medical degree for each of the additions you have made. If you can demonstrate that governments, practitioners, schools, practitioner associations, patients or media use the term medical degree to describe the training of a given practitioner, I'm sure that your additions will stand the test of time on the page. Here is an example: []. You can always place a citation needed tag around the ones you havn't gotten to yet, as discussed above. And don't be intimidated by those editors who would establish a linguistic hegemony around the term, claiming that the most common usage should exclude less common usages. These are the arguments of the bully, and they almost never hold sway on wiki. Good luck.Naturstud (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The debate has degraded again guys. We are not talking about differences in intention now, we are talking about wording so let's get that worked out. Jwri, I have read your talk page completely and it is OBVIOUS that you do not really feel the way you are making out here. You have time, and time again made posts that indicate that you have a narrow, classical view of the term "medical degree". Fine, I mostly agree with this but can understand that the situation can change in modern times. I've looked into much further and there are areas where non-MD/MBBS/DO types do provide primary care, government paid work. Okay, times change, fine! Naturstad has made compromises and so have you. Nobody really wants to include degrees that are not providers of care as "doctors" to the public. A pharmacist is not a doctor and doesn't have a medical degree. Just because you can find someone who says they do, doesn't make it a good reference, especially if that reference is from a pharmacist or pharmacist organization. Let's keep this out of mediation or arbitration, nobody needs officialdom coming down on this.

We are very close, let's just include degrees that are patently medical degrees, start of the disambiguation page and leave it to other editors to add the additional medical degrees we've missed later.

You have to just drop the nitpicking arguments here!! :-( Fr33kman talk APW 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. Yes, I do hold that it should be only MD/DO/MBBS etc. (those that "practice medicine"). However, I have agreed to take a wider view on this issue and I am open to creating a page about all of those professionals that as you said, are "non-MD/MBBS/DO types do provide primary care". This is true... and the definition that Naturstud gave us of "anyone who diagnoses and treats disease of any type in humans or animals" again.. I was ok with. Every degree I listed fits all of these criteria. NOW, Naturstud is disagreeing with his very own definition and changing his requirements at every turn such that the degree must have the words "doctor" or "medicine" or "medical degree" on their marketing websites which is not what we agreed on. Of course he will easily find naturopathy, podiatry, and nursing degree webites that market their degrees as equal to MD degrees and frequently use the terms "physician", "medical school", "doctor", etc. because these are attempting to POV push for their political benefit. Also, this type of wording is VERY US Centric. For example, a Bachelor of Dentistry and a Doctor of Dental Medicine degree are both equal degrees that allow for the same scope of practice of dentistry, however.. one uses the terms "doctor", "Medicine", and may use the terms "physician", or "medical degree" while the other doesn't; however, that does not negate the fact that they are both equivalent and should both be listed. See my point? Jwri7474 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC) You should have read my sources then.. because many where from peer reviewed journals. Also, many degrees don’t have the word "doctor" in them or some regions may not allow the title of "doctor" (regional variability) even though they do the same job. Not acknowledging this fact and including other degrees is against wiki's world view TOS, you would then only be pushing a US centric view. By the way in the US pharmacists get a PharmD (doctorate).. so, if you are going by a Naturstud's NEW definitions.. then yes, pharmacists should be included. Oh wait, is it time to change to a new definition now because I found something that fits your new criteria that you AGAIN disagree with? This is getting ridiculous.

Fr33kman: "patently medical degrees"... patently by whom? By the Naturopathic websites who are benefitting from POV pushing the title? Very biased. hmmmm Jwri7474 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we agree on this? Any degree that is added to the page must contain an independent, 3rd-party, reliable source that calls the degree publically a "medical degree". Only one reference would be needed but it must be by someone, or something, that is not related to the degrees profession; ie.: a naturopath school cannot be relied on to call an ND a medical degree, it'd have to be somewhere not related and that passes WP:SOURCES. Comment!? Fr33kman talk APW 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Although I would like further clarify to add that it can not be from a Naturopathic University program promotional information, and it can not be from the CNME who isn't even recognized as an accrediting body in most the United States (16 states is not a majority) and even in those regions they are still considered complementary and alternative practitioners, and it can not be from any association of naturopathic doctors or the like. It should be from a state government document or unbiased 3rd party. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

