Talk:Physician

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Miller, F. P. (2008), Luigi Galvani: Physician, physicist, Italy, Bologna, bioelectromagnetism, nervous system, genitourinary system, auditory system, comparative anatomy, Alphascript publishing Additional comments OCLC 695532583, ISBN 9786131767197.

This article is curiously messy. It is easy to be tempted by intuition here; is the antropologically conditioned fear of the doctors better, or higher knowing zipping through here? It's a disgrace for the physicists profession, isn't it? Personally I was looking for some clues about the history/historiography of the doctor as title, both in regard of medicine and elsewhere. I find the historic information amazingly scanty (per January 2011/Safari 1432). I believe something serious need to be done about this matter. My mind is tempted to start thinking it is symptomatic about the condition of the profession... Please... By the way, the title of the page would be better as Doctor of Meicine --Xact (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that chiropractors are not physicians, they are alternative medicine and are regarded publically as full of crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.239.158 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A unified physician education and qualification should assure gold sandard medical treatment of the patients. A physician/doctor(doctor of medicine) with gold standard board test(USMLE in USA) should be able to provide that. A unregulation in that area and two-tier providers compromise well being of socially unprotected people, and everyone should be offered same level basic medical care. A medical school (a school of physicians) is expensive but gold standard in preparing physicians. The future union of AOA to ACGME will provide that uniformity, hopefully but by providing gold standard test(USMLE) to all physicians, providing better medicine training to DO holders, offering evidence based manual therapy to MDs, hopefully granting MD degrees to all physicians who want to practice medicine and granting DO degree to those who want to use manual therapy routinely in practice or to do a osteopathic fellowship( a this time there are most of DO students and residents want to practice only evidence medicine that of MD, there is not enough offered MD slots for them so they ended up in DO route to accomplish the dream to become a physician)

Would the title of this page not be better as "Doctor of Medicine". As far as I am aware "Doctor of medicine" would be what people in the US first thought of if they were asked to describe who a doctor was, and (and here I have to admit I have to go on US dramas) people describe medical doctors as "doctors" more than they do physicians. Also in most other parts of the world physician has a more more defined role. Therefore the title most appropriate would surely be "Doctor of Medicine" as this would differentiate between someone who holds a doctorate. Judderman85 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

An "internist" refers to a physician who practices Internal Medicine. I changed D.O. from "Doctor of Osteopathy" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", which is the official title according to the American Osteopathic Association. A dentist is not a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathic medicine. Dentists attend dental schools which grant the D.M.D. or D.D.S. degree. --And a dentist is a doctor in Australia, while an Osteopath is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.17.106 (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Question: Is a dentist a specialization of physician?--User:LA2

Not in France (only the first year of studies is common to both professions). But there are specialized physicians (stomatologists) and surgeons (chirurgiens maxillo-faciaux) whose job overlaps more or less with that of dentists. Apokrif 11:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Other than the fact that we are naming types of doctors rather than medical specialties, this page duplicates medicine.

User:LA2: Yes, but we need a page that's titled "surgeon" because we want to document that a person was surgeon and the surgeon page could point to famous surgeons. So that page is part of a structure of physicians (this page), at the same time as it points to the art of surgery, which is part of the medicine structure. Which other way could we accomplish this? The words exist in our language (surgery and surgeon), so people will find need to link to them. We already have the same parallel structure with scientist and science and their subcategories.---- If you want a page for surgeon, then you have to add a link to this page like Surgeon

---

1. A physician is a rather American term. (From a historical perspective I don't see anything wrong with it, but it has largely fallen into disuse in Australia, and I suspect the UK as well.
2. Per se, I don't think a physician is someone "licensed" to practice medicine. A physician is someone qualified to practice medicine (the profession is much older than government registration of its members.)
3. The term "licensing" is an Americanism. We have the same thing in Australia, but its called "registration" here (I think its the same in the UK).

--- SJK

Yep, registration with the General Medical Council in the UK Derek

In Australia, we have a medical registration board in each state. --- SJK

---

Traditionally at least a GP is not a specialist; they are non-specialists, i.e. generalists. (Nowadays medical education is offering specialist training as a GP, but I still wouldn't say they count as a specialist -- for one thing, they don't get to charge anywhere near as much.)

Also, whats an "internist"? -- SJK

---

Minor spelling matter - I changed practice to practise, and it got changed back. As far as I'm aware, a doctor practises in a practice, by analogy to advise and advice. No? -- Khendon

Khendon - you are right - I accidentally lost your change due to an edit conflict between me & you. I think I've corrected it now. --- SJK

If you live outside the US that's true. Inside the US you practise in a practise. -- Derek

   No, in the US you practice in a practice. Practise isn't a word in American English. 

---

What does this mean? (in the French section) "he can make replacements of liberal phsicians" Thortful 01:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Doesn't this article cover at least part of the same ground as doctor?

That article should be merged with this one, since this is a more appropriate title. --Jiang 02:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph clearly shows that "doctor" is a more appropriate title than "physician", since the latter is used in far fewer countries than the former.

Unneccessarily Americo-centric. JS.Farrar 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Doctor in the United States can refer equally to both a physician or a holder of a doctorate. It is common in America for one person addressed by another person as "Doctor" to have to explain to a third person in the conversation which one they are.

Also, please keep in mind that American English speakers are a supermajority (more than 2/3rds) of native English speakers (see English language), so reversing the current arrangement would confuse and frustrate a far larger number of Wikipedia users. --Coolcaesar 05:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As may be. Are we recording human knowledge, or insular Americans' prejudices? JS.Farrar 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm simply trying to point out that your argument fails for lack of universalization in the Kantian sense---it breaks down when one considers how each individual user (based on the probability of whom that user would be) would actually react to the proposed change. --Coolcaesar 22:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is confused between the American use of the term physician to mean medical practitioner, and the British (and other) use of the term physician to mean what in the US is called an internist. I think the article should be split, with one entitled Medical Practitioner for the American use of the word physician, as Medical Practitioner is a non-ambiguous term which applies to all, but only all, doctors who have passed MB ChB/MBBS/MD/DO/etc, and indeed (in Britain) is the legal term for what is popularly called a "medical doctor". A separate page should be created for internist/physician which explains the other use of the word physician. Obviously both pages should link to one another. Ceiriog 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlaps with General_practitioner#France: generalities about the first six years of medical studies should be addressed only in Physician.

Currently information regarding medical education and training is scattered amongst a number of articles. This information is at best duplicated, but a better description would be "fractured". Medical education and training vary considerably across the world, however the info in the various articles is often U.S.-specific. In an attempt to consolidate information regarding medical education and training, I have begun combining information regarding med ed/training into country-specific overview articles.

Today I have combined the information in the U.S. section of this article with the information in the U.S. section of Medical school into Medical education in the United States.

