Talk:Medical degree

Template:Medcabbox

---

Comments

Jwri, I thought we had agreed that the medical degree disambiguation page was to list only medical degrees (according to the guidlines), not every kind of medicine ever conceived. I reverted your additions - which included reiki, sleep medicine, pharmacy, naprapath etc. It seems to me that some of your references might actually be legit (the names of chiropractic degrees offered in new zealand for example). If you think you have a degree that you belive meets the criteria, can we discuss it here before adding it? Naturstud (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're guidelines (as you see them) are still very US centric POV. What about this conundrum: in the UK they may not list the Bachelor of Dentistry or Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery degrees as "medical degrees", however.. in the US they do list the Doctor of Dental Medicine as a "medical degree". I can also find you documentation where US dental schools state that the UK Bachelor of Dentistry Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery are considered an EQUIVALENT to the US DMD and DDS degrees. So therefor they are considered the same. However, I'm sorry... but I can not find a page in the US that says in quotes that the UK degree is a Medical degree verbatim. But why should I be able to.. the US websites are written in a POV focusing on US degrees. There by making your criteria too US centric. The same can be said for podiatry and other health care degrees. See the problem here? Now (your) criteria claimed to have enough flexibility to include international degrees, diplomas, certificates.. etc but you are not allowing this flexibility and are sticking ridged to your requirements which are again US Centric and too restrictive. You have just edited out EVERY single NON-USA degree. This is not what we agreed on. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not 'my' guidlines. You agreed to them in a third party mediated consensus. Now you have decided to ignore them. Claiming that the guidelines are US centric does not justify your additions. The guidlines do not seem to be US centric at all - you just need to do some research before adding medical degrees from other contries. If you can make a usage-based or practiced-based case for Bachelor of Dentistry (and i suspect you could if you would just go get the refs), then by all means go ahead and add this degree. Until you can meet the guidlines for reiki, pharmacy, naprapathy, ets they will have to go. I remove them not because they are not from the USA, but because you have not provided references that follow the guidlines. To be clear - it is the lack of research on your part that exludes them, not some imagined 'US-centrism' inherrent in the guidlines. Naturstud (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. they are yours in you are the one who wrote them. I think to some extent we were all tired and agreed. I agreed at the time because "I thought" your statements you included at the bottom of about including diplomas, certificates, and other equivalent qualifications from other countries was a good compromise on your part and would actually be honored. Now I see that you're sticking too rigidly to your preferred US-POV of only including "Doctor of __ medicine degree" requirements (which IS a US centric way of wording/classification) to the point that you have again decided to cut out all Non-US qualifications. It is not my "lack of research".. it is because THERE ARE NO websites that describe NON-US degrees in this fashion other than the MBBS degree, because it is a US form of description and classification. You know this and I know this. I know you desperately desire to have a list of "Medical degrees" had only have (MD, DO, and "your ND") on this list but I don't think this is fair. Your criteria again is US centric and excludes the degrees you don't want on the list. I will attempt to re-write the usage based and practice based guidelines to include more world wide qualifications such that this will better comply with wikipedias neutral worldview policy. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all.... about my 'US POV'. I have never even visited the USA, so please drop it. The guidlines are not 'mine', anymore than they are 'US-centric'. You agreed to them and now you have gone back on your word. And that is fine. They are only guidlines after all, not rules. I did not revert your edit because the degrees titles you added failed to follow the 'Doctor of ____ medicine' format. The guidlines clearly state that failing to meet one criteria does not absolutely exclude a degree. However, you included degrees that failed to meet all of the criteria. You even included some degrees with no attempts to provide any references at all. Naturstud (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "north american POV" (Canadian/US). You have gone back on your word to include certificates, diplomas, and degrees from other countries.. and that is fine.  :) We will simply have to re-write the guidelines to fit a more neutral worldview. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you reread the guidelines - but you are clearly editing in bad faith, since they really aren't that difficult to understand. You have accused me of exluding degrees/diplomas becuase they are from other countries, but really I am only interested in excluding degrees/diplomas that have not been cited and verified. You seem to be hell bent on including anything and everything without verifiable, relevant citations. I interpret this to be more straw-man vandalism on your part. Your 'fellowship of all nations' argument - that all degrees and diplomas should be included regardless of wikistandards, because to exlude them would be US-centric is a non-starter. Humerous, creative - and even clever, but not the stuff of a good wiki article. Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not regardless of wiki standards, but not according to your US language of Doctor of __ medicine degree language requirements which is the way the US and Canada words/classifies their medical degrees. You aren't going to find verbatim "doctor of __ medical degree" regarding UK or other countries equivalent medical, dental, podiatric, etc degrees, because not every country titles their degrees in this way (the US/Canadian way); however, this does not negate the fact that the teach the same thing and are "equivalent" qualifications for the same professions (simply in different countries). You still haven't commented on the example I gave regarding BDS (bachelor of dentistry) being an equivalent to the US-DDS/DMD degrees. (examples from both US and UK institutions was even given!!). I read the guidelines to mean that there would be "flexibility" to allow other countries' degrees, but you have gone against this agreement. If that is not the way you interpret the guidelines then again, yes I feel they need to be re-written. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidlines do not require "Doctor of _______ medicine" I have never suggested that a degree should be excluded if it is not phrased this way. I know from previous debates that you are an intelligent person and I am therfore not buying that you have failed to understand the guidlines. You are wilfully misrepresenting them, as you are willfully misatributing my motives for reverting your inapropriately sourced edits. The lack of "Doctor of _______ medicine" structure is not the reason I will continue to delete your entries, and I think you know it. Once again you are resorting to an obvious misrepresentation of my view rather than being honest and stating your own. Presumably this is because your own view will not get you very far.Naturstud (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, you included some statements which when you wrote them initially that I thought you would accept "equivalent" international degrees, certificates, and diplomas, etc. But you refuse to do so. Which is why this article remains North American Centric in its view point. You still have yet to comment on the examples I found of the Bachelor of Dentistry degrees and DDS/DMD being equivalent (sources from both the US and UK). Jwri7474 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Dentistry references

• documentation where US dental schools state that the UK Bachelor of Dentistry Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery are considered an EQUIVALENT to the US DMD and DDS degrees:

Here is one: [1], and another [2]

