Talk:Medical degree/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

Jwri, I thought we had agreed that the medical degree disambiguation page was to list only medical degrees (according to the guidlines), not every kind of medicine ever conceived. I reverted your additions - which included reiki, sleep medicine, pharmacy, naprapath etc. It seems to me that some of your references might actually be legit (the names of chiropractic degrees offered in new zealand for example). If you think you have a degree that you belive meets the criteria, can we discuss it here before adding it? Naturstud (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're guidelines (as you see them) are still very US centric POV. What about this conundrum: in the UK they may not list the Bachelor of Dentistry or Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery degrees as "medical degrees", however.. in the US they do list the Doctor of Dental Medicine as a "medical degree". I can also find you documentation where US dental schools state that the UK Bachelor of Dentistry Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery are considered an EQUIVALENT to the US DMD and DDS degrees. So therefor they are considered the same. However, I'm sorry... but I can not find a page in the US that says in quotes that the UK degree is a Medical degree verbatim. But why should I be able to.. the US websites are written in a POV focusing on US degrees. There by making your criteria too US centric. The same can be said for podiatry and other health care degrees. See the problem here? Now (your) criteria claimed to have enough flexibility to include international degrees, diplomas, certificates.. etc but you are not allowing this flexibility and are sticking ridged to your requirements which are again US Centric and too restrictive. You have just edited out EVERY single NON-USA degree. This is not what we agreed on. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not 'my' guidlines. You agreed to them in a third party mediated consensus. Now you have decided to ignore them. Claiming that the guidelines are US centric does not justify your additions. The guidlines do not seem to be US centric at all - you just need to do some research before adding medical degrees from other contries. If you can make a usage-based or practiced-based case for Bachelor of Dentistry (and i suspect you could if you would just go get the refs), then by all means go ahead and add this degree. Until you can meet the guidlines for reiki, pharmacy, naprapathy, ets they will have to go. I remove them not because they are not from the USA, but because you have not provided references that follow the guidlines. To be clear - it is the lack of research on your part that exludes them, not some imagined 'US-centrism' inherrent in the guidlines. Naturstud (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.. they are yours in you are the one who wrote them. I think to some extent we were all tired and agreed. I agreed at the time because "I thought" your statements you included at the bottom of about including diplomas, certificates, and other equivalent qualifications from other countries was a good compromise on your part and would actually be honored. Now I see that you're sticking too rigidly to your preferred US-POV of only including "Doctor of __ medicine degree" requirements (which IS a US centric way of wording/classification) to the point that you have again decided to cut out all Non-US qualifications. It is not my "lack of research".. it is because THERE ARE NO websites that describe NON-US degrees in this fashion other than the MBBS degree, because it is a US form of description and classification. You know this and I know this. I know you desperately desire to have a list of "Medical degrees" had only have (MD, DO, and "your ND") on this list but I don't think this is fair. Your criteria again is US centric and excludes the degrees you don't want on the list. I will attempt to re-write the usage based and practice based guidelines to include more world wide qualifications such that this will better comply with wikipedias neutral worldview policy. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all.... about my 'US POV'. I have never even visited the USA, so please drop it. The guidlines are not 'mine', anymore than they are 'US-centric'. You agreed to them and now you have gone back on your word. And that is fine. They are only guidlines after all, not rules. I did not revert your edit because the degrees titles you added failed to follow the 'Doctor of ____ medicine' format. The guidlines clearly state that failing to meet one criteria does not absolutely exclude a degree. However, you included degrees that failed to meet all of the criteria. You even included some degrees with no attempts to provide any references at all. Naturstud (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "north american POV" (Canadian/US). You have gone back on your word to include certificates, diplomas, and degrees from other countries.. and that is fine.  :) We will simply have to re-write the guidelines to fit a more neutral worldview. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you reread the guidelines - but you are clearly editing in bad faith, since they really aren't that difficult to understand. You have accused me of exluding degrees/diplomas becuase they are from other countries, but really I am only interested in excluding degrees/diplomas that have not been cited and verified. You seem to be hell bent on including anything and everything without verifiable, relevant citations. I interpret this to be more straw-man vandalism on your part. Your 'fellowship of all nations' argument - that all degrees and diplomas should be included regardless of wikistandards, because to exlude them would be US-centric is a non-starter. Humerous, creative - and even clever, but not the stuff of a good wiki article. Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not regardless of wiki standards, but not according to your US language of Doctor of __ medicine degree language requirements which is the way the US and Canada words/classifies their medical degrees. You aren't going to find verbatim "doctor of __ medical degree" regarding UK or other countries equivalent medical, dental, podiatric, etc degrees, because not every country titles their degrees in this way (the US/Canadian way); however, this does not negate the fact that the teach the same thing and are "equivalent" qualifications for the same professions (simply in different countries). You still haven't commented on the example I gave regarding BDS (bachelor of dentistry) being an equivalent to the US-DDS/DMD degrees. (examples from both US and UK institutions was even given!!). I read the guidelines to mean that there would be "flexibility" to allow other countries' degrees, but you have gone against this agreement. If that is not the way you interpret the guidelines then again, yes I feel they need to be re-written. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidlines do not require "Doctor of _______ medicine" I have never suggested that a degree should be excluded if it is not phrased this way. I know from previous debates that you are an intelligent person and I am therfore not buying that you have failed to understand the guidlines. You are wilfully misrepresenting them, as you are willfully misatributing my motives for reverting your inapropriately sourced edits. The lack of "Doctor of _______ medicine" structure is not the reason I will continue to delete your entries, and I think you know it. Once again you are resorting to an obvious misrepresentation of my view rather than being honest and stating your own. Presumably this is because your own view will not get you very far.Naturstud (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, you included some statements which when you wrote them initially that I thought you would accept "equivalent" international degrees, certificates, and diplomas, etc. But you refuse to do so. Which is why this article remains North American Centric in its view point. You still have yet to comment on the examples I found of the Bachelor of Dentistry degrees and DDS/DMD being equivalent (sources from both the US and UK). Jwri7474 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Dentistry references