Cheers, --Daveb 09:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your proposed revisions. We have a similarly confused mess in the articles on Lawyer, bar association, Juris Doctor, Admission to the bar, and so on (which I will fix when I have 6 hours to go through all of them). --Coolcaesar 18:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While cleaning up the disambiguation page Doctor (disambiguation) I noted that virtually all links to Doctor intend point here. After cleaning up those links to directly point here, I have pointed Doctor to this page and added a link to the disambiguation at the top. Kershner 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart surgeons are already being replaced by robots. http://www.dlmag.com/1653/robot-successfully-completes-unassisted-heart-surgery.html

This is my first ever effort at editing Wikipedia, so I hope I haven't made too many errors. As a physician myself (in both senses), I found the previous entry didn't explain clearly enough how the word has different meanings, especially inside versus outside North America. The web links show how different authorities use the word differently. I haven't yet entered any etymological references; I'll eventually try to do so. My school days are long gone, but I think both physician and physics have a common origin via Latin in an ancient Greek adjective. I rather like the old word physic — when used as a verb it used to have the connotation of a purge (laxative)! DavidB 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As promised, I've added some etymological references. DavidB 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it safe to put in the introduction on the Physician page that a Physician is someone who has a doctoral degree in medicine… rather than how it is written now?Vishwajraval (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title of the word is inaccurate. As a physician in training in the UK, a physician is a specialises in internal medicine, in the same way a surgeon is a specialises in surgery. The more accurate title of this page is "Medical doctor". Cremebrulee92 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, medical doctors do not necessarily graduate with doctoral degrees. In the UK, in order to practice medicine, one requires a Bachelor or Medicine Bachelor of Surgery degree, often shortened to MBBS or BMBS or MBBChir, depending on where you graduated from. It is not a doctoral degree in the sense of a PhD. I know in some countries medical students graduate with an MD, but that is an additional research qualification that most UK doctors do as a postgraduate qualification. Cremebrulee92 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what it's called! Darkwhistle 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it referred to as a "head mirror". Figma 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head mirrors are (or were)used for ear, nose & throat examination; a bright light was positioned adjacent to the patient's head, and reflected off the mirror, which has a hole in the middle and is positioned in front of the doctor's eye of choice. The bright light is thus reflected approximately parallel to the line of sight of that eye, to provide hands-free illumination. They take quite a bit of experience to use well, and are used much less now, as other techniques are available.DavidB 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why head mirror redirects here, especially since it isn't even mentioned in the article... anywhere. It should be moved, and I'm going to do it if no one objects.Drchazz (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Medicine has arguably thrown up more serial killers than all the other professions put together." - This phrase is met in various forms in the following books:

• Sitpond M. Addicted to murder. The true story of Dr Harold Shipman. London: Virgin, 2000.
• Whittle BC, Ritchie J. Prescription for murder. The true story of mass murderer Dr Harold Frederick Shipman. London: Warner, 2000.
• Linedecker CL, Burt BA. Nurses who kill. New York: Windsor, 1990.
• Hickey EW. Serial murderers and their victims. In: Washington DC: Wadsworth, 1997:142.

I would like to add it to the article but am unsure where it would fit most appropriately, any suggestions? Malick78 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, but this information does not seem appropriate, to me, for this encyclopedia article. Perhaps if there were a study supporting these claims, it would be appropriate for the Serial killer article. Figma 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Medical Journal is happy to publish an article on this topic so I think we should be able to mention it. Also, since it is physicians who are seen as most likely to be serial killers, then it is a point suitable to both the serial killer and physician pages. Lastly, when the UK's two most prolific serial killers were Drs Harold Shipman and John Bodkin Adams, with 400+ deaths between them to their names, this is too important an issue to ignore.Malick78 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I too disagree with the inclusion of these assertions, which I consider out of place in what should be a fairly uncontroversial article on the meaning and rôle of physician. As Figma suggests above, perhaps these issues would be better placed in the serial killer entry; I am going to remove them from this article, as has been done before. --DavidB 08:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBetty (talk • contribs) [reply]

• What is controversial? Or did you mean unpalatable? Five sources suggests little potential controversy, and one is from the BMJ! If they are happy mentioning it why shouldn't we be? We are here to promote truth, and the truth is that serial killers are more likely to be doctors than vets (as noted here!). I feel a whitewash is being attempted here. What is the point in a 'regulation' section without explicitly pointing out its reasons and past failings?
• The BMJ is a well-known but very general medical journal (which I read); it is not an encyclopaedia. The topic is physician, not the prevalence or otherwise of medical mass murderers.DavidB 08:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBetty (talk • contribs)
• Of course it's not an encyclopaedia. It's also not a fish... Most sources in wikipedia aren't encyclopaedias. What's your point? It's respected and authoritative. Yes the article is about physicians, but hey, this fact pertains to physicians and thus is very relevant. Just think, why are both of the UK's most prolific murderers doctors? Malick78 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another article about physicians being prone to being killers is here. I really think this should be covered in the article.Malick78 10:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this debate, although it's died down: No; interesting as it may be, the information about medical serial killers should not go in. What if another survey found that an unusually high proportion of physicians liked classical music, for example? Or that more of them tended to have car insurance? Or that for some reason they tended to prefer red wine to white? Would we put this information in? No. This is an article on physicians. It should not be cluttered up with information pertaining to a tiny fraction of them. Malick78 should learn some elementary philosophy. If most philosophers are Greek, this does not mean that most Greeks are philosophers. Likewise, if most (or even many) serial killers are physicians, this does not mean that most physicians are serial killers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.238.13 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions to this entry have been embarrasingly political and far from academic. Its sooo important to stand alone - to perceive yourself as being superior. MDs just adore the idea that they can somehow be ALL healthcare, though they fail miserably in their attempt. Here and across the US they are crusading in an attempt to commandeer the title Physician, as if there is some logical basis. The embarrassing political fight over the term notwithstanding, the word "physician" existed long before the designation "M.D."

Overextending scope compromises patient well being. The focus on annoying and fruitless turf wars compromises good care as it results in the misrepresention of capability to the public. There is a dangerous arrogance generated in this non-academic climate. M.D.s will rarely stoop to hear non-MD recommendations, even when they are clearly appropriate.

Case in point: My chiropractic colleague has a diplomate in neurology (states that they take the same national board as MD neurologists). I brought in a relative whom he said demonstrated Parkinsonian syndrome. These symptoms started shortly after he began taking three psychotropic medication prescriptions simultaneously, to treat mild depression. The MD wouldn't listen to my chiropractic neurologist's concerns, stating without discussion that the treatment was 'appropriate.' Here an MD refuses consider reasonable issues raised by a non-MD provider, arrogantly defending his own authority. Four years later, the patient is still pill-rolling, but on one side and without progression. Still the MD won't listen. Finally, the patient decides on his own to go cold turkey. 6 months later, his shaking is reduced to mild and occasional.

I wouldn't think of going to an MD for foot surgery. I would never go to a psychiatrist. From an MD, I would never seek nutritional counciling, osseous manipulation or even wellness care recommendations. The true specialists in these areas are vastly superior.

Dentists, podiatrists, osteopaths, allopaths and chiropractors all have to clear equally high hurdles to get where they are. Any REAL and OBJECTIVE review of the cirricula will easily prove that. As the term dictates, these providers are healers in the TRUE sense of the term physician. Physician root derivation refers to healing, curing, treating.