More compromise:Negotiation of usage-based criteria
Moving forward. Any academic degree that is described as a 'medical degree' should be on the list. Since there is no universal acceptable definition of what a 'medical degree' is, all we can do is use some common sense. The following are sources that could be used to support the inclusion of a particular degree on this page. They absence of any one of these sources does not exclude, it just fails to include. Similarily, none of these represents a 'litmus test' for inclusion. A degree might be thought to be a medical degree if:
 * It is a degree (or a diploma) that is recognized by a government authority.
 * The name of the degree uses the words 'doctor' and or 'medicine', or preferably both.
 * Legislation exists that authorizes holders of the degree to perform - sui generis - controlled medical acts in one or more jurisdictions; medical acts that are otherwise restricted by law. Hot ones to look for are performing a physical exam, comunicating a diagnosis, ordering lab evaluations, prescribing (not merely providing) treatment.
 * The schools that provide the degree are accredited by an agency that is recognized by a government authority.
 * Recognized accrediting agencies use the term 'medical degree'.
 * Accredited schools use the term 'medical degree'.
 * Holders of the degree use the term 'medical degree' in describing their training to the public.
 * Memebers of the public (patients) use the term 'medical degree' to describe the degree in question.
 * Media coverage of the degree describes it as a type of 'medical degree'.

I am open to adding (or taking away from) the above guidelines. Once again may I stress that I am not proposing a definition of what a medical degree is, just suggesting some ways of knowing when a particular degree could reasonably be added to the list. I am convinced that solid references will save us from more heated debates. Arguments like "everyone knows that such-and-such a degree is/is not a medical degree" will get us nowhere. Documentation of usage of the term 'medical degree' (or some equivalent like 'doctor of ____ medicine'), as used by the media, doctors, patients, schools, accrediting agencies and governments are preferable. Is this the best way to proceed? Naturstud (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems very good. Accredited schools (ie: recognized by their national or state government) would be acceptable sources, non-accredited schools would not be (obviously). Holders of a degree should not be included as they are not independent enough for this purpose. Members of the public would be fine and media coverage is 100% fine! Legislation that calls the degree a medical degree is incontrovertible evidence as is recognition as a medical degree by a recognized accrediting mechanism (whatever that may be locally to the degree [ie: Middle Schools Association... Royal Charter etc...])! Can we comment about this Jwri? :-) Fr33kman talk  APW 19:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

They must be recognized by the local government as such. The information must be from a gov site, not the specific accrediting body (ex: it can't be off the CNME website which promotes the profession of naturopathy). If they are only recognized as medical degrees in very small regions (there must be sufficient details on this such as to not mislead people into thinking they are universally accepted worldwide as medical degrees like the IMED/WHO listed degrees are). I disagree that the titles "medicine" and "doctor" must be in the titles or even should be. This is very US centric. Even in the UK those who graduate with accredited allopathic degrees if they are training as surgeons go by Mr. and not Dr. even though they hold an unrestricted license to "practice medicine" in the UK. There is so much regional variability on titles and what people call the degrees. Again, it should be based on your license and scope of practice that is granted by your local government. I also disagree with the suggesting that the source could be from someone who holds the degree and calls it a "medical degree", this opens up sources to include any quack who has a website and is trying to promote themselves (most biased source I can even think of). Schools are also biased as they are charging big bucks (making a profit) off of marketing their degrees as "medical degrees". Jwri7474 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel as though I have a conflict of interest because I have nothing to gain from referring to myself as holding a "medical degree", Naturstud does. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New notice:Okay, Jwri and Naturstad have both made some excellent points and I think all together that they amount to the following: 1) medical degrees will be included on the page if they are described as such by reputable national or international (not local) newspapers, journals, TV, academics (from another profession), laws, official government publications, recognized accrediting bodies, professional bodies recognized as such officially by the government or by other recognized bodies? These should all be references that pass WP:RS. Controversial (or potentially) entries should be discussed on the talk page first, keeping in mind a spirit of cooperation amongst editors, present and future. Yes? Fr33kman talk APW 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Can we create subheadings