• documentation where US dental schools state that the UK Bachelor of Dentistry Bachelor of Dental Medicine/Surgery are considered an EQUIVALENT to the US DMD and DDS degrees:

Here is one: [1], and another [2]

I would support the addition of this degree and would even have worked with you to beef up the refs. Unfortunately, bad faith on your part precludes me from doing so at this point. Naturstud (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... considering that you cannot even accept a "Doctor of Oriental or Chinese Medicine" as a "medical degree" in your list (even with references), but you of course accept the "Doctor of Naturopathy" or Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree (because this is a degree you hold yourself) already demonstrates your refusal to go along with your own guidelines. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent my opinion as a replacement for describing your own. (I am not opposed to DOM/DCM). Once again, a personal attack. Oh well. Naturstud (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well.. why did you delete the DOM/DCM degree from the list? I'm sorry, but when you acknowledge the fact that you hold a vested interest in promoting your profession of naturopathy/naturopathic medicine and then you delete other degrees that are cited and are fulfilling your guidelines for "medical degrees" ... but keep your own profession's degree in the list. I hope you can understand what that would look like in the eyes of others. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I reverted your mass edit, I was very careful to note that a few of the additions might actually have merit. I have also suggested that if you were serious about making an addition you might consider adding/discussing it as a single item rather than mixing the feasible (dentistry degrees from europe for example) in with the highly questionable. On your second point, I have already denied any COI. Being an ND does not disqualify me any more than being an MD student disqualifies you. I supose if a naprapath or a dentist from australia comes along, they will have an interest in providing good references that support adding their degrees to the list. Nothing wrong with that either. I am not interested in napropathy or dentistry, so someone else will have to get the refs for these degrees if they want them on the page. This does not mean that I am opposed to these degrees being on the list. Naturstud (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not just the fact that you claim to be an ND. It is the fact that you posted previously and stated something to the fact that... " I have a stethoscope and a white coat, I worked really hard in "medical school". I treat patients with diabetes, etc. ... I'm a doctor dammit". (my summary of your statements). You obviously have something to prove and have attempted to derail this article to prove your point (that being that your ND degree is equal to the MD and DO degree at the expense of other professions). Jwri7474 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... i never said any of that. Once again, I must point out that you spent the last paragraph describing (inventing, actually) my thoughts, beliefs and views. How I wish you would leave me to represent myself, and focus on your own message. Rather than inventing all sorts of lies about what I think, you could use the time to explain why you beleieve that reiki should be included as a medical degree, for example. The reason we need mediation is because you have tried to make edits without describing why they should be made. In place of describing why they should be made, you argue about my motives. So how about it? Reiki as a medical degree. I am all ears. Naturstud (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud you claim that none of my citations fit any of the written (and agreed) guidelines; however this not true. Most of the other forms of medicine I posted fit the "practice based criteria" which gave examples of their professions diagnosing, prescribing, performing procedures, etc. The agreed upon guidelines also included the ability to post certificates, diplomas, and degrees from other countries that were deemed equivalent. These were all deleted by you. Your explanation is that they did not fit the guidelines, but I feel they did meet the practice based criteria at least. (I even found sources citing that some of the degrees, certificates, etc were deemed professionally equivalent). Even the "doctor of chinese medicine" degree which fit I feel both the practice and usage based criteria, was deleted by you. Naturstud you can't continue to cherry pick what degrees you deem acceptable. You have tried to enforce an impossible task (Filibuster) of listing every slight change in degree title as a separate entity. Example: Instead of accepting all Bachelor of Medicine/Surgery degrees (MBBS, MB, MBChB, BMBS, MBBChir, etc) or Bachelor of Dentistry degrees (BDS, BChD, BDSc, BDent, BDM, etc) you would have required I obtain a government source for each one separately listing them as a medical degree instead of grouping them all under (bachelor of med/surg or dental med/surg degrees of equivalence) This act also effectively blocks placing the degrees in the list and is very unreasonable. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New Guidlines

