Skp this motion and just go golfing
Agenda item for AMA House of Delegates at their annual meeting.
Resolution 303 as introduced by the Illinois delegation seeks to restrict the terms “resident”, and “residency” to individuals enrolled in physician, dentists, or podiatric (not a missprint) training programs.
Of course, the term “doctor” would likewise be restricted as such as well.
Their concern is “title encroachment” and are out to protect the “patients…confused when the titles of Doctor, Resident and Residency are applied to non-physicians who hold non-medical doctorates or to non-physicians in training”
Staff cost estimated at less than $500 to implement.
They are imploring the AMA to protect through legislation, the titles “Doctor”, “Resident” and “Residency”.
A few questions/observations:
-their use of the term “encroachment” is quite funny actually. Perhaps they can protect that term as well since they have essentially invented it. Heck, they can even qualify for a trademark or patent protection
-why don’t they seek to un-confuse their patients by limiting the variability and treatment options for something as simple as the treatment of urinary tract infections?
-can they put a motion in place to restrict the every day medical practice of the majority of its members to predominantly what they learned in medical school and residency?
There are many things that are confusing to patients, use of terminology is not one of them. Malpractice claims are not made by confused patients who think their nurse practitioner was a “resident”.
Thoughts?
Comments