So keep on altering this Wiki entry in violation of guidelines. Delete when you have no proof or logical justification. Your single-minded and politically motivated determination to stand alone will help to screw up the credibility of this site as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NickM61 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I fail to see how your personal bias helps this dsicussion. However to clarify a few things:

Both the MD and the DC were mistaken: the patient did not have Parkinson's Syndrome and three psychotropics are not appropiate treatment for mild depression. If the patient was taking a medication that altered dopamine levels in the CNS hand tremor could happen (conjecture as you did not specify the medications). The standard of care for depression is to treat with one medication initally (usually a SSRI), and if after adequate time at a therapeutic dose symptoms persist change to another class of antidrepesant or auguement with other medications. And for treatment resistant depression try ECT. If the patients tremor persisted after cessation of medications, further work up could be considered based on the tremor (it could just be benign tremor: no treatment indicated)

Also your DC friend can not be certified by the same board as a neurologist. They are certifed by the ABPN, and only individuals who completed a residency in Neurology or Psychiatry may sit for that exam.

Also it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of psychotropic medication is not prescribed by psychiatryst, rather by primary health care providers that include: NP, PA, GP, and by non psychiatryst MDs. I find antipsychitryst views offensive, harmful and misinformed. Psychiatry is a subspecialty of medicine that requieres four years of training afer finshing medical school, and includes training in psychiatrich illness, neurological conditions, medical conditions that may cause or affect psychiatrict conditions, psychopharmacology and psychotherapy.

I do agree with you on that fact that denstists, podiatrist, DOs and MDs have very extensive trainings, that include pharmachology, human anatomy and physiology,biochemistry, the interpretation of laboratory tests and radiological imaging,and surgical training among many others. The trainig of DCs or NDs while adequate for the scope of their practice is not as comprehensive, as evidenced by their lack of prescibing priveleges or non surgical training.

Posted by Edalmc 5/22/07

Yes all have training in anatomy, physiology, etc. But only medical doctors go into extensive depth and understanding, rather than a superficial acquainting with body systems that others, even dentists undergo. Dare I say, they only learn these things as if to legitimise their claims as health care providers. And psychiatry is not a subspecialty of medicine, in the strict sense of medicine being 'internal medicine'. Medical subspecialties are cardiology, nephrology, respiratory, etc. Psychiatrists are their own specialty and have a seperate college. Hxseek 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is offensive against any bona-fide, real doctors that this article includes osteopaths as physicians. Any country in the world outside the US would laugh at such a notion. However, i am not surprised that such herb-pushers are called 'doctors' in America, where any scam that has the potential to be sold will be wrapped up and packaged as a legitimate entity. Hxseek 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: In the US, DO's ( or osteopathic physicians) are essentially indistinguishable from MD's. They receive the same education apart from an extra class on the hands on techniques. They can even pursue allopathic residencies if they choose to do so. They are not "herb-pushers" as you may descibe Naturopaths. This is clearly stated in the article. Your anti-American sentiment is very apparent, but please do not confuse a Doctor of Osteopathy(rest of the world) to a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine(US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.211.121 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'other designations' Doctor of Osteopathy D.O. Degree is a physician there is no difference between standard Medical Degree vs. Doctor of Osteopath Degree.Tariq A NayfehMD (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the current Physician as any medical practitioner section it reads :

Especially in North America, the title physician is now widely used in the broad sense, and applies to any legally qualified and licensed practitioner of medicine. In the United States and Canada, the term physician is used to describe those holding the degrees of Doctor of Medicine (MD) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO).

Is that not sufficient? Dawn Bard (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly stated in the article the countries, particularly in the United States and Canada osteopathic physicians is a physician.

Both statements is valid to the edit to Physician as any medical practitioner section particularly in the United States and Canada.Tariq A NayfehMD (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the article without consensus again. Please stop. You don't have consensus for these edits, and you are breaking the three-revert rule and engaging in sockpuppetry. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I have moved the comment on osteopaths from the first, etymology section to later on the page. This is not because I thought the comment was inappropriate; it was because etymology = where the word 'physician' comes from, and because ostoepathy was also mentioned further down. I'm a 'real doctor', but I don't find it offensive to explain that to some Americans, the word physician also covers osteopaths (+/- chiropracters & podiatrists). Equally, one should point out that this usage is rare outside the USA. (2) Some months ago, I made a big edit on this page about the different modern uses of the word 'physician'. This still seems to cause confusion, so I have tried to improve clarity on these meanings, by enumerating them, plus making a few other rather minor changes.

suggestion: (3) Create a separate page on medical education (= education of physician sensu lato = any medial practitioner before specialization), and move most of the current education section of this page to the new page. Detailed stuff on education of physician sensu stricto could be under internal medicine.

--DavidB 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- I've just realised there IS a page on medical education, though a brief one. The suggestion about moving most of section 3 still applies, though.

--DavidB 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just added an extension to the etymology section, with a bit on the various synonyms for physician and their derivations.

I also note that an addition has been made to the first section, concerning what i would call the sociology of medicine and recruitment of its practitioners. Should this be included here, in a section on its own, or in a section under the article on medicine?

--DavidB 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Acording to the BLS in the united states, the average physician makes significantly more money than the average MBA, lawyer, and CA. The introduction need editing. Also, perceptions of prestige and parental drive to enter the field are far to subjective for the introduction to this topic

It may not be strictly encyclopedic, but it's also very true. While I only have personal experience, certain high school students are put under great pressure to study med by their parents. I do not have suitable encyclopedic evidence (hence, it can't be included in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunny01 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a very brief new section on social status, mving & editing the stuff in the previous introduction into this new section.--DavidB 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBetty (talk • contribs)

The article incorrectly states that doctor

is a contraction of the Greek διδάκτωρ (didaktōr = teacher), from the verb διδάσκειν (didaskein = to teach).

This is untrue. As any first year Latin student could tell you, doctor comes from the fourth principle part of the Latin verb doceō, docēre. It is related to the Greek noun and verb listed above, but it most certainly isn't a contraction! My Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the etymology of doctor as simply [DOCEO + OR.]

--76.247.74.142 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that - the principle is the same in imperator ("ruler", "he who rules"), formed from the past participle imperatus,a,um of the verb imperare; other examples are venator ("hunter", "he who hunts") from venari, conservator ("he who conserves, keeps up") or saltator ("dancer", "he who dances") from saltare. Women would, strictly speaking, be referred to by adding a -rix, hence doctrix ("she who teaches"), imperatrix ("she who rules"), venatrix ("she who hunts"), conservatrix ("she who conserves") or saltatrix ("she who dances"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.99.85 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some trepidation, I suggest that, even in the USA, Nurse practitioners are not generally described as physicians, despite a few recent edits to the contrary. Surely a good authority in this matter would be the American College of Nurse Practitioners, and certainly they do not describe themselves in this way. I'll try to make an edit (in the subsection on Osteopaths etc) mentioning that NPs often do work similar to some physicians, especially in primary care.

