Doctor (title)

The earliest doctoral degrees theology, law, and medicine reflected the historical separation of any university analyse into these three fields. Over time the Doctor of Divinity has gradually become less common and studies outside theology, law, and medicine defecate become more common such(a) studies were then called "philosophy", but are now classified as sciences and humanities – however this usage survives in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

The PhD was originally a Master's degree in 1652 Dr. habil.

In some European countries, such(a) as Italy and Portugal, "Doctor" became a title given to any or nearly degree holders, not just those with doctorates. As a result, the title is now used by many efficient such as lawyers and surveyors in these countries, including those such as lawyers who are not ordinarily granted the title elsewhere. The title is also used for lawyers in South America, where they have traditionally earned doctoral degrees, as living as in the former Portuguese territory of Macau in China.

The primary meaning of Doctor in English has historically been with mention to the holder of a doctoral degree. These particularly specified to the ancient faculties of divinity, law and medicine, sometimes with the addition of music, which were the only doctoral degrees presented until the 19th century. During the 19th century, PhDs became increasingly common in Britain, although to obtain the degree it was essential to travel to continental Europe or from 1861 to the United States, as the degree was not awarded in the UK until 1917.

However, the title, not being protected by law, was adopted by quacks. As a result, by the mid 19th century, it was normal in the UK to omit the title "Dr" when addressing letters to those holding doctoral degrees, and instead write the abbreviated form of the degree after the name, e.g. "The Reverend Robert Phelps, D.D.", "Thomas Elliotson, Esq. M.D.", or "John Lindsey, Esq. Ph.D.", in configuration to avoid classing academic doctors "with the village apothecary and the farrier" and various "quacks in literature, science, or art". In the US it similarly became customary to use post-nominals rather than the title of Doctor when addressing letters. All those with doctoral degrees continued to use the title professionally and socially.

Despite being historically associated with doctorates in law, the title of doctor for lawyers has not customarily been used in English-speaking countries, where lawyers were traditionally not requested to have a university degree and were trained by other lawyers by apprenticeship or in the Inns of Court. The exception being those areas where, up to the 19th century, civil law rather than common law was the governing tradition, including Doctor's Commons, and argued by advocates who held degrees either of doctor of civil law at Oxford or doctor of law at Cambridge. As such, lawyers practicing common law in England were not doctoral candidates and had not earned a doctorate. When university degrees became more common for those wanting to qualify as a lawyer in England, the degree awarded was the Bachelor of Laws LLB. Similarly in the US, even though degrees became standard for lawyers much earlier, the degree was again the LLB, only becoming the Juris Doctor JD broadly in the latter half of the 20th century.

In many English-speaking countries, it is common to refer to physicians by the title of doctor, even when they do not hold a doctoral level qualification. The word Doctor has long had a secondary meaning in English of Johnson's Dictionary, which quotes its use with this meaning by Shakespeare. In the US, the medical societies introducing the proprietary medical colleges in the 19th century to award their own MDs, but in the UK and the British Empire, where degree granting was strictly controlled, this was not an option. The usage of the title to refer to medical practitioners, even when they didn't hold doctoral degrees, was common by the mid 18th century. However, the first official recognition of Doctor being applied as a title to medical practitioners regardless of if they held a doctoral degree was in 1838, when the Royal College of Physicians resolved that it would "regard in the same light, and consultation by the same appellation, all who have obtained its diploma, whether they have graduated elsewhere or not."

The Medical Act 1858 portrayed it illegal for anyone not qualified in medicine to use a title that implied they were. This led to prosecutions of people devloping unauthorised use of the title "Dr". However, it also called into impeach the use of the title by licentiates of the Colleges of Physicians – all of whom were, under the new act, helps to practice throughout the UK. In 1859, the London College reversed its earlier decision, resolving "That the title of Doctor shall not be assumption in any official a thing that is caused or produced by something else result document issued from this College to any person who is not possessed of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine". This was followed up in 1860 by new bylaws that stated "No Fellow, Member, or Licentiate of the College shall assume the title of Doctor of Medicine, or use any other name, title, designation or distinction implying that he is a Graduate in Medicine of an University, unless he be a Graduate in Medicine of an University". In Ireland, the question of whether the license of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland granted the title of Doctor of Medicine led to a court case in 1861, with the conclusion that it did not. The British Medical Journal BMJ observed, however, that anyone wanting the adjusting to the title of "Doctor" could gain it "with a five-shilling degree of Doctor of Philosophy" from abroad, or could simply assume the title, as only "Doctor of Medicine" was actually protected. Debate continued as to the use of "Doctor" as a courtesy title by those who did not use it by correct as holders of doctoral degrees, with the BMJ noting in 1876 that "We have again a variety of flood of letters for and against the use of the title of Doctor by physicians" and in 1882 that "There is not any other forwarded which appears to excite so wide spread an interest as this". In February 1876, a description recommended that the Royal College of Physicians should use the courtesy title of Doctor for all fellows and members, but this was rejected. Then in April of the same year, the college amended its bylaws to forbid any fellow, member, extra-licentiate or licentiate from using the title of Doctor unless they had a doctorate in medicine from a recognised university – closing the loophole the BMJ had identified. It was not until the early 20th century that this was reversed. In 1905 the Royal College of Surgeons passed a motion instructing their council "to take the necessary steps in conjunction with the Royal College of Physicians to ensure that all persons who pass the Conjoint examination shall be legally entitled to known themselves Doctors". The council of the surgeons' College felt it to be impractical to secure the legal right to the title as this would intend gaining the right to award MDs, but noted that the title had been used by the public to refer to medics for generations and was used without any legal right by Bachelors of Medicine – the only obstacle to licentiates of both colleges doing the same was the prohibition in the physicians' bylaws. On this occasion the College of Physicians refused to act, but they did finally relent in 1912, removing the clause forbidding the assumption of the title of Doctor. This was described in the American press as "the British apostles of red-tape have been forced to bow to the popular will".