Allopathic, Osteopathic, Naturopathic, Tradiational, Dental, Podiatric, etc? Jwri7474 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No- at least not quite yet. I appreciate your peacemaking efforts Fr33kman but I interpret Jwri's note directly above yours to mean that he would not accept a reference from - to use his example - a CNME accredited school or the CNME itself (which is acredited by the US State dept). This does not bode well: i forsee that any source that uses 'medical degree' term to describe non-MDs will be attacked as POV. Likewise Jwri has rejected practitioner self-description as evidence. And once again, there has not been a careful enough reading - I have gone out of my way to suggest that none of the individual criterion I have proposed could be used guarantee inclusion or exclusion. And yet Jwri "disagrees that the titles medicine and doctor must be in the titles". Sorry, but we may need a longer cooling off period. (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All I said was that just because the degree has the words "medicine" or "doctor" in the title of the degree does not make it a "medical degree" likewise if the degree does not have those words that also doesn't mean that it ISN'T a medical either. I'm just saying we shouldn't use that as a criteria. Naming degrees this way (for all health professions) is a very US thing to do. Making this a requirement would force the article to have a US centric viewpoint. agreed? Jwri7474 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I half agree. I agree that the absence of words like "medicine" and "doctor" in the title does not mean that you are not looking at a medical degree. I disagree about the other half. I believe that the presence of the words "doctor" and "medicine" in a degree title is as suggestive of a medical degree as any degree title could be. Not a free pass to appear on the page perhaps, ("Doctor of Air Refrigeration Maintenance Medicine" is still out) but evidence that might reasonably be advanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturstud (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get us to move towards a situation where if the govt says it is a medical degree than that should be good enough. Slightly less stronger evidence: if an agency accredite by the govt says it is a degree. SLightly less stronger evidence than that: if a scool accredited by an agency that is recognized by a government says that it is a degree. Weaker still: if a practitioner who went to a school that was accedited by an agency that is recognized by the government. Lastly, a patient of such a practitioner may refer to their practioner as holding a medical degree. These are all acceptable forms of evidence that the term is in usage. And may I repeat: we should be more concerned with accurately describing usage than discerning if such usage is true and proper. We can agree on the former, but are having difficulties on the latter. If the schhol that trains NDs call it a medical degree, and all their graduated practitioners call it a medical degree, and none of them have been thrown in jail by the state or had their licenses taken away by the govt board that governs their type of medicine, then who are we to say that using the term 'medical degree' is POV pushing? I am pretty sure the Jwri would, based on his comments above, so we need more time/negotiation, but I stand to be corrected. Naturstud (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The subheadings are a good idea, one that I have been wanting to suggest for a while. Can I take this as a positive sign that Jwri is prepared to accept that there might be some actualy entries under the Naturopathic, Chiropractic etc headings on a page that lists medical degrees? I want to intrpret this as a sign of good faith on his part, but don't want to get burned again like last night. The allegation that I have a COI (nothing to declare here) does not bode well. Neither do the comments about using WHO/IMED sources as a litmus test. I am not convinced he is on board. Naturstud (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, I'm sorry, but do you actually deny a personal/professional vested interest or bias in placing Naturopathy on this list (ie, COI?) after announcing you are a naturpathic student/recent grad?
 * Only if I have some direct gain - this article is not going to make me rich - unless I put my name and email adress on it. If you have a problem with this, could we discuss it later please? Naturstud (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the IMED/WHO list of medical schools because it is a worldwide agreed upon list of schools that grant "medical degrees" universally accepted to allow to become licensed to "practice medicine". I don't see how this was a problem. It is the most worldwide accepted list we have to date. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You use the list because it uses a more old fashioned definition of 'medicine' - one closer to your own. You are departing from the principles that we are trying to agree upon, namely a usage-based set of criteria. I could call the IMED and WHO POV pushers here, but I won't (I don't believe that they are, anymore than I believe that they ever set out to create a document that would be used one day to 'exclude' other types of medical degrees. They have produced a fine directory of allopathic schools, that is all.) So is the usage-based criteria still on?