--DavidB 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, in fact (in western countries at least) NPs and PAs are mid level practitioners. In a primary care setting a NP or PA often deals with much of the time consuming work that does not require personal attention by the physician. It is actually considered misrepresentation for a NP or a PA to identify themselves as a physician, similar to if a medical clerk put themselves forward as a nurse. ChillyMD (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely medical practitioners, but that doesn't mean they are described as "physicians." Can you provide some sources that refer to NPs or PAs as "physicians?" SDY (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are none, in fact in the US trying to imply otherwise is a good way for a PA/NP to lose their license.Fuzbaby (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAs are definitely medical practitioners but that doesn't mean they are described as "physicians." Can you provide some sources that refer to them as "physicians?"WikiWikipatelMD (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants are prepared in completely separate fashions. PA's are prepared as assistants to a Physician while a NP is prepared as an equal or at least an equal generalist to the Physician. The term Physician is legally protected by a strong Medical Association lobby, so at least in the United States an NP is not going to be referred to as a Physician in literature and a PA will never be referred to as anything but a Physician's Assistant. It would not be fallacious to include Nurse Practitioners as one of the many types of Physicians for an appropriate and unbiased article. However if you require an AMA article to prove validity of the terminology you will have to accept the automatic bias. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 05:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this statement. NP's are not physicians. They were trained to function in a role similar to a PA. It has only been with the increased demand for primary care providers and strong nursing lobbies that NP's have gained independent practice in some states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.202.174 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumone put up summin saying "hey my name is jj :)" && I cant remove it. smiles, miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.192.202 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that edit yesterday. Try refreshing your browser with Crtl+F5. (EhJJ)^TALK 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits that question the etymology previously given, by saying that the old English word for physician "may" live on as the modern word for a type of parasite. There is little doubt about it. Please check the references given: OED or Shorter OED.

--DavidB 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else to call him/her. Does anyone else see the merits of edits like this? A physician holds an MD, and a dentist is a primary care practitioner. The edit summary didn't make sense to me either. WLU (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has continued to edit war/vandalize this article. They refuse to contribute to the talk page nor cite/source any of their edits. This user has been warned by many many other users before on their user talk page but simply continues to blank the warnings.

• Can we have a community consensus/poll here to decide if we want to revert the vandalism edits from this user and to protect this page from further editing? Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a direct report to WP:AIV - the inappropriate use of disambiguation templates, poor choice of a heading, complete lack of any willingness to engage in any discussion in any venue, and ongoing page blanking suggests they're not here to help wikipedia, they're here to play a game. In fact, I'll ask my favourite go-to admin what she thinks. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This older meaning is common outside of the USA: see the actual article for details.

The entry used to have a section on it, but I discovered this had been deleted without any explanation in this discussion page, apparently on 22 September 2008 by someone at 204.133.176.94

I suggest that restoring the section makes the article more accurate, and also makes the adjacent sections more sensible.

DavidB 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks better, and makes the article less USA focused.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just removed this recent edit from the 'physician & surgeon' section: "The 'Royal insitution of surgeons also known as RIOS' are a group of surgeons who have the advanced knowledge of body's anatomy".

First, I can find no reference to such an institution -- there are various royal 'colleges' of surgeons but not as far as I know any such 'institution'. Secondly, even if such a body exists, this section is on synonyms for 'physician', not surgery as a discipline. --DavidB 07:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this usage now common in SE Asia, and if so, where? Local experts, please help…

Today I removed an anonymous edit, originating in Singapore according to the geolocate tool, suggesting that the broad, newer use of physician was common in Singapore & Thailand. My limited experience of physicians (in either sense) from Malaysia & Singapore is that (unlike in the Philippines) they often follow British precendent in English medical jargon. If not, & especially if there is a reference for this, then perhaps a new sentence could be added at the end of the section, along the lines of "This same recent, broad use of the word physician is reportedly becoming common in Southeast Asia, notably in Singapore and Thailand, where the English used is primarily British English, with increasing American English influences."

DavidB 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This section looks like a lot of speculation without proper references. Jddriessen (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely - so much so that I removed it. Not only was it unsourced, dubious information, but I can't really see why it belonged in the "Social role" section. For reference, here is what I deleted:

The practice of medicine has ancient associations with religion and magic; see article on History of medicine. Medical practitioners are also often considered to be socially conservative. One curious example of these traditions is this symbol for prescriptions or treatment, still in common use by modern physicians. It is probably derived from the following hieroglyph, the Eye of Horus.

Doctors using it are perhaps thus invoking (unwittingly for the most part) an ancient Egyptian god—Horus— in a spell many thousands of years old. Or it may simply be the combination of the letters P and X, a possible short hand for the word prescribe(from the Medieaval Latin praescribere): P standing for PRE-before, and X for SCRIBE -to write. X, in this case, functions as a common mark standing in for the written word in general, but may refer to the personal signature of the prescribing authority (the physician), or it may function algebraically alluding to a specific value: the quantity and dosage of the material prescribed.

I don't think this belongs in the Physician article even if reliable sources can be found. It's tangentially related at best. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that this page can be completely protected? The sockpuppet abuse here is nuts. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody noticed that the article repeats itself? It's like someone copied and pasted the same article underneath the original one. Perhaps someone should sort it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.80.36 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out; I've cleaned it up. --DavidB 04:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Today, I have also restored (with a few minor changes) a lot of deletions by an anonymous editor at 70.21.193.5 (at Jersey City, New Jersey on the Geolocate tool); there were no notes on this page as to why the deletions should have been made. --DavidB 05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this IP removing content? There is no descrition in the edit summary. I'm not about to get into a edit war with an IP, can anyone help? I've left a message on the IP page.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it somewhat, with 3 subsections. I've also removed the stub warning -- which I placed in May last year. I was hoping someone else would add a bit but no-one took the hint. I'll add some more references in the next week or so. --DavidB 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some references from the medical anthropology literature. Some of these may be hard to get, but they are all within the collection of the library of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in Sydney, so large university libraries may also have them.--DavidB 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I am partly restoring the deletions made, on 5th September, of earlier additions to Physician in the Social Role section. Reasons in the edit comment were 'Partial revert per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:UNDUE of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE'.

Concerning WP:QUOTEFARM, I have shortened the quotations, but I disagree that they are irrelevant. In particular: (1), Sir William Osler was one of the greatest physicians who ever lived, and was partly responsible for making Johns Hopkins arguably the best medical school in the world (I'm writing this from Australia). His words from a century ago still describe, elegantly and almost perfectly, the need for humanity in the practice of scientific medicine. Hippocrates, and by implication medical ethics, are not mentioned anywhere else in this article. Also (2), Shakespeare's words from Cymbeline show simply that physicians have their own issues with mortality — if anyone can put this in better words, then please by all means do so! And (3), R. D. Laing is surely not one of my personal heroes, but he has a still-strong reputation as a social commentator.

Concerning WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, I am hoping that these worries may not be well founded. As a specialist physician sensu stricto, I have no personal interest in vitalism or CAM. If anyone thinks that the wording implies support for these views, then that was not my intention so please re-word it. However, it was precisely in an attempt to preserve a proper Wikipedia NPOV that I thought it warranted to include a brief discussion with references on these matters. As for world view, there is a vast literature on medical anthropology, and the sources I referenced are thoroughly respectable ones. The term biomedicine is now well established, as is the term medical model. Like many practitioners of 'biomedicine', I am normally too busy — or at least uninterested in other world views — to have previously read any of this literature.