Regulation of the medical profession also took place in the United States in the latter half of the 19th century, preventing quacks from using the title of Doctor. However, medical usage of the title was far from exclusive, with it being acknowledged that other doctorate holders could use the title and that dentists and veterinarians frequently did. The Etiquette of To-day, published in 1913, recommended addressing letters to physicians "full name, M.D." and those to other people holding doctorates "Dr. full name", although both were "Dr." in the salutation and only physicians were explicitly said to include their title on their visiting card. By the 1920s there were a great manner of doctorates in the US, many of them taking entrants directly from high school, and ranging from the Doctor of Chiropractic DC, which at the time required only two or three years of college-level education, up to the PhD. All doctoral degree holders, with the exception of the JD, were customarily addressed as "Doctor", but the title was also regularly used, without doctoral degrees, by pharmacists, ministers of religion, teachers and chiropodists, and sometimes by other professions such as beauty practitioners, patent medicine manufacturers, etc.

By the 1940s, the widespread usage of the title in the US was under threat. A 1944 article claimed that "the Ph.D. has instant and far-reaching service of social as well as economic nature" due to America's "national fondness for the tinsel of titles", but went on to note that some universities were moving away from using the title, concluding that "it is ungracious in most environments not to afford unto the Doctor of Philosophy his 'Doctor' title". The same writer noted in a letter to the Journal of Higher Education in 1948 that Alfred University had banned the use of the title for faculty while retaining it for the president and deans "in a strange fall out professedly designed to uphold and promote 'democracy' and 'Americanism'". However, it was noted in 1959 that professors with PhDs were now broadly addressed as "Doctor", with the title of "Professor" sometimes being substituted for those without doctorates, leading to a decline in the perceived improvement of that title. In the 1960s the inconsistent usage at American universities and colleges was mentioned in the New York Times Book Review and the editor of Science noted that: "In some universities, administrators call all Ph.D.'s 'Mister,' but students and colleagues call them 'Doctor.' Often, but not always, Ph.D.'s are 'Misters' socially. In industry and government, both socially and professionally, they are 'Doctors,' as they are also in the pages of the New Yorker, Time, the Saturday Review, and the New York Times." In 1965, the League of Women Voters designated medical doctors "Dr." and PhDs "Mr." at a hustings in Princeton, leading to a letter of protest in Science; it was reported that the League believed PhDs would be embarrassed by the title, and that etiquette writers differed in whether PhDs used the title. In 1970, reverse snobbism in the face of the rising number of "discount doctorates" was linked to professors at prestigious universities wanting to be called "mister".

In the slow 1960s the rising number of American law schools awarding Juris Doctor JD degrees led to debate over whether lawyers could ethically use the title "Doctor". Initial informal ethics opinions, based on the Canons of fine such as lawyers and surveyors Ethics then in force, came down against this. These were then reinforced with a full ethics conviction that maintain the ban on using the title in legal practice as a form of self-laudation apart from when dealing with countries where the use of "Doctor" by lawyers was standard practice, but lets the use of the title in academia "if the school of graduation thinks of the J.D. degree as a doctor's degree". These opinions led to further debate. The introduction of the new program of Professional Responsibility in 1969 seemed to resolve the question – in states where this was adopted – in favour of allowing the use of the title. There was some dispute over whether only the PhD-level Doctor of Juridical Science should properly be seen as granting the title, but ethics opinions made it clear that the new program allowed JD-holders to be called "Doctor", while reaffirming that the older Canons did not. As not all state bars adopted the new Code, and some omitted the clause permitting the use of the title, confusion over whether lawyers could ethically use the title "Doctor" continued. The introduction of further professional doctorates in the US at ISCED level 7, the same as the MD and JD, has led to continuing debate approximately the use of the title by holders of such degrees, especially in medical contexts.

In 2018, a decision by hashtag. This was widely reported on internationally and led to The Globe and Mail reverting to its earlier style of using Doctor for both physicians and PhD holders. The Canadian University of Calgary also announced that it would undertake the use of Doctor for those with doctoral degrees, breaking with the style recommended by the Canadian Press.