Naturstud (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not old fashioned.. but because again, we are trying to write an article with a neutral world view.. well, this is the ONLY list I am aware of that lists "medical schools" which are universally agreed upon by every country in the world as "medical degree" granting institutions which allow for the "practice of medicine". Jwri7474 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to include Naturopathic Medicine.. only if.. (if we are going to agree to go by a wider meaning of medical degree) than you must agree to also accept Traditional medicine, Chinese medicine, Chiropracic Medicine, Dental Medicine, Podiatric Medicine, Optometric Medicine, etc etc. agreed? Jwri7474 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we may be close - but no I would not say that we are widening the meaning of medical degree. Just establishing usage-based criteria. Having said that, I suspect that many of the degrees you have mentioned above would have documented usage of the term 'medical degree'. I am still not assured about your bias, however. Are you suggesting that the CNME is inherrently more POV (and therefore a less reliable source than) than the APMA (podiatrists) or the AMVA (vets), or the AMA for that matter?

Naturstud (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding CNME being inherrently more at risk for POV pushing the term "medical degree". Lets step back a moment and look at the politics (which is what much of this deals with). All of these "minority" medical/health providers (non-MD,DO,MBBS) are 1) required to practice a much narrower scope of "medicine" compared to allopathic medical licensure by the state board of medicine. 2)  Because one group may be a minority, a relatively newcomer onto the scene, and may or may not have as rigorous standards and levels or similar process of "accreditation"... yes it means that naturopaths have "something to prove" and if they can borrow titles and terms used from allopathic medical practice then this helps to further their cause of pushing their view of the practice of medicine (i.e.: Naturopathic Medicine) into a more widely accepted format. Considering the worlds population is now going to be inundated with baby booming hippies who are into "alternative treatents".. and because there are very few if any insurance providers that cover "alternative medicine", also.. naturopaths are not required to take out very high if any malpractice cover either, so all these things mean that there is a LOT of cash money to be made treating patients as a naturopath in the coming years. So yeah.. I can see many reasons why the CNME and the Naturopathic community at large would have a very high risk of POV pushing when it comes to borrowed titles from allopathic medical practice. The allopathic boards have nothing to prove, everyone knows they are "medical degrees". Podiatry has political scope of practice issues with Orthopaedic surgery because they both claim to surgically treat foot and ankle, so yes.. sometimes Podiatry is also at risk of POV pushing the title of "medical degree". In regard to Vets.. No issues there. They medically and surgically treat animals. They have no competition for the treatment of animals and No medical practitioner fears Vets taking over their scope of practice.. so no.. Vets have no risk of POV pushing the title of "medical degree". If our sources come from legitimate state goverment decisions (court cases), or public published documents regarding legal titles and scope of practice in each region.. then I think that is fair. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, an important semantic point needs agreement. Do all parties agree that when a good reference decribes a "_______ medical degree" that it is describing a type of medical degree, and that when a good source describes a "medical degree", it is most likely refering to one of the conventional (allopathic) degrees? Can we further agree that a source which lists "medical degrees" without qualification it is probably listing allopathic ones, and that such a list can not be used as evidence that other types of 'medical degrees' do not exist? Naturstud (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually the case. Hence why there were separate wikipedia articles on 1) "naturopathic medical degree" and 2) "medical degree". The public (just as you just now agreed to) considers the term "medical degree" as referring to allopathic degrees. I never said other "specific types of medical degrees" don't exist, but this is why we have seperate articles on them. The term "Allopathic medicine" itself has never been a word that the Orthodox medical community has ever used to refer to itself. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that in modern usage, 'allopathic' can double as an insult, which is why I always write something like (conventional) or (mainstream) beside it when I need to refer to allpathic medicine. However, you may be shocked to find that to this day there are a handful of state laws and medical boards that still use the term to define themselves - a historical artifact from back in the day when it was not an insult at all. Naturstud (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the terms Mainstream or Conventional. So thats cool. I disagree that the "conventional medical" community never fully accepted the term "allopathic" at any time in history. It was created by a homeopathy practitioner to describe people who practice conventional/mainstream medicine. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For informational purposes: The CNME is is a nationally recognized accreditation agency. Accreditied universities and colleges should be acceptable sources. Acreditiation should convince you that when Harvard University says it hands out 'medical degress', that is what it is doing. Acreditation should equally convince you that when the University of Bridgeport says it is handing out naturopathic medical degrees, it is doing just that. I see no reason to exclude such sources. Naturstud (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you say "nationally accredited", but when that "accreditation" itself is only recognized in a minority of areas within the United States that doesn't speak much about its validity I don't think. (at least not at the national United States level) Jwri7474 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The national acredition is the only one that is relevant to our discussion of 'medical degrees', and is provided by the US Dept. of Education. I am not aware of any local government that 'accredits' the CNME. You may be thinking of indivisual states that require NDs to have graduated from a CNME accredited school. These state boards have requirements that eligible NDs must have been to a CNME accredited school, but they do not accredit the CNME themselves.

I never said that the local governments accredit Naturopathic degrees. I agree with your point though. The US state dept (if you have that link as a source) I think would be fine to use. I was pointing out that most US states do not recognize the US Dept. of Education's accreditation for the practice of Naturopathic medicine within their borders. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to make a list of all degrees that may be "medical" like this:

Traditional/Allopathic/Orthodox Medicine: MBBS, MD Osteopathic Medicine: DO, BOst, BSc (osteo), BMedOst, etc Naturopathic Medicine: ND, BHSc, BNat, etc Chinese medicine: BSc, DOM, etc Chiropractic Medicine: BChiro, MChiro, DC, DCM

We can even have a short summary under each heading if you wanted, describing where they are recognised as medical degrees. Or we can leave that out and keep it on each individual page/link. thoughts? Jwri7474 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The geography issue is not an easy one to grapple with. My current opinion is that if the degree in question links to its own wikiarticle, the reader can get geographical information by reading that article. I can see value in putting some geography info on the page however. And since we are going for highly referenced degrees on this page, geographical information might make for clearer references. A sample entry under the 'Naturopathic Medicine' section could be: ...where ref 1 and 2 document North American usage of the naturopathic 'medical degree', ref 3 cites a canadian source and ref 4 cites a US one. Naturstud (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine[1],[2] (ND, NMD) in Canada[3] and the United States[4].