--DavidB 07:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Today I have restored the article to the state it was left by CLuebot on 0728, 22/9/09. Since then — a week ago — about 15 kilobytes have been deleted without any attempted explanation here . The article may need protection again.

--DavidB 08:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done the same restoration again (including this subsection and another ('Other designations') that has been in the article for over a year), back to what user:Cubs197 left it at 0906 today. I am requesting the article be protected

--DavidB 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted these 2 sentences: Chiropractors are not physicians. Those who hold Medicine degrees are, including MD, DO and DPM.

They directly contradict the sentence before, which has been on the page for many months. The matter is also discussed in the 'other designations' subsection later in the article. I'm neither a chiropractor nor from the USA, so lack local knowledge and would appreciate someone sorting this out — with proper references.

--DavidB 04:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really unclear and needs some context. My guess is that what they meant was that definitions under law (USC) include chiropractors, but no one else does. This should probably be cited and explained.

I'm also a little confused as to why the equivalent French expression is really all that important for the article in English. There are equivalent expressions in many languages, why should we single out French? SDY (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractors are NOT physicians in the United States. They generally lack full hospital privileges. They are despised by most real physicians (M.D.'s and D.O.'s) as incompetent quacks who lacked the science and math grades to get into medical, dental, or veterinary school.

I've seen chiropractor patient records and was horrified by their consistently poor quality. They were full of misspellings, grammar errors, and plain stupid diagnostic conclusions that would be obviously wrong to anyone who passed high school biology. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have the time to research this issue right now as I already have my hands full with trying to fix Law of the United States and Lawyer.--Coolcaesar (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent 5 minutes figuring this out. Chiropractors are NOT included in any definition of physician in the United States Code. Plus, the USC would not be the correct context as there has not yet been blanket federal preemption of state regulation of the health care professions. There is only limited preemption in particular contexts like the Controlled Substances Act. I've edited the article accordingly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting this out!

I've also partially restored a modified reference to the French cognate expression for doctor of medicine, removed earlier by SDY with comment above. As explained in the article, the word 'physician' itself entered English via French after the Norman Conquest; there has long been a great deal of linguistic and other cultural exchange across the Channel that is still relevant to the history and practice of medicine, and to other callings such as law, and so which may well be suitable for an encyclopaedia. --DavidB 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't don't care that much, it's just that many other cultural exchanges have contributed to medicine far more than the Anglo-French connection, and the etymology is basically wp:trivia. It's harmless enough, but etymology is usually the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias unless it is controversial or critical to understanding the concept. SDY (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the posts above (in that chiropractors were not considered as physicians at the time the posts were made), this is no longer the case. I know the chiropractic critics here are going to be furious hearing this, but the Joint Commission has allowed allowed chiropractors to be considered as "physicians". This means that chiropractor (in most US states) no longer have to specify that they are "chiropractic physicians", and can just say that they are "physicians". I am going to edit the article and provide a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.176 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DEGREE DO CHIROPRACTOR'S RECEIVE? DC = DOCTOR OF CHIROPRACTIC SIMPLE MATH GUYS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.51.139 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The titles "doctor" and "physician" are not the same. For instance, where I live chiropractors can call themselves "doctors" but not "physicians". Likewise a dentist or an optometrist can also call themselves a "doctor" but not a "physician".

In 2009, the American Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations published a document titled "Hospital definition of physician" [1] (the full text is available as a pdf online: [2]). The source describes the recent inclusion of chiropractors and optometrists into the definition of physician in the United States. This certainly seems worth giving mention in the article.Puhlaa (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mention is fine with me, but it needs to be balanced with opinions from notable groups that oppose this recognition which I'd imagine exist somewhere. Jesanj (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jesanj that articles should be balanced with opposing and notable views. However, I think that this article is already balanced. There is one sentence to give mention to the inclusion of chiro's into the hospital definition, this is followed by one sentence that mentions that some medical organizations have criticized the addition of chiropractic.[3] I think that any further mention of this topic in the article might be giving the topic too much weight. As for the subsequent discusion of Swiss Chiro's, while I know they go to medical school with all other Swiss medical doctors (chiropractic is a medical specialty there), I do not know anything about how the term 'physician' is applied in that country. I thus limit my input to the discussion of American Chiro's.Puhlaa (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, not naming the organizations which opposed the decision (as an indication of the prominence of the opposing viewpoint) could give undue weight to the Joint Commission. Jesanj (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...that said, the source provided only states:

• " Some physician groups have expressed their concern about The Joint Commission’s use of the Medicare definition of physician. The Joint Commission understands these concerns; however, any future changes to the standards, EPs, or the Glossary definition will be made within the context of The Joint Commission’s recently extended hospital Medicare deeming authority. Organizations and practitioners should understand the current Glossary definition of physician reflects the language of a section of the Social Security Act that is for the purpose of reimbursement. The use of this definition by The Joint Commission does not either expand or contract any health care practitioner’s license or scope of practice, nor is it meant to have any other purpose than that related to the specific EP in which it appears."

A quick search of the internet has not yielded any additional details, however, if it is found then I agree that the names of the specific physician groups could be included. On a slightly different topic, if no one objects I am going to change the text in the article to better reflect the above quoted source. I think it important to mention that this change in definition does not translate into a change in scope of practice.Puhlaa (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that source but here is an older citation and source. I think there is information in the PDF worthy of inclusion. I wonder what the relationship between hospital privledges and the JC's decision is, if any. Jesanj (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] could prove useful, though it is focused on just one state. Jesanj (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that both the older sources you provided are too outdated (>20 years old) to be informative now. The sources are an analysis of medical groups like chiropractors fighting for hospital priveledges. This 'fight' has evolved alot over 20 years, for example:

1. Chiropractors are now ubiquitous in America's Veteran Hospitals [5]&[6]
2. Forty-three states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have at least one hospital each with chiropractic services [7]
3. There have been successful attempts to integrate chiropractic clinics into some publicly-funded Canadian hospitals [8]

As for the JC's decision to include chiropractic in the definition of physician, it has no relationship with chiropractic scope of practice, licensing, or hospital priveledges. The JC's decision is purely meant to standardize the language of America's definition of physician for insurance reimbursement purposes. What I think is needed here, based on your earlier comment, is a source from 2009-2011 that names specific 'physician groups' that object to the joint commissions modification of the definition of physician. I thought this is an attempt to reduce the weight given to the JC in the article. Puhlaa (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported apparent vandalism on 7 November 2009 by someone at 81.242.227.79 (?Brussels on Geolocate); this quite unexplained edit deleted about 16 kilobytes (3/5 of the article) and 20 references, and is similar to deletions made by Nq0x77, a now-banned sock puppet. I reverted to the 36,331 bytes version of 5 November 2009 by User:Hordaland . --DavidB 01:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do wish the folk who keep on deleting 16 kilobytes with 20 references would explain or at least attempt to discuss the matter first -- here! I've requested semiprotection. --DavidB 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to be more explicit that not everyone called a physican has a doctorate (outside of the US, the corresponding educations typically lead to non-doctor titles/degrees) and that the term "doctor" is often an inappropriate collequialism. In addition, it may be worth pointing the difference between true academic doctors (e.g. Ph.D.'s) and professional doctorates (which do not give the right to use the title "doctor" in e.g. Germany). This in particular as non-US countries often have a Ph.D. level "doctor of medicine" which a qualified physician can chose to embark on after his graduation.