I would support the addition of this degree and would even have worked with you to beef up the refs. Unfortunately, bad faith on your part precludes me from doing so at this point. Naturstud (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... considering that you cannot even accept a "Doctor of Oriental or Chinese Medicine" as a "medical degree" in your list (even with references), but you of course accept the "Doctor of Naturopathy" or Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree (because this is a degree you hold yourself) already demonstrates your refusal to go along with your own guidelines. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent my opinion as a replacement for describing your own. (I am not opposed to DOM/DCM). Once again, a personal attack. Oh well. Naturstud (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well.. why did you delete the DOM/DCM degree from the list? I'm sorry, but when you acknowledge the fact that you hold a vested interest in promoting your profession of naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and then you delete other degrees that are cited and are fulfilling your guidelines for "medical degrees" ... but keep your own profession's degree in the list. I hope you can understand what that would look like in the eyes of others. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I reverted your mass edit, I was very careful to note that a few of the additions might actually have merit. I have also suggested that if you were serious about making an addition you might consider adding/discussing it as a single item rather than mixing the feasible (dentistry degrees from europe for example) in with the highly questionable. On your second point, I have already denied any COI. Being an ND does not disqualify me any more than being an MD student disqualifies you. I supose if a naprapath or a dentist from australia comes along, they will have an interest in providing good references that support adding their degrees to the list. Nothing wrong with that either. I am not interested in napropathy or dentistry, so someone else will have to get the refs for these degrees if they want them on the page. This does not mean that I am opposed to these degrees being on the list. Naturstud (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not just the fact that you claim to be an ND. It is the fact that you posted previously and stated something to the fact that... " I have a stethoscope and a white coat, I worked really hard in "medical school". I treat patients with diabetes, etc. ... I'm a doctor dammit". (my summary of your statements). You obviously have something to prove and have attempted to derail this article to prove your point (that being that your ND degree is equal to the MD and DO degree at the expense of other professions). Jwri7474 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... i never said any of that. Once again, I must point out that you spent the last paragraph describing (inventing, actually) my thoughts, beliefs and views. How I wish you would leave me to represent myself, and focus on your own message. Rather than inventing all sorts of lies about what I think, you could use the time to explain why you beleieve that reiki should be included as a medical degree, for example. The reason we need mediation is because you have tried to make edits without describing why they should be made. In place of describing why they should be made, you argue about my motives. So how about it? Reiki as a medical degree. I am all ears. Naturstud (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud you claim that none of my citations fit any of the written (and agreed) guidelines; however this not true. Most of the other forms of medicine I posted fit the "practice based criteria" which gave examples of their professions diagnosing, prescribing, performing procedures, etc. The agreed upon guidelines also included the ability to post certificates, diplomas, and degrees from other countries that were deemed equivalent. These were all deleted by you. Your explanation is that they did not fit the guidelines, but I feel they did meet the practice based criteria at least. (I even found sources citing that some of the degrees, certificates, etc were deemed professionally equivalent). Even the "doctor of chinese medicine" degree which fit I feel both the practice and usage based criteria, was deleted by you. Naturstud you can't continue to cherry pick what degrees you deem acceptable. You have tried to enforce an impossible task (Filibuster) of listing every slight change in degree title as a separate entity. Example: Instead of accepting all Bachelor of Medicine/Surgery degrees (MBBS, MB, MBChB, BMBS, MBBChir, etc) or Bachelor of Dentistry degrees (BDS, BChD, BDSc, BDent, BDM, etc) you would have required I obtain a government source for each one separately listing them as a medical degree instead of grouping them all under (bachelor of med/surg or dental med/surg degrees of equivalence) This act also effectively blocks placing the degrees in the list and is very unreasonable. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New Guidlines

Lets start a list here of ways of re-wording the guidelines to include degrees, diplomas, and certificates from around the world. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A better idea would be to go immediately 3rd party mediation/arbritation, since I have already accused you of editing in bad faith, and vandalism. Sorry, but I would have to be an absolute idiot to try to build new guidlines with you again. You can't honestly expect anyone to take your offer seriously. You just summarily dismissed the existing guidlines! We were fortunate to have a talented mediator who worked with us for a week to reach a consensus that you agreed to (with fingers crossed, as it turns out). What would be the point of building a new set of guidlines? So that you could do the same next month? 'Fool me once...' Naturstud (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is a possibility, but I think that it'd have to be WP:MEDCOM rather than informal mediation. Prefer that we can compromise here instead. fr33kman -s- 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a compromise

Jwri, I know how you feel about this subject; your views are quite conservative. I know that you favour a narrow definition, but can't you accept a slightly wider definition than what you really want rather than just insisting that the door just be flung wide open? fr33kman -s- 02:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You equally can't accept a wider definition to include anything other than North American and Naturopathic degrees. You want your cake and eat it too. You want to write guidelines to include a degree in naturopathy (that you yourself hold) and nothing else. If I am expected to accept a degree in naturopathy as a "medical degree", why can't you accept degrees in Chinese medicine as "medical degree". Sounds hippocritical to me and an attempt to promote your own profession at the expense of others. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any degree in naturopathy Jwri. I am a medical student at a UK medical school studying for an MBBS. Where did you get that I had an ND? Also, where did I say I only favoured US/UK degrees? You are not playing fair! fr33kman -s- 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jwri was probably confusing you for me, Fr33kam. Personal note: just passed the boards! Not relevant, but impossible to keep from telling everyone I meet today. Thanks again for your good work, but I have reached the limits of my patience (see below). Will hope for the arrival of more fairminded editors so that the 'law of mass reason' will kick in on this page. Naturstud (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats right.. sorry I read the post in a rush because I had to go and thought it was from Naturstud. By the way.. congrats however on your passing the boards. We may disagree in our views, but that's an accomplishment I can acknowledge.  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If only you could acknowledge that the ND is a medical degree and that NDs practice medicine, we could be avoiding all of this nonsense. Naturstud (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have! Naturopaths practice "naturopathic medicine" which is a type of medicine. Yes. I already have compromised and allowed you to post your content to this effect in this article. Why can you not also accept other degrees from other professions who equally practice a form of medicine then? Is it because you have double standards and a professional agenda to promote? Jwri7474 (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you truly have embraced that the ND is a medical degree, would care care to explain [thisedit] of three days ago? Or perhaps [thisone]? Your edits on the medical degree page - adding nurses, paramedics, reiki masters etc are not congruent with all of the times in edits and in discussion when you have clearly stated that only DO's and MDs hold medical degrees. Naturstud (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel we need to settle this discussion first before we move on to all the other wiki articles describing medical titles you feel Naturopaths should be listed under. Yes, I feel that the terms "medical school" and "medical degree" (when used without a qualifying term such as "Naturopathic" or "Podiatric"-> "Naturopathic Medical School" or "Podiatric Medical School"[3]) is always used in common language to mean allopathic/traditional/conventional/orthodox (whatever adjective you wish to use "medical school" and there are already wikipedia articles which describe these other forms of healthcare providers and their education, degrees, etc. Again, I feel the international IMED/Faimer/WHO list of world wide "medical schools" is really the best source to use for this article as i have said over and over again. It is an excellent internationally agreed upon source which lists all recognized "medical degrees" from all countries around the world. If you do wish to add "other" forms of health care providers to this list by creating a disambiguation page... (if we are widening the deffiniton) then that is fine.. but we have to agree to include ALL other forms of providers equally in this list. Again, I refuse to allow you to create a list of ONLY US and Canadian degrees MD, DO, and your "doctor of naturopathy" at the expense of both other health care provider's degrees and of other equivalent medical degrees, certificates, and diplomas from other countries. This is unfair and biased. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

