Talk:Physician

message: 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)
thread_title: Who's afraid of who?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Different meanings of the word ''Physician''

message: I can't remember what it's called! Darkwhistle 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it referred to as a "head mirror". Figma 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the name of the shiny silver reflecting disc on the headband of the stereotypical physician in uniform? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Doctors prone to being killers

message: 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)
thread_title:  The politics of the term 'physician' 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: major edit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology of ''Doctor'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nurse Practitioners 

message: 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)
replies: text: I reverted that edit yesterday. Try refreshing your browser with Crtl+F5. (EhJJ)TALK 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: 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)
thread_title: Etymology of leech & leechcraft

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by round corner, round corner 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Wishuponsarah]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, it looks better, and makes the article less USA focused.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Physician as specialist in internal medicine

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Physician'' as any medical practitioner — in Southeast Asia?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism/Sockpuppetry/3RR violations 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  67.202.73.46 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Social role section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent vandalism — again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of "doctor" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction Poem/Quote..? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  medical regulation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who is in charge of the content and editing for the article titled Physician? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  (the full text is available as a pdf online: ). 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism by mikebmr 

message: 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)
replies: text: Concur. There is already a Health care provider article covering that topic. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Clearly you are completely unbiased. "losers" really?  | pulmonological talk • contribs  16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The inclusion is definitely justified and there is no "consensus against inclusion of this material".    | pulmonological talk • contribs  17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of mid-level practitioners 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In health systems 

message: 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove defamation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  International physician 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dentists

message: Medical License will be properly notified so that corrective, reciprocal action can be taken against the offending physician.
Medlicense (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014 

message: 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)
thread_title: Organization of "modern meanings" section

message: (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, . --Elvey(t•c) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Anyone? --Elvey(t•c) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising and license verification 

message: 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"
Qwaserdf1234 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: [[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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Physician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physicians are not Doctors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USA 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dr of Chiropractic Care is no longer considered a Dr. This definition needs revision. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: Paging User:CFCF who removed the content, can you comment? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not belong. Carl Fredrik talk 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unexplained removal of sourced content 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019 

message: Change from:
Physicians do experience exposure to occupational hazards, and there is a well-known aphorism that "doctors make the worst patients". 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.
Change to:
Physicians do experience exposure to occupational hazards, and there is a well-known aphorism that "doctors make the worst patients". 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. 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.  Fishmanconsult (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , added ref and reworded to match source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020 

message: 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. Fishmanconsult (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , see above. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine a Medical Physician? 

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

message: Hi 2406:B400:D1:D350:54D8:15A0:BEDD:E6A5 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overly subjective or unsubstantiated phrase? 

message: Remove simply doctor from description of physician. Doctor refers to level of degree, not profession. Applemill123 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "Doctor" is very commonly used to refer to the profession Cannolis (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023