(The article is currently write-protected, so I cannot take action myself.) 88.77.154.117 (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Although it might be informative to describe what medical practitioners are called in various jurisdictions. When it comes to the title in question there are significant differences between jurisdictions: In some it is truly a colloquialism to refer to a physician or surgeon by the title. In others the title has legal protection. I do not believe you can generalize it as a colloquialism given the number of the latter. Germany may not be the best example for your point as at the time of this edit many PhD programs earned in the United States also do not enable the holder to use the title in Germany. 212.51.199.246 (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the introduction poem or quote by Hippocrates really necessary? Too me it sort of makes the article a bit messy. Renaissancee (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We define 'physician' as one who practices medicine, but later as one who holds an MD. There are people who practice medicine without an MD, and MDs who do not practice medicine. This is relevant say at Michael Crichton, an MD who IMO is not a physician; nonetheless, he is listed an a physician in his article, with a link here.

Do we have a policy as to who we call 'physicians' in their bios? — kwami (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a general practitioner definition Lepanta (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is listed as a country in which the medical profession "regulates itself". It does NOT. The General Medical Council is now largely formed of laypersons, who judge the medical profession. I am therefore altering the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchriseades (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The article titled Physicians has several errors and an obvious bias. Although the article is artfully written, the bias seeps through. The result is a distorted definition of the word Physician.

Every article in the Wikipedia should list the names of the editor and any review board members, educational history, all degrees held, area(s) of expertise, length of time he/she has been employed in each area of declaired expertise, employment history, professional organizations he/she belongs to, payments from any third parties that could influence their editing practices, a list of any conflict of interest that may inject bias into the content he/she submits and/or editorial decisions he/she has made, etc.

Who is chief editor for this article? Is there a board that reviews the content for this article? How can I contact each one to discuss the problems with this article?

Respectfully,

Michael Springer

Michael Springer (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for Citizendium. Wikipedia gives experts no special privileges. You are welcome to clean up any edits to the article if you can find reliable sources that support your edits. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mikebmr seems to have a problem with chiropractors and osteopathic physicians. He keeps removing those sections even though they are relevant and are cited by legitimate websites. It is wikipedia's duty to have as full of an explanation of what a physician is as possible. In the US, not only MD's are physicians, DO's and DC's are also physicians (as per the Joint Commission). In Switzerland chiropractors now go the University of Zurich Medizinstudium (google translation: medical school) (http://www.uzh.ch/studies/application/medicine.html). Don't like it... too bad. Suck it up, because this is cited. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.13 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor above. The section continually beiing deleted by mikebmr is sourced to a 2009 publication by the American Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [9] (the full text is available as a pdf online: [10]). The source is titled "Hospital definition of physician" and is a description of the recent inclusion of chiropractors and optometrists in the definition of physician. This certainly seems worth giving mention in the article. Puhlaa (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be editted to show that NP's and PA's are medical practioners, rather than physicians. Clearly NP's and PA's are not physicians. They are MID LEVEL medical practioners. Please see that this page is editted correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.4.17 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPs and PAs are not medical practitioners as they cannot practice medicine - the practice of medicine is limited to MD/DO's or those with similar degrees from other countries. They can practice nursing (for NPs) and general healthcare (PAs) but not medicine. Drgitlow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to vary by country and jurisdiction, as well as the difinition of "practice of medicine", but in many jurisdictions (e.g. Canada NPs can diagnose and treat certain medical conditions without direct involvement of an MD or DO. Maybe you define "nursing" very broadly, or live in a place that more severely restricts NPs. In either case, I don't think this requires amendment of our article here. -- Scray (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should have individual sections about mid-level practitioners; they are clearly not physicians, and it would be confusing to readers to include a section on them as if they are. This is not a discussion of medical practitioners or providers in general; we don't discuss nursing, therapists, phlebotomists, or any other medical providers here, either. Yobol (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There is already a Health care provider article covering that topic. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Nurse-practitioners have requested to not be called mid-level providers and are only categorized as such in the United States. To say a Nurse is the same as a Nurse Practitioner or the same as a Phlebotomist is ridiculous and shows obvious bias. This information has been a part of this article for a long time and for the sake of the reader needs to remain. If you don't like its presentation then you are welcome to change how its phrased or listed, but to remove it is to do a disservice to the article. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What nurse practitioners have in common with registered nurses, dentists, chiropractors, physical therapists, phlebotomists, psychiatric technicians, etc. is that they are not physicians. Rather, they are members of allied health professions who for whatever reason (lack of motivation, energy, interest or money) didn't go to medical school and then survive years of grueling internships, fellowships, and residencies in order to understand the human body at a level that the vast majority of mere mortals can only dream of. This is an article about physicians, not losers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are completely unbiased. "losers" really? | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to attack or belittle people who are not physicians. However, it remains a fact that NPs are not physicians and do not belong in this article. You can follow the dispute resolution process if you disagree, but it appears consensus is against inclusion of this material. Yobol (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion is definitely justified and there is no "consensus against inclusion of this material". | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I feel it is irresponsible to allow the article to be shaped by a current legal definition instead of a general overview of practice. The introduction paragraph appropriately welcomes such a section. Like I have said before, if you want to include wording that says something to the effect of being considered non-physicians then that's fine, but to completely remove the section is not appropriate. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to follow the dispute resolution process I linked to above. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this isn't an article about the general overview of the practice of medicine, this is a discussion of physicians. I'm at a loss to see how it is appropriate or relevant to discuss other professions here. I have also asked for input from WP:MED. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this isn't a general overview article, and since we're supposed to be bold in removing off-topic material, I'll do that. Biosthmors (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition of physician is exactly where this article should be centered. WP is not the place to advocate for a change in a definition. If reliable sources change the definition of physician, then WP can reflect that. I'm not aware of a preponderance of reliable sources that describe nurse practitioners as physicians. -- Scray (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note at WT:MED. I agree that the section is inappropriate as placed. However, I also believe that we need a section on related occupations, which include not only nurse practitioners, but also physician assistants and clinical officers, to set the context by comparing and contrasting them with physicians. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of the section in its current form. There's good cause for discussing noctors (UK medical slang: non-doctors) working in doctor roles, but it needs a broader treatment including the loss of training opportunities for junior medical staff. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of physician in the lead is vague and needs to be clarified. As it stands, a nurse practitioner could fit the description. I think a short blurb on mid-levels may be appropriate, but I don't think this section is the best way in its current form and placement. I would like to add that Yobol's early declaration of consensus was completely baseless.--Taylornate (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article needs a section titled "In health systems" that could talk about the work relationships/divisions of labor between physicians and nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, etc. Biosthmors (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this would be appropriate, as division of responsibilities and relationships with the rest of the health care team is an essential part of understanding the role. Yobol (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove this defamation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physician&diff=prev&oldid=555929375 and block the user spamming this material across the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.52.96 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2013

