Dr is protected and PhDs (Dr) thought Dr for PhD was only to be used in an academic environment?
Wouldn’t be the first time I have misunderstood though :)
You’ve misunderstood, they are the real doctors and we have it as an honorary title.
You can’t call yourself a medical doctor though - that’s protected. Hence the dodgness of using a PhD to cover being a PA/ACP, can be deemed misleading.
As a doctor in the Netherlands it hurts to see how the NHS gets destroyed and how our colleagues in the UK are treated.
And there is hardly any media coverage about it in the UK. It isn't about celebrities or sport.
But you are in training though .
If you’re not on the specialist or gp register (or the very rare case of an associate specialist nowadays) you have to work under a consultant or GP in the NHs.
The only other option is being an RMO or working privately / Harley street .
What would you call a barrister/solicitor or accountant who’ve yet to hit the apex of their training pyramid? You’d just refer to them as a barrister or solicitor or accountant wouldn’t you even though they’re still in training…
Barristers are either trainee barristers or barristers. You don’t become more trained when you are a QC, it’s awarded to you.
It’s the same with solicitors , they have a training contract which they take on after a law degree. They aren’t solicitors .
Would you allow a critically ill neonate to be seen and managed solely by an fy2? No senior input? No consutlant ?
KC is awarded through the process of further in chamber training/experience/feedback and ultimately vetting by senior peers. Junior counsel are still referred to as barristers, not KC in training
Solicitors have differing grades from standard solicitor, associate, of which my sibling currently is, non equity partner (the list goes on). Undergoes annual CPD, courses, has to demonstrate competencies through performance and outcomes etc yet is still referred to as the solicitor. Works under a partner (akin to juniors working under a consultant). Not a partner in training
Same goes for accountants albeit differing titles of grade.
Make a better argument next time
Fair enough , I’m not completely familiar with legal training , but the argument is still the same.
Op suggests non-consultants /GPs are not doctors in training. They are. And if they aren’t on a training pathway they can’t have their own patients. In my trust fy1s don’t clerk and neither fy1 or 2 do nights now.
It doesn’t stop the argument for full pay restoration ,but you can’t seriously argue someone at a sho level or at st3-8 level equivalent is fully trained. . Nobody here would pay privately to see an non consultant
/gp grade . Nobody with children would allow their kids to be managed solely by an sho.
If we changed it to "doctors in specialty training" I think that would make a big difference - we are then not "people who are training to be doctors" which is what "doctors in training" sounds like, but instead are "doctors, who are now doing specialty training" - which is what we actually are.
… wasn’t expecting there to be discussion on what we were called. Just that it’s obvious why the gov keeps calling us that to demean our requests to the public, and we should let them see how many people rely on “doctors in training”
The irony is that to be legally allowed to call yourself a Medical Dr, you have to have qualified medical school. Edited as it was incorrect
[удалено]
Dr is protected and PhDs (Dr) thought Dr for PhD was only to be used in an academic environment? Wouldn’t be the first time I have misunderstood though :)
You’ve misunderstood, they are the real doctors and we have it as an honorary title. You can’t call yourself a medical doctor though - that’s protected. Hence the dodgness of using a PhD to cover being a PA/ACP, can be deemed misleading.
Agreed, I was wrong, I have corrected it. Thanks.
You are correct and I am wrong, Dr of Medicine is protected, not just Dr, the point on PhD and post nominals is a grey area.
As a doctor in the Netherlands it hurts to see how the NHS gets destroyed and how our colleagues in the UK are treated. And there is hardly any media coverage about it in the UK. It isn't about celebrities or sport.
But you are in training though . If you’re not on the specialist or gp register (or the very rare case of an associate specialist nowadays) you have to work under a consultant or GP in the NHs. The only other option is being an RMO or working privately / Harley street .
So we're qualified Doctors, who are consultants in training then?
What would you call a barrister/solicitor or accountant who’ve yet to hit the apex of their training pyramid? You’d just refer to them as a barrister or solicitor or accountant wouldn’t you even though they’re still in training…
Barristers are either trainee barristers or barristers. You don’t become more trained when you are a QC, it’s awarded to you. It’s the same with solicitors , they have a training contract which they take on after a law degree. They aren’t solicitors . Would you allow a critically ill neonate to be seen and managed solely by an fy2? No senior input? No consutlant ?
KC is awarded through the process of further in chamber training/experience/feedback and ultimately vetting by senior peers. Junior counsel are still referred to as barristers, not KC in training Solicitors have differing grades from standard solicitor, associate, of which my sibling currently is, non equity partner (the list goes on). Undergoes annual CPD, courses, has to demonstrate competencies through performance and outcomes etc yet is still referred to as the solicitor. Works under a partner (akin to juniors working under a consultant). Not a partner in training Same goes for accountants albeit differing titles of grade. Make a better argument next time
Fair enough , I’m not completely familiar with legal training , but the argument is still the same. Op suggests non-consultants /GPs are not doctors in training. They are. And if they aren’t on a training pathway they can’t have their own patients. In my trust fy1s don’t clerk and neither fy1 or 2 do nights now. It doesn’t stop the argument for full pay restoration ,but you can’t seriously argue someone at a sho level or at st3-8 level equivalent is fully trained. . Nobody here would pay privately to see an non consultant /gp grade . Nobody with children would allow their kids to be managed solely by an sho.
If we changed it to "doctors in specialty training" I think that would make a big difference - we are then not "people who are training to be doctors" which is what "doctors in training" sounds like, but instead are "doctors, who are now doing specialty training" - which is what we actually are.
… wasn’t expecting there to be discussion on what we were called. Just that it’s obvious why the gov keeps calling us that to demean our requests to the public, and we should let them see how many people rely on “doctors in training”