It is clear that negotiation is not an option at this point. I will continue to observe the guidlines and to revert bad faith edits. However, I agree to discuss first on this page any edits that are made:

• that add only one degree at a time
• that provide references that meet the guidlines, or with a little teamwork could concievably meet the guidlines once fully sourced
• that appear to be offered in good faith

Mass edits, edits without references, and inapropriately sourced edits will be reverted as vandalism within the confines of 3RR. I will suport each and every degree (or equivalent) that meets the guidlines, but do not have the time to do another editor's research for them - especially when the degree is being proposed as a 'straw-man' (not an honest reflection of the given editor's opinion). Naturstud (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One problem is you've created an almost impossible task of listing every a source from a government board citing every slight different title as a separate reference. Example: There are multiple titles of dental degrees (every University has a different tradition of titling their degrees). Examples: BDS, DDS, BDM, BDent, BDSc, BChD, DMD, CD, Dr.Med.Dent, etc. I can't find sources for every single one. But I can find a list that says they are equivalent in general. I would think this should be enough. The same goes for all other professions. Example: If a Doctor of Chiropractic, then why not a Master/ Bachelor of Chiropractic from Australia (which are professional equivalent degrees to the US DC degree). Jwri7474 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, JWri, your claim that references can not be found does not mean that the guidlines should be set aside and all professions should be included. I am not here to help you become a better researcher. No doubt, someone who honestly cares about adding a bona fide medical degree will do the work necessary to convince us. Your motivation for adding these degrees is that they will help you build your straw man. No doubt someone with a genuine motivation - a dentist or chiropractor from europe for example - will be more successful. Naturstud (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well.. if the UK does not describe the BDS as a "medical degree", but the US does describe the DMD/DDS as a "medical degree". But I can find references from both countries that state that the DDS/DMD degrees are equivalent to the BDS,BChD,BDM, etc. Then yes, I feel this would cover all of these degrees as falling under the category as "medical degrees". This is not a strawman, because I am not trying to misrepresent your viewpoint. I can say however that you have a personal bias in this argument and that you attempting to write and follow guidelines which fit your agenda and exclude others. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that if we were collaborating, we could agree on meaningful references for the various dental degrees. But we are not collaborating. And the reason that we are not collaborating is becuase, in your heart of hearts, i suspect you believe that only the DO and the MD are the only 'real' medical degrees. And so until you 'fess up and admit that adding reiki, pharmacy, naprapathy, nursing etc were indeed bad-faith, straw man edits we never will collaborate. Having said that, I will not block any reasonable edits you may make in the future. I absolutely do have a bias. Don't we all? The difference is that I have only sought to describe my views, and make honest edits that are congruent with those views. You also have a bias. But instead of professing it, you have made edits that oppose your own view. Instead of justifying these strawman edits on this page (difficult), you spend your time on here arguing with things that I have never actually said. So you have managed to misrepresnt your own thoughts on the article page, and misrepresent my thoughts on the talk page. Naturstud (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We were both asked to refrain from editing the talk page at this point. But if you are going to continue to post then why should I not equally be allowed to return comment. I've already stated that I feel that the best reference for this article is the list of "medical degrees" which are approved by the IMED/WHO directory which lists every single accredited "medical degree" in the world. This is a good international sources which is verifiable and allows for a neutral worldview. You refused this suggestion. You want to include your own professional degree to the list. I allowed this, with the rule that if we are to widen the definition. Then you must equally allow other forms/types of medicine in the list as well such as chinese/Oriental, holistic, homeopathic, etc. You again refused and only want to include MD, DO, and your ND (naturopathic degree). This is unfair and biased. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ways forward

I think that we should consider the following as possible ways forward.

1. List the article for a full RFC.
2. Ask for help at the WikiProjects
3. Agree to go for WP:MEDCOM

My preference is either 1 or 3; comments?

fr33kman -s- 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any of these, so have no preference. I think that we have more of a behavioral problem than an honest dispute over content, so a process that can address issues of alleged vandalism/editing in bad faith would be ideal. Naturstud (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am equally not familiar with these. I feel we have someone editing in bad faith who has a personal bias in regard to the information presented and so I feel that a process that can address this issue would also be ideal. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCOM then

Okay. MEDCOM can be approached here since you have tried an alternative for of DR; namely, the third opinion route. RFC can be about content only in this case and its results are not binding. I think MEDCOM should be used because its results are are not binding. If you both signal below that MEDCOM would be okay, I'll submit a case request to MEDCOM. fr33kman -s- 01:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCOM will can address both content and conduct of editors. fr33kman -s- 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. Thanks Fr33kman. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks. Naturstud (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll submit the case today. I'll let you know when it's been submitted and you will both have to go and formally agree; I'll tell you where and when. fr33kman -s- 02:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Continued edits

Just to let you both know. You have agreed to go to MEDCOM, any continued arguments now, will reflect poorly! FYI :-) fr33kman -s- 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB listing after MEDCOM rejection of case

Listed at MEDCAB

I have listed the dispute at WP:MEDCAB as per the MEDCOM mediators suggestion. This is not binding and if you do not wish to take part in MEDCAB, please let the MEDCAB mediator know this when they take the case and they will drop it. As a member of MEDCAB I now need to abstain from partaking in this case. I will be available to the MEDCAB mediator if they require clarification on a point. Thank you both and good luck! fr33kman -s- 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help Fr33kman Jwri7474 (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems, do let me know if I can be of any further assistance; I'm still willing to help! :-) btw: Please do add the BDS degree as it is 100% appropriate to the page! fr33kman -s- 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Permanent header"

I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but can we please put up a more decent header instead of the ugly blue-white thing? Why not just a hidden message like {{NoMoreLinks}} ? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was my first ever header ;) fr33kman -s- 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to request to Medical Wikiproject for views