I'd like to just make a commentary, if I may. Everyone involved in this is intelligent, and most certainly a professional in their desire to have an article that is factual and conforms to Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources, referencing, and meets so-called scientific scrutiny. So to illustrate the point of view, as I see it, of Jwri, I'll use an illustration from the world of evidence-based medicine, which is something we should all be able to respect. Imagine a researcher develops a drug that he claims provides improved bronchodilation for a period of 24 hours per dose. He's actually even done an RCT and got results. Let's say this man already has a Nobel prize, so he's good, unquestionably. He takes the results and publishes them on his university website. Can we believe these results? No, because they are first party results and haven't been reviewed by anyone, let alone peers. Later we pick up JAMA and he's got his results published in it. Can we believe that? Well, we can certainly lean towards believing it. JAMA are no fools and we can assume they did the math and checked the figures. But, we can't yet begin to rely on the results of the study, yet. We need other people, not related to the distinguished researcher, to review his work, people we trust and who's opinion we value. Later when we pick up The Lancet and find a review of his work we can start to see if their is significance in the results and we can start to rely on the man's methods and conclusions, if they are supported by the reviewer.

Now, if we take a profession like; Doctor of "A new school of medical thought goes here" that seems to be emerging and gaining acceptance amongst the established professions of medicine. Following the same logic as for EBM (and, we're scientists, so why wouldn't we?), we can see that the "new" doctors calling themselves thus, or their degrees "medical", is not a scientifically reliable source of this information. Nether is their schools calling them doctors, or saying their degrees are medical degrees, reliable in this sense, because of the same conflict of interest. The accrediting bodies that accredit the new schools of medicine are beginning to give us the reliability we're after. (I'd be cool with accepting them as reliable references for the purposes of this page) If the government referred to these people as doctors or their degrees as medical degrees then that is unquestionable. Any national, state or major metropolitan government anywhere. If that government licenses such people as medical doctors (of any specialty or philosophy), that is proof that they are in the medical profession and thus their degrees are medical degrees. If reliable, notable, major media outlets refer (preferably more than one source unless it is a feature article) to such people as doctors or their degrees as medical degrees then that is evidence also.

The reason this matters here is public dependability in the information contained here. This subject is not an article about yellow flowers, it's about medicine, and we all agree that that is important! The terms medical school, medical student, medical doctor, physician, surgeon and medical degree or diploma (and their local equivalents) have already perceived meaning in societies around the World. As such, any degree listed here must (for public safety) link only to the degrees of genuine, recognized practitioners of medicine. I know quite a bit about naturopathy, and I admire them and wish they were available more on the NHS (they are in Scotland at one hospital). I also understand the emerging situation in the US, and indeed in Europe also (although more established there). I know that you are primary care providers in some states in the US and I believe that some have qualified for hospital service also. This makes you physicians in your own right, in my opinion. I think you should consider a search for 2nd or 3rd party sources though. It would be more in keeping with what is happening elsewhere at Wikipedia, and it would be more in keeping with the scientific nature of your profession. What do you think? :-) Fr33kman talk APW 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sounds like all good stuff from my point of view. :) Jwri7474 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also share your view on the relative nature of evidence. A good scientific approach almost allways fails to poove or disprove. It is about gathering evidence that gives us increasing confidence in a thing. As with science so with our article. We can not prove or disprove the correct or proper way to use a term like medical degree. All we can do is agree on what constitutes stronger vs weaker evidence, as described in your analogy. Oh and I would be remiss if as an ND I didn't point out that sometimes talking about a yellow flower is talking about medicine! Especially if we are talking about gelsmium sempervirens (yellow jasmine), an example of a medicinal yellow flower that can kill patients in the wrong hands. But I digress.
 * :-) :-) :-) Indeed, sometimes yellow flowers can save a life Daffodil! Fr33kman talk APW

