Vol. 28 No. 3 June 2008 - Who can be called “Doctor”?

Bruce Barwell

Died Thursday 29th May 2008

On hearing the news of Bruce’s sudden death of a heart attack, my first thoughts were of deep sympathy for his wife Ruth, family and friends, and the many who were both his patients and his friends.

This issue of the magazine was produced and edited by him and printed just prior to his death.

Bruce was a colossus in New Zealand homoeopathy - although he would have shrunk in horror at the epitaph.

In acknowledging this, we who remain must ensure that the Society continues to promote his conviction in the validity of Hahnemannian /Boenninghausen practices and scientific principles in a way that reflects them truly .

As the tide of the Society ebbs, the resources of the deep sea remain, and as the tide turns again, we must ensure it will bring as clear a reflection of Bruce’s aims and ideals as it is able to produce.

A full obituary will be published later.

Eileen Boghurst
Past president / membership secretary

EDITORIAL - Who can be called “Doctor”?

Recently a homœopath with an Indian BHMS degree (Bachelor of Homœopathic Medicine and Surgery) was said to be in breach of New Zealand law by the professional organisation to which he belonged because he used the title Doctor.

This raises the issue of interpretation of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act relating to the use of the title Doctor. The Medical Council of New Zealand, in a publication and in correspondence, appears to hold that it is a legal necessity that a “doctor” who is not a registered medical practitioner as defined by the Act must take every possible measure to ensure even a dimwit does not mistake him/her for a registered practitioner.

On the other hand sharp legal minds I have asked about this have another view. Their opinion is that any prosecution pursuing the line of the medical council’s interpretation would fail, the crucial point being that for a prosecution to succeed it would be necessary to prove the person using the title “Doctor” was doing so with the deliberate intention of the deception that they were a bona fide registered practitioner. It might take an actual case to clarify the matter was one view. Just look at all the Doctors in the Acupuncture section of the Yellow Pages phone books!

I raised this issue previously in an editorial in September 2006, which is reproduced here:

A recent publication of the Medical Council of New Zealand gives the Council’s interpretation of the law relating to the use of the title “doctor”.

Of course all sorts of people call themselves “doctor” - dentists, chiropractors, and people with an academic qualification such as a PhD or DSc - as well as MB, ChBs, etc.
However, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act of 2003 states that it is an offence to use names, words, titles, abbreviations or descriptions implying that a person is a registered medical practitioner in a setting which could mislead someone into believing they were a registered medical practitioner, if that person is not qualified to be a medical practitioner.

People in New Zealand who qualified in various therapies in other countries, and who were called doctor or equivalent there, usually keep using “doctor” here - notably practitioners of Chinese medicine, Indian homœopaths, and people who were conventional medical practitioners in Europe but are not registered to practise as such here.

My take on this is that it is okay to use the title of doctor on signs, business cards, literature, etc, if you follow your name with an abbreviation of your qualification which shows adequately that you are not an MB, ChB, MD, dentist, vet, or chiropractor.

I think it likely that if you are an MD from America, say, and not registered here, and set up here prescribing only homœopathic medicines, you would be in breach of the Act if you used Dr as a title, though it might take a Court case to establish a definitive interpretation. Obviously you can be Dr in the White Pages phone book with impunity, but in the Yellow Pages under “Homœopaths” it may be prudent to give your LCEH or BHMS to avoid a charge of deception.

Bruce Barwell

< Back