Removal of the content in question is Already done. Blocking if appropriate must be handled through the appropriate channels. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A physician/doctor (of medicine) is a graduate of school of physicians (medical school) around the world and USA. In the USA physicians are holding Medical Doctor (MD) degree, aka Doctor of Medicine. There are physicians holding DO degree( Doctor of Osteopathy), aka osteopathic physicians, they historically meant to have manual therapy training and designed for primary care, nowadays they are getting extensive evidence based MD training, with minimal manual therapy, often choosing subspecialty route. All MDs and majority of DOs are taking gold standard medical education tests USMLE(United States Medical Licencing Examination) which is very well designed series of tests covering all areas of evidence based medicine required for physician to know. DO analogue of USMLE is COMLEX, these tests according to DO students and resident physicians are poorly written with eneven distribution of subject questions, also includes up to 30% of manual therapy. International physicians, aka IMG(international medical graduates) are required to take USMLE Step 1, 2CK,2 CS in order to enter postgraduate medical training. During that training they must take USMLE Step 3. After completion of that training physicians take Board Exams in chosen specialty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrainian physician (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article had some statements that made me have even more questions. Why were physicians and surgeons once rivals? it doesn't say. i wanna know why. The article keeps using the word charter, i wish i could have just clicked that word and have been taken to a wiki article on that word. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter)? Is this the one?

I see that DMD and DDS degrees are listed as physicians. I have nothing against dentists, but it's obvious that dentists are not understood to be physicians. Could someone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmanov (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Medical License will be properly notified so that corrective, reciprocal action can be taken against the offending physician.[1]

Medlicense (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be removed from the referenced article. MedLicense.com is a private company and should not be referenced in the article. The entire above caption should be replaced with the phrase "Medical License". The reference to MedLicense.com should be also removed

Done –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a subsection about podiatrists; if there was a reason for its being given a prominent place in explaining the meaning of the term physician this was not made clear in the section. In addition, maybe this section should be limited to comparing terminology, while the subsections "North America" and "America" could be deleted and their information on country-specific qualification details moved to the "regulations" section. Its title of the section also seems not entirely accurate, as historical details are included. Cyrej (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Doctor of Medicine as suggested.)

Should there be a section (or spread out content) on advertising and license verification? What if anything makes it illegal (e.g. in the US, Israel and Russia) to advertise claiming to be a medical doctor or D.O. (and, e.g. claiming to be able to eliminate [all] disease including colon cancer) without appropriate licensing? Who enforces it? in essence, what's the equivalent of http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/business-and-professions-code/bpc-sect-4980.html for regular medical doctors? Apropos this, [11]. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) when you say medical doctor...anyway, such a discussion of holding physicians accountable for false/misleading advertising or for outright breaking the law would be better suited on the physician page, IMO. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Re. assumption : I mean i the general case of a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or D.O. claim. (Links I gave above happen to show claims to be an "MD" and to be a "medical doctor" by a D.O. on a surrendered license.) --Elvey^(t•c) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --Elvey^(t•c) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following citation should be added after the sentence "The issue of medical errors, drug abuse, and other issues in physician professional behavior received significant attention across the world"

^[1] Qwaserdf1234 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Not sure how this source would make sense here - the section seems to be about physician errors, not their psychological well being. Cannolis (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Cannolis|Cannolis], did you read the study or just look at the abstract? Qwaserdf1234, can you reference a relevant page or section of the study? It certainly seems reasonable that something in a paper like this would verify this claim when mentioning why studying depression in this population is important.--Elvey^(t•c) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Physician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427151546/http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/abraham_verghese/2009/06/the_ama_conflicted_in_its_interests.ph to http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/abraham_verghese/2009/06/the_ama_conflicted_in_its_interests.ph

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains several references to physicians as doctors. For the record, a doctor is one who has earned a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), only. "Doctor" is not a profession; it is an academic title. We do not refer to engineers as Engineer Jones, or an accountant as Accountant Johnson, or a carpenter as Carpenter Mattthew. To be very specific, a Doctorate is an ACADEMIC degree (PhD), not a vocational degree (MD) where the student receives much training and little education. As such, remove any references to physicians being something they are not, doctors. If they want to be referred to as Doctor, they should first earn a bachelor's degree, which many do not earn, a master's degree, and then a Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.215.60 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An MD (doctor of medicine) is not a vocational degree. In the US, to become a physician you must go through 4 years of pre-med (Bachelor's) and Med school in which you graduate with your MD. After med school, you have to specialize by taking a residency and/or fellowship. Pre-med is considered a bachelor's degree because in college you have to declare your major in science (such as biology, chemistry, etc.) and take classes that med schools require on top of fulfilling the requirements for your major. Most med schools in the U.S. require a bachelor's degree in science in order to get in. Yes, Doctor is an academic title and Physician is the profession. But generally we refer to physicians as doctor for some reason. So the term "doctor" could be argued as a disambiguation. The terms "physician" and "doctor" should not be interchangeable in this article in order to eliminate confusion. Jasska1019 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Jasska1019[reply]

Page currently has heirarchy:

1.3 North America

1.4 American physicians

1.5 Podiatric physicians

This should be amended to

1.3 North America

1.3.1 American physicians

1.2.2 Podiatric physicians

as the latter two are clearly written as subsets of §1.3. —DIV (120.17.38.6 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Physician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429231921/http://science.education.nih.gov/lifeworks.nsf/alphabetical+list/Podiatrist?OpenDocument&ShowTab=All& to http://science.education.nih.gov/lifeworks.nsf/alphabetical+list/Podiatrist?OpenDocument&ShowTab=All&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr of Chiropractic Care is no longer considered a Dr. This definition needs revision. Jane's Friend 1 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following information will be useful for Australia-specific Physicians, in the 'Specialists in internal medicine' section, Under the 'Education and Training' section, after "Specialty training is begun immediately following completion of entry-level training, or even before."

"In Australia, Physicians are required to complete this training under the guidance of a specialist medical college such as the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) for individuals wanting to become Surgeons."

SOURCES: https://www.surgeons.org/becoming-a-surgeon/surgery-as-a-career/pathways-through-specialty-medical-training/ - [1], https://www.findmypathway.com/pathways/medicine/#registration - [2] Amloe1 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Amloe1 cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An edit on August 6 removed a large amount of sourced content without any edit summary to explain the removal. The verifiable content dealt with the current state of chiropractors with regard to their use of the term physician in two countries where it is an issue (The US and Switzerland). The content seems relevant to the article. I think the content should be restored. 2001:56A:75CE:1700:CDCB:130C:DF31:ABAB (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paging User:CFCF who removed the content, can you comment? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not belong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the content has been there for years and a discussion in 2009 at this talk page seems to have already established consensus to include it. As such, the burden is on the editor who wants to delete long established and verifiable content to show that the consensus is now to exclude the content. Please correct me if I am wrong. The content is verifiable (a key pillar). The content is NPOV (a key pillar). The content is notable, since it is regarding use of the term physician, in an article titled "physician". Now an editor drive-by deletes long standing, verifiable content and the suggestion is to form a consensus to restore the long standing and sourced content?2001:56A:75CE:1700:4C57:A4C5:15FC:8E5D (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: As per template instructions and in order to help with the backlog I'm switching this to "answered" while the discussion is ongoing about the content removal. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF Could you please expand on your rationale for deleting the content? I saw your previous reply; however, "it does not belong" does not really make it clear what was wrong with the content. Why does it not belong? It seems that for most jurisdictions there is no issue, but in the US and Scandanavia there are precedents whereby chiropractors can use the term 'physician' and a discussion of what that means in those jurisdictions seems notable in this article. Moreover, the content seemed properly sourced. Thanks. 68.144.209.65 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF You still have not explained why you deleted the sourced content that had been long standing with consensus in the article. Could you please provide an explanation for removing the sourced content? 2001:56A:75CE:1700:ED9F:80AC:CD5:1A05 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make the American physicians and Podiatric physicians subsections of the North America section. They all should not be on the same level. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

From the Alternative Medicine section: "Many disease have their root cause in mind related issues, and most physicians (and psychologists) following the Western system do not completely understand the functioning of the mind. Such physicians (who follow the Western system of science) also root out the role of ghosts and spirits as the cause of mind-oriented diseases."