• Personally, coming from the UK, I would only expect to see this article title to cover those who prectice Medicine (an article that is very restrictive in its consideration) - that's both a definition issue and a consistancy within Wikipedia articles. I appreciate the US quaint alternative of DO vs MD, and that would be acceptable (a US DO is quite different from an osteopath in much of the rest of the world who would not have investigation nor prescribing rights). Other entries like Podiatry would not be viewed as a "medical degree", which in UK would be seen as needing to be synonymous with someone being a (non-PhD) doctor, but I would fully accept them as an important part of the overall healthcare team. Therefore would a renaming of the article to Healthcare degree sort out much of the problem with inclusion criteria ?
  There really is probably little to say over the UK's MBChB or MBBS that is not covered in existsing Doctor of Medicine article and so this is meant to be just a disambiguation page. Further I whilst would somewhat object to being categorised under "Conventional Medical Degrees" as if given some equal weighting to quackery of naturopathy (but that's another discussion entirely, so bear with me here), yet I have no problem entirely agreeing that naturopaths provide an alternative/complmentary healthcare. Similarly I would expect "medicine" (conventional or alternative) would include topics relevant to just humans, yet there is no doubt that "Veterinary medicine" is a correctly termed expression. Finally the article misses out a further American "Medical degree" - see Physical Therapy and its mention of Doctor of Physical Therapy (which not being a PhD is therefore using "doctor" in the "medical" sense). So either restrict to a list of medical doctor, or be inclusive and transparent with title of Healthcare degree (and redirect "Medical degree" there) ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Davidruben, I think the best source for this article would the IMED/Faimer/WHO list of "medical schools". This list is an internationally agreed/accepted list of every recognised "medical school" in every country from around the world. It also includes all US-DO schools.

I also agree with you in that if we are to widen the definition (also in keeping with a worldwide view of this term) then I also feel that we might want to change the title of the article to Healthcare degree . Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

An interesting reference, but also hopelessly inaccurate. See http://imed.ecfmg.org/results.asp?country=0&school=&currpage=1&cname=&city=London&region=0&rname=&psize=25 for London Medical Schools - it separate lists St Thomas' Hospital and Guy's Hospital as having medical schools but these long ago merged to form United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, which then got incorporated into King's College Hospital - all these are listed as if separate on the list and bizzarely KCH gets listed twice over in the WHO listings, yet the current offical name for the group is "King's College London School of Medicine at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals". Likewise Middlesex Hospital was closed & sold off in 1992.(struckout per Jwri7474 correcting me below) In fact the "medcal doctor" range of degree name is already best listed at Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (see multiple English options of current MBBS, MBChB and up until 1999 the Conjoint degree options of LRCP, LRCS, LMSSA). This Medical degree article therefore fails itself to explain "medical doctor" degrees at all (quite aside from the inclusion of other health professional fields) and its redirect to the profession of Doctor of Medicine would be better changed to Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery which sets out the worldwide naming of relevant degree names. David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Davidruben, it is VERY accurate. If you actually click on the "Guy's Medical school" link and read further... you will see that it states "Graduation Years 1953 - 1981". So, it actually tells you that it was an accredited medical school (hence there are graduates of GMS still working today, which is why they have kept the school in the "list of medical schools"). If you scroll down it also lists the current medical school of "Guy's and St. Thomas" as a seperate school, and details the dates of which it was/is in operation. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery article and the Doctor of Medicine article describe all "medical degrees" quite well. (the MD article also explains that the US-DO degree is equivalent and gives a link to further information about the DO degree). Yes, the MBBS article describes medical degree titles in more detail in a better "worldview" than the MD article as it actually lists out countries and their system. You could also refer to article Medical education for more similar information (it also has links to medical education systems around the world). Again, I feel this article should either be a mirror of the WHO/IMED list of World Medical Schools, or it should be a redirect to the MBBS or MD wiki article, or I feel that the title should be changed to "Healthcare degrees" or something similar and the list expanded to include all different types of health care degrees from around the world (not just US/Canada). Jwri7474 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On following through, indeed fair point re IMED/Faimer/WHO being historical list of medical schools (vs just current listing) :-) I've struck out my misunderstanding. I do concur with your summation of choice of options. David Ruben ^Talk 10:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename else restrict coverage proposal

So, time for a straw poll to see if we can better assess for a consensus ? The proposal is: the current title/content mix is inconsistant, so either the title or the content should be modified. Please offer your suggestions to restricting content list to the WHO stated list of medical school awarded medical degrees (ie follow strictly the current title using an authorative reliable global source), or rename to "Healthcare degrees" (ie follow the curent content and allow the inclusive richness in health care training) David Ruben ^Talk 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to "Healthcare degrees", with "Medical degree" redirecting to existing global description at Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery David Ruben ^Talk 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not acceptable to me to redirect 'medical degree' to one specific medical degree (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery), since the term medical degree is also used to describe DO, DC, ND etc. These are all examples of medical degrees. It seems to me that both of the options you suggest would have the same effect, namely to reserve the term medical degree as some sort of priviledged title that is only used to describe the training of allopathic/contentiional/mainstream doctors. Naturstud (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, did not mean to exclude DO, which I accept in specific case of the US seems equivalent (per Medical education in the United States#Medical school description). No easy solution as Doctor of Medicine which covers this is US-centric (vs Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery covers elsewhere but does not mention US). Medical education in the United States of course gives equality of MD & DO re being acceptable, and Medical education gives links to the various "Medical Education in ..." series but is not really an obvious target for a redirect from "Medical degree". So would still redirecting "Medical degree" to MBBS (as that this is currently the most globally inclusive article available to us) but adding to MBBS a brief section to include the US situation (ie explaining what the equivalent acceptable MD & DO degrees are) cover the both the need for a global scope target, but not missing out on the US MD/DO issue, be a satisfactory solution ? As far as I understand from a UK perspective, US DO's are essentially conventionally trained doctors (perhaps with a slightly different slant/emphasis in training, but essentially equivalent in having equal access to hospital physican posts and equally able to investigate, prescribe or operate - i.e. in all regards are "medical doctors"), but this very US-centric issue of alternative training degrees, needs be distinguished from the non medical doctor fields of physical therapy, podiatry etc - which is the thrust of my proposal to untangle title & content being mismatched at present :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Alternatively move non "medical doctor" degrees into "Healthcare degree" and leave this "Medical degree" artcile to act as disambinguation pointing to MBBS & MD and also (perhaps then in a separeted section or the same) mention the US-specific alternatives ? - just seems rather more convoluted Venn diagram of articles and spread of material, and at this time of night giving me a slight headache I think :-( David Ruben ^Talk 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that physiotherapy is not a medical degree, do not know much about podiatry so will not comment. I agree that this page should remain essentially a point for disambiguation and would support adding a geographical layer to the info. To be clear, the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' degree is a medical degree in Canada and the United States. Perhaps something like...

  Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine: ND, NMD in North America Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Demoting the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree' from the medical degree page to a 'heathcare' page is a non-starter to me, since the degree in North America is required before NDs can order and interpret labs, perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, perform minor surgery, prescribe drugs etc. There is a reason why "naturopathic medical degree" returns over 700 hits on google. For better or worse, ND holders in north America describve themseleves as primary care providers, and have acheived a degree of recognition from legslators acknowledging that their's is a medical degree. Lumping a four year degree that legally allows an ND to diagnose and treat disease with a three weekend course that allows someone to call themselves a reiki or ayurvedic practitioner is a bit much. Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is on this last point that we therefore reach some accord :-) so what are we to do at this level of agreement - either exclude reiki/ayurvedic from this page for not being "medical degrees" (there will be editors who would wish inclusion of ayurvedic, and we'll find ourselves in joint action trying to reject that) or allow a very loose inclusive approach which therefore make sense only if we refine the article name ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, renaming the page would probably be the path of least resistance, but there is an argument to be made that although enforcing the guidlines will be more work, the result would be more informative and safer for the public. Do we have a responsibility to delineate state-sanctioned medical degrees from a (presumably endless) list of degrees that do not come with any guarantee of standard or quality of care? Personally I see value in this. Using my knowledge of the North American ND situation to provide an example: In addition to the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' degree recognized by the US Dept of Education and required by jurisdictions which regulate naturopathic doctors, there also exist various diploma mill degrees/diplomas such as the 'Doctor of Natural Medicine' which pretty much anyone can get via correspondance. The former can be sourced as allowing its holder to perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, and even prescribe drugs and deliver babies in some jursidictions. The latter is not recogized by the US Dept of Education and does not permit its holder to perform any controlled medical acts in any jurisdiction. My question is this: Is it enough to have these degrees appear side by side in an article called 'healthcare degrees' or is this a misleading and potentially dangerous way to categorize them? I am willing to take on the editor who demands that 'psychic iridology' should be listed as a medical degree but who can not provide references that meet the usage-based and practice-based criteria. If this prevents even one wikipedian from being taken off their insulin because they thought that their iridologist's diploma qualified them to advise such a thing, then I am willing to put in the work.Naturstud (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud: It is NOT officially considered a "medical degree" in Canada, because if it were.. then it would be listed along side osteopathic medical schools in the WHO/IMED list of "world medical schools" (.. but its NOT). Until the naturopathic medical degree is listed here, I will have to disagree. The WHO/IMED is the world's gold standard resource. It is a comprehensive list and is checked and updated VERY regularly. It is the resource that is used by every medical council/board in the world as a reference for what is and is not considered a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Refuted below. Naturstud (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, you said, "NDs can order and interpret labs, perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, perform minor surgery, prescribe drugs etc." .... Again.. thse are all things that many other "health care" providers can do (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, chiropractors, podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, ayruvedics, etc). I would still argue that even Reiki fits your "practice based critera" in that they "diagnose and treat disease"... same goes for osteopaths. Again.. you either need to include all of these different types of "health care providers" or non of them. You can't choose the ones you like. They all hold degrees in "health care" but they do not hold "medical degree"s. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that reiki practitioners have a legal basis to perform controlled medical acts, I am willing to look at these refs. I know that in my neck of the woods, the reiki master who performs a gynecological exam or interprets a lipid panel is in pretty deep water. NDs are permitted by law to do these things. Naturstud (talk)

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said that Reiki practitioners technically "diagnose and treat disease" which fits your "practice based guidelines". Now you are changing your terms/definition to "controlled medical act". I asked you about this before you and you said they were the same things. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You like to point out that naturopathy training is 4 years long and that it trains you to do "minor surgery". The procedures and "minor surgery" that we are discussing is the same things that a nurse practitioner is allowed to do who only attends a 2 year post grad program. These procedures are mainly: insert IV canulas, take small incisional biopsies of non-malignant skin lesions, assist in the delivery of babies (midwifery), etc. Simply because you are allowed to do some small procedures in a few regions does not make you a "medical doctor" who holds a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The nurse and paramedic perform these acts when delegated by a doctor who has the legal authority to initiate them. Naturstud (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY thing the US dept of education has to say on the naturopathy programs is that they are approved for US financial aid programs/support.[4]. Which by the way is no different than any other "health care" profession. The US dept of education approves the political body of the council for naturopathic schools, etc to accredit and regulate their own profession as they see fit (because it is not the role of the US dept of education to regulate each profession). The US/Canadian naturopathic societies, and regulation bodies may "self-describe" their degrees as "medical degrees" (again.. which is bias self promotion). But again.. this is not the view of the US dept of education, nor their role to say so. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The US Dept of education does not acredit the CNME and let it go around inventing whatever degrees it likes. The Dept of Ed explicitly names, recognizes and defines the degree that the CNME oversees... "graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.)" [5] Naturstud (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It IS up to each (state/country/regional)'s "Board of Medicine" or "Medical Council" to regulate the profession and practice of "medicine". It is up to them to say what is and is not a "medical degree" for the practice of "medicine". No "Board of Medicine" or "Medical Council" states that a degree in naturopathy is a "medical degree". In a few states or provinces in North America naturopaths may practice "naturopathic medicine", but this is not the same thing. Naturopathic medicine a form of "complementary and alternative medicine" which is allowed in a few regions and maintains a very narrow and restricted scope of health care practice. This is no different to Podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, etc. Each of these professions are allowed to diagnose and treat "some forms of disease". Do the people who practice these professions hold a "medical degree". This is the debate. I say no. The State/Provincial boards and colleges of Medicine also say no too. But hey.. the debate continues.... Jwri7474 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the debate was that you wanted reiki to be listed as a medical degree, no? The semantic hair splitting has been adressed previously. The fact that a Naturopathic Board of Medicine uses the adjective Naturopathic to distinguish itself does not negate the fact that it is a board of medicine. A green apple is still an apple, even if most people prefer red ones. Naturstud (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, its not... the board of dental medicine/surgery is also a board which supervises dentists (another 'health care profession'). Dentists however, do not hold a "medical degree", they hold a "dental degree"... they do not hold a license to practice "medicine", they have a license to practice "dentistry or dental medicine". Naturopaths equally hold a license to practice "naturopathy or naturopathic medicine", but they do not hold a "medical license". Again, just because your degree has the word "medicine" in it does not make you a "medical doctor" who holds a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that suggestion Davidruben. I think this may satisfy both sides. It would allow a list of world-wide "health care" degrees in which Naturstud can list his Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) degree (maybe under a "Alternative Medical Degrees" subheading or something if he/she still wishes to maintain the "____ medical degree" as a sub-heading). Jwri7474 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Example:

