I should never write these things late at night when my critical faculties
are at their minimum. Mike is indeed correct in his analysis. My concern
was not that I disagree with Dybala on this issue, I don't. I was annoyed
by his insistent use of capital letters to describe his opinion of what is
or is not legal. My intended response was this: If the Au.D. folks are
unqualified to call themselves "doctor", what gives Dybala the right, with
not even a basic legal degree, to pronounce what is or is not legal?
I guess I ought to read this stuff in the mornings when I can reason more
Michael Gorga <GORGA at BoysTown.ORG> wrote in article <51424 at BoysTown.ORG>...
> A recent posting by Dybala raised concerns about the legality of
> calling one's self "doctor" following credential review and the
> payment of a fee. In response, Ridenhour questioned whether
> Dybala had the credentials (I take this to mean a law degree from
> a university) to comment on the legality of
> calling one's self "doctor" through an entitlement process.
> Ridenhour perhaps raises a good point. Although I do not believe
> that Dybala was, in any way, trying to mis-represent himself to
> his colleagues as a lawyer, there are people who are
> qualified by their education to comment on legal matters. That
> being the case, how can we question someone's legal
> qualifications and still find it acceptable for someone to
> represent themselves as a "doctor" to the public, third parties,
> or other health care professionals without having earned that
> right? Ignoring the legality of such things (about which I
> am no authority), there are moral and ethical reasons
> why some of us question the entitlement approach.
>> Michael Gorga