You have restated your legal argument (not for the first time) without adressing my concerns as to its relevence or its truth. I understand that it is your opinion that the term medical degree should be restricted to the adademic title Doctor of Medicine because of the legal wording in some jurisdictions that apears to restrict the 'practice of medicine'. Your entire argument seems to be 'caught in a legal definition'. Can you show me a law that says that only the Doctor of Medicine Degree may be legaly refered to as a medical degree? Claiming that non-MDs do not practice medicine is not something that you have ever been able to back up. I have shown you a reference that the US Dept of education recognizes many types of medical degrees. We know (to use the example with which I am best acquanted) that NDs are legally entitiled to perform medical evaluations, diagnose medical diseases and provide medical treatment in 21 jurisdictions. Show me a reference that legaly and comprehensively defines and restricts the term 'medical degree'. It simply is not a legal term. Even if you could find a comprehensive, relevant legal restriction on the term 'medical degree', it could not negate the fact that non-NDs do practice medicine. Still waiting for an answer to my question above - about the ND who diagnoses and treats diabetes. Do you honestly believe that her degree was not a medical one? If so what would you call it? A 'naturopathic medical degree'? If so, can we abandon the dead end legal argument and focus on your semantic/common usage concerns?