Health care degrees

Complementary and Alternative Medical degrees

• Ayurvedic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BAMS)
• Homeopathic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BHMS)
• Naturopathic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BNat,ND, NMD)
• Naprapathic Medicine (DN)
• Oriental Medicine: (BSc, MSc, DOM)
• Osteopathic Medicine: (BOst, BOstMed, BSc(Osteo), DO, DipOsteo)

Dentistry

• Dental: (BDS, BDent, BChD, DDS, DMD, BDSc, CD, Cand.Odont., Dr.Med.Dent., BDM)

Dental hygiene

• Dental hygiene: (BSDH, BSc, BOH, RDH)

Medicine/Surgery

• Medicine/Surgery: (MBBS, MBChB, MB, BMed,MD, MDCM, Dr.MuD)
• Osteopathic Medicine/Surgery: (DO)

Nursing

• Nursing: (BSN, BNurs, BScN, BSc, RN)

Optometry

• Optometry: (OD, B.Optom)

Pharmacy

• Pharmacy: (BSc, BPharm, MPharm, PharmD, DPharm)

Physical therapy

• Physical therapy: (BSc, BSPT, MSPT, DPT, or DPhysio)

Podiatric Medicine

• Podiatry: (DPM, DP, BPod, PodB, or PodD)

Psycology

• Clinical Psychology (PsyD, ClinPsyD, LicPs.)

Anyways.. you get the idea. We don't have to clump the first group under "Alternative medical degrees" of course.. each health care field can have their own subheading. Doesn't matter to me. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes your listing seems to address issue that we do not imply by a "Medical degree" title only dealing with medical (conventional or DO) doctors, when physiotherapy & podiatry also included, yet provides a very comprehensive list that includes CAM fields without being seen to impose some "conventional medical cabal prejudice" as to what is or is not "proper" medicine. David Ruben ^Talk 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The list fails to distinguish between degrees/diplomas that form the legal basis for initiating controlled medical acts and those that do not. If the proposal is to make a new page called 'healthcare degrees' then this should be an uncontroverisal list. If the proposal is to have this 'medical degree' page point exclusively to an MD/DO article and exlude other verified well sourced medical degrees such as the ND in North America, then I remain opposed. Naturstud (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To you.. (see below).. "controlled medical act" and "diagnose and treat" are the same thing. Again, many types of "health care providers" do this.. but they are equally not considered to hold a "medical degree" or to be a "medical doctor" or to "practice medicine". Jwri7474 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what I think. You get it wrong every time! I must strongly request that you stop (mis)representing my thoughts and focus more on your own. Naturstud (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IMED/WHO list

A list of medical schools would be a great reference...for an article about medical schools. A list of allopathic medical schools would be an even better reference if we were talking about allopathic medical schools. This redirect page is not about medical schools or allopathic medical schools in particular, so I do not see the relevance of the WHO/IMED reference. I can see no reason to restrict the term 'medical degree' to the allopathic realm. I am not opposed to someone creating a page called 'heathcare degrees', but this page - which lists medical degrees - should be maintained, since it lists those specific degrees that prepare doctors to diagnose and treat disease.Naturstud (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The IMED/WHO list does not only list "allopathic medical schools". It lists every program that is officially recognised as a "medical school" by each respective country in the world. For example: the United States also recognises DO schools (osteopathic) as "medical schools", therefore, the IMED/WHO list includes these programs as well. Until the United States and/or Canada officially recognises the ND (naturopathic) programs as "medical schools" and they are put on the internationally accepted list of "medical schools"... they will not be accepted as such. Sorry. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The IMED/WHO list does not list every officially recognised medical school in the world. It is of no significance that naturopathic medical schools do not appear on a list of allopathic medical schools. Entree's do not appear on the wine list, but you would not assume when they bring you the wine list at a restaurant that they serve no food. It does not claim to be an exclusive list. As a refereence, the IMED/WHO list could be used to support the existence of various allopathic degrees (not that they are in question). It could not be used to proove the non existence of non allopathic degrees however. Naturstud (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does... it lists every past and currently officially recognized medical school in the entire world. (please stop with the "allopathic" descriptor). US osteopathic (DO) programs are on the list because they are recognized by the United States as an official "medical degree". Naturopathic programs are not on the list. It is of significance because it means that every country around the world will not recognize you as graduating from "medical school". You may have graduated from a program in "naturopathic medicine/naturopathy", but this is not the same thing. In order to be internationally recognized as holding a "medical degree" your program must be on this list. It is an exclusive list in that it it is the only list that is used by every country around the world when it comes to deciding whether or not to grant a license to practice "medicine". In order to be eligible.. your "medical degree" program must be on this list. Simple as that. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the officially accepted "medical schools" in Canada and the United States. In those 2 countries... the only degrees that are officially recognised as 'medical degrees" are (MD, DO, and MDCM). Jwri7474 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to inform the US Dept of Education that they must stop accrediting "graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" because the United Nations has not 'officially recognized' them, or should I? Naturstud (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The US dept of education does not "accredit" Naturopathy programs... nor do they describe such programs as a "medical degree". They only "approve" outside bodies to regulate professions. (it is not the role of the US dept of education to regulate each and every health care profession). They have "approved" Council on Naturopathic Medical Education to self regulate the profession of Naturopathy. The CNME is made up of a group of naturopaths who have a mission to promote the practice of naturopathy. It is in their self interest to self describe themselves as "medical doctors" or those who "practice medicine" or hold "medical degrees". Just because a society of Naturopaths or Naturopathic colleges self describe their degrees as "medical degrees" does not make it so. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not correct. The US dept of education charges the CNME with acrediting schools that offer a very specific four year program leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree. The US dept of Ed recognizes and names this degree title explicitly. Naturstud (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, You claim, "but this page - which lists medical degrees - should be maintained, since it lists those specific degrees that prepare doctors to diagnose and treat disease", suggests 2 things. 1) that we should list any program that prepares a graduate to diagnose and treat any form of disease. Problem: Many "health care" professionals do this.. podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, physicians, surgeons, nurses, physicians assistants, etc, etc. 2) By including the word term "prepares doctors"... you are infering that all the degrees we list have to be titled as a "doctorate" or that the profession allows those practicing to use the title "Dr.". Problem: Not all countries use the word "doctorate" or "doctor of....." in the title of their degree (ex: MBBS = Bachelor of Medicine = MD = Doctor of Medicine). You can't use language which excludes other equivalent degrees, diplomas, etc from other countries from such a list. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A careful reading of the guidlines will reveal that both of the concerns you raise have been adressed previously. 1) The guidlines do not require the word 'doctor' in the name of a degree, as has been pointed out to you on no less than three occasions. 2) The guidlines suggest that medical degrees are those degrees which are named by governments as being required before a practioner may intiate a controled medical act. Pretty straighforward stuff. Naturstud (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, WHY... do you keep deleting every degree I post without "doctor" in the title? Define a "controled medical act". Jwri7474 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I remove entries that do not meet the guidlines - some of your additions had no refreences at all. I have not removed entries simply because they do not contain the word 'doctor' in the title. Once again, this is old ground. You asked me about this in an earlier discussion, and I explained it there. I am beginning to feel baited by the amount of sheer repetition you are forcing us to go through. Naturstud (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted: The term Allopathic medicine was coined by Samuel Hahnemann, who was the founder of homeopathy. This term was rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. The term has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that medical graduates as individuals apply to themselves. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We have covered this ground before. I asked you to consult http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:allopathic. The AMA itself uses the term. Naturstud (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this article: When did I become an Allopath? Jwri7474 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Read it a while ago. The answer is: 'over a hundred years ago'. I have made it clear that I do not like using this (extremely inacurate) term when you asked about it before. I also made it clear that I do not intend it to be an insult. Do we need to repeat this earlier conversation? Naturstud (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Puropse of the page