Next step? Shall we leave it another night, then perhaps recompose the 'usage-based criteria' we have discussed today into a new set of guidlines for including a medical degree on the page? I have already had a go at writing them twice and rather than repeating them again was wondering if Jwri would care to restate the curent aggreed upon items in his own words. That would give us the confidence that we have actually agreed on some items, not deluded ourselves into a false sense of peace (something that I think happened last night). So .. a reality check to confirm that we are more or less on the same page? Let me know, otherwise I am willing to have another stab at it. Naturstud (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think leaving it another night is a good idea. I'm fine if Jwri wants the challenge, but cool if he'd rather wait till tomorrow. Thanks all! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested removal of the page protection, I don't feel that it's needed anymore. No edits should be made by anyone until tomorrow, in fairness. Fr33kman talk APW 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a place to start from. I think we have agreement that nursing, paramedicine, accupuncture, pharmacy and the like would not be there as they are recognized as separate from doctors and I think that that must stand. Since it is a disambiguation page it must also contain wikilinks and those links must be to the exact degree's named and not to professions. Other wording might need to be discussed but I think it's a good start! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri, how about that? I think we should leave it like that until Naturstad sees it tomorrow. I think alphabetic by profession would be fairest. Fr33kman talk APW 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Regarding acupuncture I can show you links from state regulation bodies that places them under the "medical board" and may qualify those as "medical degrees" under our definition. But we can discuss this later. Woo hoo.. making progress. :) Jwri7474 (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the acupuncture thing. I know medical doctors here in the UK who do "medical acupuncture" and have diplomas and degrees for it. Progress, yes I'd say. I have to say that you should both be proud that together you have come to an agreement that works and that, I think, reflects the World the way it is. Fr33kman talk APW 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey gang, just got back from a movie - but had to check the page. Looks great. Two minor coments and one that Jwri might not want to hear:
 * It seems to me that since these are all degrees, the subheading 'degrees' is redundant under each heading and is taking up valuable screen real-estate.
 * References, references references! Can we put the US Dept of Education refs back in? Also, without some refs, degrees like 'napropathy' are goiing to get hit hard. Can't say I have ever heard of it! The best way to keep the page stable is to lay the good quality refs on thick as discussed above.
 * The Medical degree sticks out like a sore thumb. Now I don't mind that, seeing as it is the most common kind of medical degree. Heck, put it at the top of the page if you like. But as it stands it is the only degree without an adjective/modifier - someone is going to come along and stick the A-word (allopathic) on it before you know it. The adjective allopathic will only atract controversy...as some MDs are insulted by it's use. Controversy could be avoided by finding another adjective (conventional/orthodox etc). Jwri might want to consult [] before weighing in as a preview of what you'd be up against. The AMA itself uses the term, as do multiple state legislatures, boards of medicine, medical schools, journals, govt agencies etc wherever there is a need to distinguish between MD from non-MD types of medicine'. I am not saying that I would apply such a controverisal (and fundamentally inacurate) term, but if we don't find a more neutral adjective, sure as sugar someone else will. By exposing the MD type of degree simply as 'medicine' without a modifier, we are asking for it. All alone by itself, 'medical degree' implies MD et al. In a disambiguation page about medical degrees it should play nice and take a modifier alongside its sisters and brothers.

Other than that, nice doing business with y'all, will check in tomorrow. Naturstud (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. What do you suggest?
 * 2. Yeah.. I had never heard of Naprapathy before either..  sounds weird I know, but apperantly it is some sort of "manipulative medicine" from Scandinavia which sounded similar to the OMM stuff of Osteopathy to me.  Who knows, but appearntly its a real program.
 * 3 I'm ok with using "mainstream" and/or "orthodox".  I thought I had added those terms actually, maybe someone deleted them.  Jwri7474 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to item one, simply clipout the all the ===Degrees=== code. Better yet..move the word 'degrees' to the main section title: Chiropraactic medical degrees, Osteopathic medical degrees, etc. This will keep the focus on medical degrees, not all medical professions. IE, someone will think twice about adding 'Paramedic medical degree' etc. Naturstud (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Fr33kman talk APW

Medical Assistant/Physician Assistant Medical Degrees
I suggest that these do not meet the criteria discussed above - since none of these operate siu generis but rather under supervision. Can anyone find references to support the use of the term 'medical degree' in keeping with our guidlines above? Naturstud (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Grey area as they are medical practitiners but yes, they are not siu generis and all, everywhere, operate under an "medical doctors" license. I think that if we don't include someone will one day, but it doesn't have to be today. Fr33kman talk APW

