On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Peter M. Brigham <pmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but as an MD I have to protest this. I may not have contributed to > knowledge in the sense of having published original research, but i'm > confident that I have contributed to the well-being of thousands of > patients. That said, I don't take offense at being called "Mr." outside of > the office. > I'm not disputing the value of MDs, but the meaning of "doctor" for a couple of thousand of years before the creation of the modern MD. The modern MD was designed (or named) specifically to "borrow" the prestige/reputation/non-killing-patients of the doctors of the university, at a time when general medicine was more likely to hurt than help (I think crossover to net good was 1920, give or take, in the western world). It was a wonderful change, and a major factor in modern prosperity. But an MD isn't what the word doctor (latin for "teach") has meant and been used as--one who has both acquired significant knowledge in a field, and contributed to that knowledge (and neither does a J.D., which I also have). I just get a kick out of it every time I hear the pompous "I'm a real doctor" from an MD dismissing, well, real doctors :) I don't mind the title around, but the chutzpah in dismissing the real thing is amusing. (I understand, however, that there was an older MD that was comparable to the PhD and DD, but that's not who most folks were treated by . . .) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