I see another author above is arguing that naturopathy should be excluded because it is 'quackery' and not a medical degree. I can only suggest that editors refrain from choosing their favorite flavour of medicine and examine the references and facts as they pertain to the use of the term medical degree. It is a fact that the ND is routinely described as a medical degree (google "naturopathic medical degree" for this). It is also a fact that various governments have created legal recognition that enables NDs to diagnose and treat disease, to use the title 'doctor' etc. One may not agree with, like or respect NDs, but this does not alter the fact that the degree is indeed a medical one. Can we agree to avoid a debate over what is 'real medicine' and focus on finding references that support the correct use of the term that is the subject of this redirect page? Naturstud (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor of Naturopathy programs are not accepted as "medical degrees" by the United States or Canada. They are not equal to the MD, MBBS, or DO degrees and as such are not equally not internationally accepted as "medical degrees" by the World Health Organisation/IMED. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, my aim was to try and not imply (coventional or otherwise) medical doctor be mixed with other specific health care fields (podiatry & physiotherapy) by the current article title. Hence why I suggested the "Healthcare degree" as has been exampled a few threads up, and seems fully inclusive - indeed it even would clearly include other areas of say Ayurvedic Medicine, and those who work in that area would clearly, and rightly, perceive themselves as "medical practioners". The renaming therefore sidesteps need to engage in any debate (ie arguing) over what is or is not "proper" medicine, that you rightly raise as a concern, and allows naturopathy and other items in the example markup above.

Just as an explanation of my throwaway remark, us outside of US have very different perspective of some of the terms eg Osteopaths in the UK are not doctors in the sense that they rightly seem in the US (but it is a regulated term requiring prescribed training) whereas Naturopath in the UK is not a legally protected term and so can be used by anyone even without any training - as such I personally tend to think of their practice as quackery, however I did try and indicate that I though such issues indeed irrelevant to the title/content mismatch as the article currently has with inclusion of also podiatry & physiotherapy (do you agree with incongruity of at least these items?) (PS I fully agree "avoid a debate over what is 'real medicine'"). David Ruben ^Talk 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I understand that in Europe there is no equivalent naturopathic medical degree. In my neck of the woods, however, the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine is an academic degree required by the state before one can practice naturopathic medicine - a practice that is explicitly defined as a form of medicine. Some background: the ND degree over here requires the same pre-med courses as the MD curriculum, consists of the same core courses in the first few years (Anatomy, Physiology, PCD etc) and concludes with a 1 year clinical rotation. We are required to pass two sets of comprehensive board exams, carry malpractice insurance, complete continuing ed courses, etc. I include this info not to invite comparison with the MD but to point out that 'naturopathic medicine' is a loose concept whereas 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' is the name of an actual medical degree that can be researched and referenced as such. I appreciate that in your part of the world, 'naturopath' implies a poorly defined, non-professional association of individuals with various amounts of training. No doubt some are quacks. My hope is that this page will remain focussed on the degrees themselves, which are readily verified as leading to state-approved medical practice - or not.

As for other degrees that may not belong on the page, I will support the removal of any degree that does not meet the usage/practice based criterion that we worked so hard to define because I beleive that there is value in deliniating medical degrees that train practitioners to diagnose and treat disease from other healthcare degrees.If we can not find substantial references to physiotherapy or reiki as a 'medical degree' and if we can not find any evidence of legislation that permit these practitioners to initiate controlled medical acts, then they should be removed. Likewise, I will support the addition of any degree or diploma where there are references that clearly show usage of the term 'medical degree' and/or can document that holding the degree enables one to initiate a controlled medical act. Naturstud (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, If we do decide to include all degrees that are considered a "medical one"... then you equally cannot continue to delete all other complementary and alternative medical degrees (other than the "doctor of naturopathy" that you yourself hold). Fair? You will have to allow all diplomas, certificates, degrees from other countries (outside the US and Canada) which also train professionals in these health care fields. Regardless of how they are titled. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will contine to remove any additions that are clearly not medical degrees, as per the guidlines. For example, If you want to add reiki certification as per your previous edit, please find some references that refer to the the reiki diploma as a 'medical degree', and or some legislation etc that permits Reiki masters to initiate controlled medical acts. Naturstud (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please define "controled medical act".... this is yet another guideline that you are now instituding. Before you said "anyone who diagnosed and treated disease". Is this the same thing or are you changing your definition yet again? Jwri7474 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples are provided in the guidlines - they are the original guidlines that we agreed to. I do not think that they have been altered in any way. I have not changed my position. Naturstud (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, just because you can do a google search and find pages that market the Doctor of Naturopathy as a "medical degree" to would be students doesn't mean it is officially accepted as a "medical degree" by Canada and the United states (or any other country for that matter). A degree in "Naturopathy" or "Naturopathic medicine" yes.. a "medical degree"... no. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my position that the presence of copious usage-based references should automatically include the ND degree on the page. It is my position that it meets both the usage based and the practice based guidlines.