Good test case. 'Medical assistants' do not have the authority to conduct controlled medical acts, they can only be delegated to perfrom these acts by another practitioner who does have the authority. However, we agreed that none of our criteria should be applied as a pass/fail litmus test. Can any of the other usage-based criteria be applied? Naturstud (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does a Physician Assistant meet either the practice based or usage based criteria? Naturstud (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But they do hold a license from the state board of medicine who regulates their profession. They are also said to practice medicine yes, albeit under supervision. But this is the same for the anesthesiology assistants, Certified nurse anesthetists, as well as nurse practitioners. So, do we include these or not? Jwri7474 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought we had already agreed this point. To me it seems that the state sanctioned permission to initiate, supervise or delegate a controlled medical act is what we are looking for in a 'practice-based citation' (the 'sui generis' component). Where I live for example, paramedics are authorised to perform medical acts under an MD's license. I don't interpret this to mean that paramedics hold medical degrees - they are delegated to carry out standing instructions from MDs. The decision about what to do in a particular situation are defined by the MD, and the paramedic acts as an agent - a legal instrument - of the MD. Same probably applies for Physician assistants, but I really couldn't say because Im not sure what they do. Can any usage-based criteria be found? Any good sources that describe the PA degree as a 'medical degree' or a 'degree in ____ medicine' for example? Naturstud (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reiki Medical Degress
I would like to seem some references support the usage of the term 'Reiki medical degree' along the guidlines we have agreed upon above. Naturstud (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mandatory! We have a consensus for inclusion and exclusion, let's try them out :-) Fr33kman talk APW 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, reiki is a therapeutic modality that has evolved out of a spiritual practice, not a system of medicine. I am not aware of any government, accrediting agencies, legislation, schools, media, practitioner or practitioner associations etc that use the term 'medical degree' to describe the training of reiki master. So far as I know, reiki does not involve any controlled medical acts. Where I live, you can be up and running as a reiki practitioner after two weekends. I am open to being educated if in some other part of the world it is a medical degree. Naturstud (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Fr33kman talk APW 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri and naturstad; please remember that we need 3rd party sources for verification that actually refer to the degree in question as a "medical degree" (must be issued by recognized academic institutions). No reference, no entry! We have to insist on that! Fr33kman talk APW 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have sources that do state it is "practicing medicine" and that its a degree in "reiki medicine". I thought that was clear enough under our guidlines. Yes/no? Jwri7474 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if we could see the refs you have found that would help us to further fine tune our criteria on what makes a good reference and what doesn't. Naturstud (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording of summary and page layout
I've added "issued by recognized academic institutions) .. what do you think? Fr33kman talk APW 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Ok with that - but we should be cautious because we do not want to imply that one of our possible inclusion critera is being used as a litmus test. Some editors may interpret you addition to mean that if the 'Doctor of Love' medical degree was 'recognized' by anyone or anything, then it can be on the page. Ultimately I would like to see a page summary that (briefly!) lists all of our criteria as a short paragraph. Not an easy paragraph to write!

Naturstud (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, we're not finished quite yet. In the final version we should put a link to the talk page and explain that entries must conform to the consensus we've gained here. There will be a small box placed permanently in the header of the talk page that outlines our criteria for inclusion. This will be the sourcing we've agreed on and where it is issued from must be recognized by the government of the country that the degree is recognized as a medical degree in. Yes? Fr33kman talk APW 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me, as long as such a header persists (doesn't get archived). Naturstud (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember guys: We're talking about public safety. This page contains links to people the public recognize as "doctors" of some form of medicine, doctors! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * btw, when I say "doctors" I mean the profession of doctoring (healing people) and recognized as "doctor" by the public. I don't mean "Doctor" which is a title anyone with a doctorate can use. Medical doctors in most of the world are called "Dr." because they are "doctors" and not because they have doctorates (which most don't). (This is the reason that doctors in the UK are called Dr. at work but their phone bill must legally come as Mr.) I see from Jwri's talk page that he understands this. :-)

Naturstud (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. The whole "Mr." thing only applies to those who complete thier surgery residency training in the UK. It has to do with the history of the training of surgeons and physicians. I have never heard of anything about the phone bills. Even surgeons in the UK (who also obtain medical degrees MBBS/MBChB) are allowed to be called Dr. they "choose" not to because of tradition. It is considered an honour among surgeons in the UK after you complete your Fellowship exams of the Royal College of Surgeons. Hope that helps clerify the issue. Jwri7474 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For stability, I would like to see the word 'degree' added back into each section title. ("Chiropractice Medical Degrees", "Podiatric Medical Degrees") Otherwise, there may be a tendancy for editors to read this as a list of medical professions including allied health professions. As the page stands now, someone could think that it is OK to add "Paramedic" or "Faith Healer" (professions) whereas they would think twice before adding "Paramedical Medical Degrees" or "Faith Healer Medical Degrees" Naturstud (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, make the edit! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Naturstud (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should also include certificates, diplomas, etc. (not just bachelor or doctor degrees, etc)Jwri7474 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording for editors guide on talk page
Wish I knew how to put a box around things...


 * I've made some changes to the above box, I feel these would better suit what you've both agreed to, comment? Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...Just a first draft to get us started. Naturstud (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just put it in a box, though there may be better templates and styles. No further comment until I have a chance to peruse this discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of objections. The first pertains to the nature of a medical degree.  To my mind, the essential feature is that it concerns medicine rather than that it qualifies the holder in a regulatory or vocational sense.  To understand the difference, consider the degrees in medical history which are offered at several institutions.  I consider these to be medical degrees of some sort but I suppose they grant no special privilege in the actual practise of medicine.  The regulatory or licensing aspects are best covered elsewhere, I feel.


