I guess, in reference to the question as to whether or not the Au.D. will
be termed a "legal designator" is that I hope that it is. I hope that
it will be regarded for the good that it does. It is the right direction
for the profession to go and it ought to be legal. And in the democracy
that is the United States of America, I hope that any contest to this
issue is lobbied by the audiologists who will benefit by this action
(I feel that is the entire profession). I believe that the Au.D. ought to
be recognized because of the large number of audiologists that I know
personally who have dedicated their lives to this profession, some for
many years. They have developed increasing skill at great sacrifice as
new information has become available. With new technology and equipment,
audiologists painstakingly obtain the skill to use that equipment to the
benefit of the patient, with little recognition or compensation for that
effort. I believe that the Au.D. ought to be recognized because the
profession lacks the autonomy it needs in order for us to perfom our jobs
to the maximum benefit of our patients. I believe that the Au.D. ought
to be recognized in order to bring the profession of audiology out of
In regard to the contention that the AFA is an independent credentialing
orginization, I refer back to the precedence set by the nation's three
largest pharmacy practitioner associations, representing well over
200,000 pharmacy practitioners, who released a consensus position
statement supporting the "new" doctor of pharmacy degree and encouraged
the nation's colleges of pharmacy to develop a degree transfer process
for B.S. degreed pharmacists. They further stated that, "for current
B.S. degree pharmacists whose colleges do not provide degree transfer,
PHARMACY'S PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS WILL DEVELOP AN INSTITUTE FOR THE
PUPOSE OF GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PHARM D. EQUIVALENCE." (taken from
APhA, ASHP and NARD Release "Joint Statement on the e Entry Level Doctor
of Pharmacy Degree", Press Release 11/91)
As I understand it, the granting of new titles has been utilized in a
different manner for each profession and was approached in a form that
was consistent with the needs and the particular circumstances of the
majority of the profession. I submit to you that I received my Master's
degree from a University that does not provide degree transfer and
therefore (as the legal precedence for transformation previously
mentioned from the pharmacy's professional association) a professional
association was developed for the purpose of granting an Au.D. "The
Audiology Foundation of America (AFA) was formed by audiologists to
facilitate the transformation of the profession to the doctoral level"
(taken from the applicant information booklet from the AFA). "The
objectives of AFA credentialing are First, to establish that a prescribed
configuration of training, experience, and practice capability is
congruent with the set of practice activities of Doctoral Audiology
Practitioners; Second, to encourage improvement and enhancement of the
practice of audiology; Third, to enable the public to identify practicing
audiologists who meet the Au.D. criteria of training, experience, and
practice capability; and Fourth, to grant the Au.D. credential to
I admit that I am no legal expert and in no way prepared to discuss the
law. But I am not aware of any constitutional documentation or any
federal legal referances that specifically state that earned entitlement
must be performed only though a University or a State Licensure Board. I
would be grateful for any information regarding this matter so that I may
write to my congresional representative to request it be ammended as
unfair policy. I have heard rumor that a few states may have such
statements that are supposed to outlaw the use of Doctor by audiologists
and I have always believed that they were supported by their state
hearing aid dispensing examining committee. They too should be lobbied
against by the collective audiology profession. I recall a rumor of a
Ph.D. audiologist in the state of Texas reprimanded by the Texas State
Hearing Aid Dispensing Examining Commitee for using the title of Doctor.
This is clearly wrong.
The time has come for the Au.D. It is a verifiable title. I submit that
is why so many audiologists are requesting applications for Earned
Entitlement from the AFA and the qualifications of the audiologists are
the reason for the AFA granting so many Au.D. credentials to the
candidates. It is the only fair method prescribed to date to bring the
profession of Audiology to it's rightfull standing. I commend the AFA
for their efforts.
Clark E. Gailey, M.S., FAAA, CCC-A
>>dybala at utdallas.edu wrote in article <56m044$g36 at utdallas.edu>...
>>>> I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO NOTE:
>>>> In all of the cases below the earned entitlement was done
>> through a UNIVERSITY of A STATE LICENSURE BOARD. Hence
>> it it legal to use the designator as Doctor.
>>>> THE "aud" FROM AFA IS THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT CREDENTIALLING
>> therefore it is illegal to use the designator
>> because it is impersonating an earned degree from
>> A UNIVERSITY
>> and you cannot call yourself a DOCTOR
>> unless it is from a university or state licensure board.
>>>> That is why the optometry, law, and pharmacy models
>> worked because they were done legally!
>>>> Unlike the AFA's "aud".
>>>>>> Please do not make the following comparision made
>> below to the AFA's "aud". It is totally INACCURATE!
>> My all of this shouting I must be getting nodules!
>>>> Paul Dybala
>> > It's interesting to read the materials sent with the Application for
>> > Au.D. Credentialing regarding the history of Entitlement.
>>>> > "In the late 18th and 19th centuries various medical schools changed
>> > their degree from a Bachelor of Medicine (M.B.) to Doctor of Medicine
>> > (M.D.). Harvard University even granted complimentary M.D.'s to
>> > M.B. and as recently as 1970, the State of California allowed Doctors
>> > Osteopathy (D.O.'s) to exchange their degree for a M.D. degree.
>>>> > Granding new titles has been utilized by a number of professions as a
>> > viable means and for a specific purpose, i.e. primarily to transform or
>>> > transition thier professions to a doctoring profession. Each
>> > was not without controversy and usually was approached in a different
>> > form for each profession that was consistent with the needs and
>> > particular circumstances of the majority of the profession"
>>>> > We learn of similar transistions for the Doctor of Optometry degree,
>> > Podiatry, Juris Doctor etc. In 1987, the State of Arkansas Pharmacy
>> > Licensure Bord enactied legislation allowing all licensed pharmacists
>> > use the designator P.D. and the title doctor of pharmacy even if they
>> > have not earned the doctor of pharmacy degree. There was no opposition
>>> > in the state legislature to this action. In 1991, the nation's three
>> > largest pharmacy practitioner associations, representing well over
>> > 200,000 pharmacy practitioners, released a consensus position statement
>>> > supporting the "new" doctor of pharmacy degree and encouraging the
>> > nation's colleges of pharmacy to develop a degree transfer process for
>> > B.S. degreed harmacists. They further stated that, "for current B.S.
>> > degree pharmacists whose calleges do not provide degree transfer,
>> > pharmacy's professional associations will develop an institute for the
>> > purpose of granting a Certificate of PHarm D. Equivalence."
>>>> > THE PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET, THE TIME IS RIGHT!!!
>>>> > It seems to me that it is high time for the profesional audiologists to
>>> > wake up to the needs of our times. We have the potential of becoming
>> > autonomous profession. Why would anyone not want that for the
>> > that we have dedicated our lives to?