You said, it must describe someone who is allowed to perform a "controlled medical act". When I asked just now if your definition has changed from your previous definition of "anyone who diagnosis and treats disease", you said no... that your position hasn't changed. So I am inferring that you equate "controlled medical act" to mean the exact same thing as anyone who is allowed to "diagnose and treat any form of disease". Again.. pretty much every form of "health care" professional can do this. soo..... Again.. this means that we will have a very long list of providers. You are going to have to keep working on new ways to better twist your legal language/terms so that you can fit your ND degree as equal to MD, MBBS, and DO (medical degrees). Still not good enough yet. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making accusations - I have not 'twisted' anything. Please read the guidlines - you will find some examples of controled medical acts there. They are pretty much what you would expect - acts that are prohibitted to the general population and can only be initiated by a doctor. Communicating a diagnosis, prescribing a drug, inserting a finger or instrument beyond certain anatomical landmarks, making an incision, and so on. They may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the theme is the same: these are acts that should only be initiated by someone with a medical degree. The guidlines suggest that any medical degree that qualifies its holder to be licensed to perform such medical acts is probably a medical degree, especially if it is backed up by usage based citations. Naturstud (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of what decision we are trying to make

I am not sure what is being debated any longer. The current problems started becuase I removed some degrees/diplomas added by another user (reiki for example) because I felt that they did not meet the usage-based or the practice-based guidlines. If I understand that user's main argument now, it is that the page should not include all healthcare degrees but that it should only include those that are real bona fide 'medical' degrees which, in that users opinion, not be said to include Doctor of Naturopathic medicine.

It seems that there are two debates here. For clarity: 1) I do not believe that paramedics, reiki masters and nurses have degrees that meet the guidlines to permit their inclusion on this page but am open to further discussion on a case by case basis if any editor would like to find references that support these additions. 2) I do believe that the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree meets the guildines to be included on this page, and am willing to go get more references supporting this addition if need be.

Apart from that, I feel we are stuck in an endless circle, with a single editor simultaneously demanding that the medical degree page must be inclusive enough to accomodate a three weekend certificate in Reiki and at the same time exclusive enough to de-list the four year natitionally acreditied degree, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. The fact that both arguments are coming from one editor does not bode well. Naturstud (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nurse Practitioners and Nurse anesthetists can work independently without physician supervision in areas as well. They can equally do some of the same things you can do as I've stated before. Their programs are only 2 years long. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(summary of what follows "lets go with what can be agreed, then seek wider views of what has not been agreed"):

Jwri7474, I think the above misses Naturstud's sensible summation above. Naturstud agrees above with non-doctoring medical degees not being appropriate within "Medical degree" article (ie nurses, physios, reki), and (now getting to be) someway up in the discussions addressed whether to have simpler option of more inclusive "Healthcare degree" as being less useful (although I would disagree with line of reasoning that articles need to be of use to patients, for WP does not give advice and WP is for all readers).

So if article is not to be renamed/changed in scope, then 2 issues remain: a) remove out the non-doctoring degrees which is what a general reader would expect "Medical" to mean (be prepared for US physiotherapists with "Doctor of physical therapy" degrees and the Vets to object) b) decide on specific issue of very geo-localised issue of US/Canada alternatives - i've been previously won-over (from my initial suspicion) re status of DO, indeed will actively argue for its inclusion. The issues for ND are much harder to judge from here in UK and whilst wikipedia article is interesting reading, wikipedia as a tertiary source not the way I would wish to make a firm personal decision :-)

At this time, lots of links, issues of specific terminology and interpretation been raised by just the few of us and this nolonger seems resolvable with only 3 participants on a talk page. Emotions been high, but time for a cool-down, else civility & agf will be strained :-)

What is needed at this point is just confirmation on taking step (a) above, and then perhaps try and seek a wider opinion of editors to ensure discussion focuses on issues rather than risk becoming overly personal. Would someone like to consider adding a RfC to the folks at WP:MED, WP:ALTMED & WP:RfC (perhaps even WP:NPOV or WP:RS if it is a question of finding and accurating reflecting real-world opinions fairly, i.e. per WP:NPOV against WP:WEIGHT) ? David Ruben ^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, it seems that what you are asking for is that we agree to enforce the guidlines that appear on the top of the page in two steps. Step a) would remove degrees that do not even come close to meeting the guidlines. Step b) would involve seeking out aditional opinions to re-examine weather or not DO, ND, DC meet the guidlines. I support this plan, but only if there is agreement to use the guidlines! If any editor has a problem with the guidlines, then I suggest that the mosty important first step is to take the time to reestablish consensus and or rebuild them. I agree that it is important to avoid having the situation getting more personal - in my opinion what we have here is little more than a case of professional jelousy between two professions that have a long history of such disputes. All of which is a long way of saying that if Jwri is willing to accept and begin using the guidlines, then I will sign on to your a+b design. I have some reservations extending an assumption of good faith with this editor given the history (s/he agreed to follow the guidlines once before, then proceed to add reiki and other strawman degrees), but the options seem rather limited so am willing to try again. The first job is to agree on how we know when something is a medical degree or not in a general sense. If we can not establish this consensus, then I doubt that we will find agreement on specific degrees. Naturstud (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. PS I wondered if rename to "Conventional and alternative medical degrees" might both keep this as medical fields and yet stop any of us conventional lot from have grounds to complain... but I think this might prove just as problematic with then degrees in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Homeopathy, Herbal Therapy etc might also then need to be included - resulting in moving the debate only to discuss an alternative demarcation line. David Ruben ^Talk 19:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the words 'conventional and alternative' are redundant in the phrase 'conventional and alternative medical degrees' (What other kinds of medical degrees are there?), your solution is worth considering. As long as we can establish consensus on the guidelines, this could actually work. My reading of the guidelines would exclude nursing, pharmacy from the 'Conventional medical degree' branch of the page and exclude reiki and iridology from the 'Alternative medical degree' branch. My concerns are that, as you say, we would merely have a new front for the battle, with the 'North American NDs are not real doctors' faction pushing hard POV edits to include all sorts of alternative non-medical degrees under the complementary branch. It does not solve the underlying disagreement between Jwri and myself about the ND being/not being a medical degree. So the legitimate ND from a four year nationally accredited graduate program who is legally certified by a state board to practice medicine, perform exams, order labs, prescribe drugs, use the title 'doctor' etc will be listed below the psychic iridologist who got his degree by mail order, never cracked a textbook, doesn't even own a stethoscope, and has no legal basis for practice. The song remains the same. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)