 * I think the vital distinction can be made one of two ways; firstly, a medical degree would be one that is granted by a faculty of medicine (or its equal in the branch of medicine the degree if from) and that it'd have a clinical element to it; or secondly, a reasonable, untutored member of the public would believe that the holder is a healer to the level they would call doctor, regardless of whether of not they would partake of that branch of medicine personally. A degree in the history of ANY subject is still an history degree and a degree that doesn't make the holder eligible to practice medicine within their discipline would not be recognized by the public as being a "doctor"'s degree. I really feel that this has to be the case here. Medical degree has meaning already within society, its not our job to change it, only to reflect if it has changed. ALSO, we have already agreed on criteria that says that the degree has to be called a "medical degree" by a reliable source, as we have defined them No changing no Naturstad!! Jwri has given a great deal here, it'd be a shame to not reach consensus now. Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I hadn't even considered that. Over the past few days we have been focusing on criteria for including/excluding types of clinical degrees. Perhaps a key destinction can be made between clinical medical degrees versus medical as an adjective describing another type of academic degree (a history degree to use your example). Others may argue that for simplicity sake a 'medical degree' is a clinical degree and a 'medical history degree' is a type of history degree and therefore does not belong on this page, but I am open to the possibilities. If we go with the former, then the word clinical could be inserted in the guidlines above: "This article lists only clinical medical degrees". If there is consensus to include non-clinical degrees, a new section could be opened up on the page. Naturstud (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've already agreed what is a medical degree and how to prove it!!!! Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The other concerns the term diploma. This seems too general to use by itelf.  For example, the UK is developing a new qualification starting this academic year which is generally known as The Diploma.  But this is a secondary qualification and I think that we are all wanting to talk about tertiary education here, right?  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the wordage in the box better explains the situation now Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my first box everybody! Naturstud (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many international variations to develop a hard and fast rule, Colonel. For example, here in Canada an MD is an undergraduate degree. Many MD students already have an undergraduate before they start medical school, but it is not required. Another example: the same CNME accredited naturopathic medical curriculam is offered as a degree in US universities and as a diploma at Canadian colleges. Perhaps the final line in the guidlines could be chaged to:
 * Check box above :-) Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the MD/MDCM degree in Canada. I have question, what about a degree in Public Health or Epidemiology in which you are practicing "population medicine"? Again, you don't work in a clinical environment... but you may be the one to make decisions that affect a population clinically through immunization programs or water flouridation, etc. Thoughts? Jwri7474 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they would fit the bill as they aren't the degree that enables the holder to be a doctor, the holder is already a doctor (usually) by virtue of one of the medical degrees. Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't decide about the non-clinical section. I suppose the question is do we beleieve that users looking for non-clinical degrees will benefit from finding them on a disambiguation page under the term 'medical degree'? Our usage-based standard can still apply. If it can be demonstrated that the term 'medical degree' is used to denote non-clinical degrees, then the case can be made that these non-clinical degrees should be thrown into the disambiguation mix. For example, If I read somewhere that:
 * "His cousin holds a medical degree in public health."
 * "McHill University offers a four year medical degree in jurisprudence."
 * "The Association of Medical Historians requires it's members to hold a medical degree."
 * ...I might very well benefit from seeing non-clinical degrees listed when I type 'medical degree' into wiki. Does anyone want to make the case that such examples of usage exist? (I invented the ones above.) The reason that I started this page is because I beleieved that terms like "dental medical degree" "naturopathic medical degree", "osteopathic medical degree" were widespread enough to justify a page disambiguating the term 'medical degree', and I thought it was misleading and inconvenient for a wikiuser to be redirected to the MD page when the user might concievably be looking for some other sort of medical degree. Do we anticipate users looking for non-clinical degreees to wind up on this disambiguation page? Naturstud (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think common sense should prevail. The reader who looks up medical degree can be assumed (yes, assumed) to be looking for clinical degrees. Just because a degree has some medical element to it (or even the word in its title [debatable maybe]) doesn't make it a medical degree. Look, we could go on for ever and ever about this or that degree and Jwri, Naturstad, Colonel that wouldn't get us too far. We have a set of criteria, let's use them for now ... another set of editors (or even yourselves) can take up the subject again if the situation changes. Fr33kman talk APW 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How about ...
This for the article;

And this for the talk page;

Fr33kman talk APW 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the dispute has resolved itself now
Guys, I think that the dispute has resolved itself now and I'd like to thank you both for the spirit of cooperation and compromise you have both shown! I don't think you need a third opinion any more. I'd just like to offer two points of advice for the future, if I may: Jwri, your motives are good, and I believe that you have no ill will in any of the edits you make on Wikipedia. I'd only suggest that you consider the manner in which you approach a potential conflict. Naturstad, I also believe that your motives are good and that you merely wish to show your profession in the context that it has reached in the real-world, and that's good. I'd only suggest to you, that you always ask yourself, "how will another editor who doesn't know me as a person but knows I'm a naturopath, see this edit? Will they think it's neutral?

I think that I should come back in a couple of days and see how things are and then archive this debate off of the main talk page so that new discussion can begin. See you both, good luck and good editing! :-)

Yours,

Fr33kman talk APW 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've left you both a thank you on your talk pages! Fr33kman talk APW 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who was that masked man? Naturstud (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)