This phrasing should be changed in two respects. Firstly, it states that practitioners of biomedicine are following the "Western" system, when in fact the system arose from the West but is universalist. This phrasing implies that biomedicine is simply a Western cultural construct, in violation of WP:PSCI. Secondly, and more egregiously, it states without a source that "Many disease have their root cause in mind related issues" and follows this with another unsourced statement, "most physicians (and psychologists) following the Western system do not completely understand the functioning of the mind". Not only are these claims unsourced, their juxtaposition with the claim that alternative medicine focuses on the mind implies that CAM practitioners do have some sort of insight into the functioning of the mind lacking in "Western" science, without directly coming out and saying as much. It is fallacious and should be changed.

Instead, I propose the following: "While researchers of evidence-based medicine engage in ongoing research to better understand the root causes of various ailments, the cause of many diseases are as yet not well understood by EBM practitioners. Complementary and alternative medicine practitioners claim to have insights into many areas where EBM practitioners acknowledge ignorance, contributing to the popularity of such treatments. However, such claims by CAM practitioners lack biological plausibility and are untested, untestable, or have been proven ineffective."

The wording borrows from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Alternative medicine. I further recommend that references to biomedicine being a "Western" practice be removed. See below:

• "Within Western culture and over recent centuries..."
• "In this Western tradition..."
• "...including conventional western medicine."
• "most physicians (and psychologists) following the Western system do not completely understand the functioning of the mind"
• "Such physicians (who follow the Western system of science) also root out the role of ghosts and spirits as the cause of mind-oriented diseases."

Thank you for taking my proposed changes into consideration. Tortoiseorthehare (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done exactly. Thanks for bringing this up and looking into it in so much detail. The paragraph in question seems to have been added quite some time back and really should have thrown up all sorts of alarm bells. I simply removed it instead. If you think there's worthwhile content to add in its place, it might be worth bringing up in a new section to discuss (an edit request for something this involved can be a bit difficult), and if you don't get much feedback, you can always try asking for more eyes at WT:MED. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change from: Physicians do experience exposure to occupational hazards, and there is a well-known aphorism that "doctors make the worst patients".^[1] Causes of death that are shown to be higher in the physician population include suicide among doctors and self-inflicted injury, drug-related causes, traffic accidents, and cerebrovascular and ischaemic heart disease.^[2]

Change to: Physicians do experience exposure to occupational hazards, and there is a well-known aphorism that "doctors make the worst patients".^[1] Causes of death that are shown to be higher in the physician population include suicide among doctors and self-inflicted injury, drug-related causes, traffic accidents, and cerebrovascular and ischaemic heart disease.^[2] Physicians are prone to physician burnout, which is defined as a long-term stress reaction characterized by depersonalization, including cynical or negative attitudes toward patients, emotional exhaustion, a feeling of decreased personal achievement, and a lack of empathy for patients. More than half of physicians chose “too many bureaucratic tasks” as the leading cause of physician burnout. ^[3] Fishmanconsult (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added ref and reworded to match source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add: Physicians are particularly prone to burnout. In the medical profession, this manifests as a long-term stress reaction characterized by depersonalization, including cynical or negative attitudes toward patients, emotional exhaustion, a feeling of decreased personal achievement, and a lack of empathy for patients. On a survey from the American Medical Association, more than half of all respondents chose “too many bureaucratic tasks” as the leading cause of physician burnout.^[1] Fishmanconsult (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see above. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to be calling a degree holding person a medical doctor, they have to attend an accredited medical school of the country and qualify to sit and take the medical professional exam established by the medical governance board of that country. DPM is offered by US schools that are not listed in the World Directory of Medical Schools. If you open the World Directory of Medical Schools, 197 results will appear for the US, starting with AT Still University Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine. All MD and DO programs are listed in the directory, because these are medical schools that provide physicians (what this page is about) to the country’s workforce. Furthermore, USMLE, which is the country’s known medical professional exam, states eligibility of an examinee as follows: “ Officially enrolled in, or a graduate of, a US or Canadian medical school leading to the MD degree (LCME accredited), OR  Officially enrolled in, or a graduate of, a US medical school leading to the DO degree (COCA accredited), OR  Officially enrolled in, or a graduate of, a medical school outside the US and Canada listed in the World Directory of Medical Schools as meeting ECFMG eligibility requirements, and meet other ECFMG criteria.” I do not see DPMs qualifying to take the country’s medical professional exam. If you are going to argue that DPMs have a doctoral degree (like many allied healthcare professionals) and do so and so maneuvers to a human body, then why don’t you add all dental degrees in this page? They’re also doctoral degree holders who do certain surgical maneuvers to a person. Many allied healthcare professionals like pharmacists (doctoral degree holders) do additional residencies after their degree like DPMs; again, this doesn’t make them physicians. DPM residencies are not funded by the ACGME like medical residencies done by MD/DOs. DPMs are not medical physicians by any point of argument. Therefore, I suggest revoking the degree from this page. Iamdoctah (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are Ophthalmologists really physicians? They are regional clinicians/surgeons just like podiatry and dentistry. It doesn't matter that Ophthalmologists have unlimited scope because they don't actually utilize it. The term "Physician" isn't owned by any one particular country, organization, or profession. Get off your high horse. 206.127.187.97 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LANGUAGE ART — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.132.205 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2406:B400:D1:D350:54D8:15A0:BEDD:E6A5 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase, "and such hard-won membership is itself a mark of status", seems overly subjective and unsupported, and should possibly be removed. PhD4NRG (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In%201969%2C%20the%20American%20Medical,active%20members%20of%20the%20Association.

The AMA didn't accept osteopaths until 1969. The AMA protested osteopaths for years before that decision.

Similarly, Podiatrists are physicians regardless of the AMA and ACGME's stance. Orthopedics, MD, DO is losing the battle against podiatrists. If orthopedics wanted ALL aspects of the lower extremity, they shouldn't have behaved as if wound care and diabetic complications are beneath them.

Veterans Affairs considers podiatrists to be physicians. https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/podiatry/podiatry-va-parity-bill-passes-congress https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/podiatry/va-provider-equity-act-passes-house-representatives https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=5959

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove simply doctor from description of physician. Doctor refers to level of degree, not profession. Applemill123 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "Doctor" is very commonly used to refer to the profession Cannolis (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]