Lets start a list here of ways of re-wording the guidelines to include degrees, diplomas, and certificates from around the world. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A better idea would be to go immediately 3rd party mediation/arbritation, since I have already accused you of editing in bad faith, and vandalism. Sorry, but I would have to be an absolute idiot to try to build new guidlines with you again. You can't honestly expect anyone to take your offer seriously. You just summarily dismissed the existing guidlines! We were fortunate to have a talented mediator who worked with us for a week to reach a consensus that you agreed to (with fingers crossed, as it turns out). What would be the point of building a new set of guidlines? So that you could do the same next month? 'Fool me once...' Naturstud (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is a possibility, but I think that it'd have to be WP:MEDCOM rather than informal mediation. Prefer that we can compromise here instead. fr33kman -s- 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a compromise

Jwri, I know how you feel about this subject; your views are quite conservative. I know that you favour a narrow definition, but can't you accept a slightly wider definition than what you really want rather than just insisting that the door just be flung wide open? fr33kman -s- 02:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You equally can't accept a wider definition to include anything other than North American and Naturopathic degrees. You want your cake and eat it too. You want to write guidelines to include a degree in naturopathy (that you yourself hold) and nothing else. If I am expected to accept a degree in naturopathy as a "medical degree", why can't you accept degrees in Chinese medicine as "medical degree". Sounds hippocritical to me and an attempt to promote your own profession at the expense of others. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any degree in naturopathy Jwri. I am a medical student at a UK medical school studying for an MBBS. Where did you get that I had an ND? Also, where did I say I only favoured US/UK degrees? You are not playing fair! fr33kman -s- 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Jwri was probably confusing you for me, Fr33kam. Personal note: just passed the boards! Not relevant, but impossible to keep from telling everyone I meet today. Thanks again for your good work, but I have reached the limits of my patience (see below). Will hope for the arrival of more fairminded editors so that the 'law of mass reason' will kick in on this page. Naturstud (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats right.. sorry I read the post in a rush because I had to go and thought it was from Naturstud. By the way.. congrats however on your passing the boards. We may disagree in our views, but that's an accomplishment I can acknowledge.  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If only you could acknowledge that the ND is a medical degree and that NDs practice medicine, we could be avoiding all of this nonsense. Naturstud (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have! Naturopaths practice "naturopathic medicine" which is a type of medicine. Yes. I already have compromised and allowed you to post your content to this effect in this article. Why can you not also accept other degrees from other professions who equally practice a form of medicine then? Is it because you have double standards and a professional agenda to promote? Jwri7474 (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you truly have embraced that the ND is a medical degree, would care care to explain [thisedit] of three days ago? Or perhaps [thisone]? Your edits on the medical degree page - adding nurses, paramedics, reiki masters etc are not congruent with all of the times in edits and in discussion when you have clearly stated that only DO's and MDs hold medical degrees. Naturstud (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel we need to settle this discussion first before we move on to all the other wiki articles describing medical titles you feel Naturopaths should be listed under. Yes, I feel that the terms "medical school" and "medical degree" (when used without a qualifying term such as "Naturopathic" or "Podiatric"-> "Naturopathic Medical School" or "Podiatric Medical School"[3]) is always used in common language to mean allopathic/traditional/conventional/orthodox (whatever adjective you wish to use "medical school" and there are already wikipedia articles which describe these other forms of healthcare providers and their education, degrees, etc. Again, I feel the international IMED/Faimer/WHO list of world wide "medical schools" is really the best source to use for this article as i have said over and over again. It is an excellent internationally agreed upon source which lists all recognized "medical degrees" from all countries around the world. If you do wish to add "other" forms of health care providers to this list by creating a disambiguation page... (if we are widening the deffiniton) then that is fine.. but we have to agree to include ALL other forms of providers equally in this list. Again, I refuse to allow you to create a list of ONLY US and Canadian degrees MD, DO, and your "doctor of naturopathy" at the expense of both other health care provider's degrees and of other equivalent medical degrees, certificates, and diplomas from other countries. This is unfair and biased. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

It is clear that negotiation is not an option at this point. I will continue to observe the guidlines and to revert bad faith edits. However, I agree to discuss first on this page any edits that are made:

• that add only one degree at a time
• that provide references that meet the guidlines, or with a little teamwork could concievably meet the guidlines once fully sourced
• that appear to be offered in good faith

Mass edits, edits without references, and inapropriately sourced edits will be reverted as vandalism within the confines of 3RR. I will suport each and every degree (or equivalent) that meets the guidlines, but do not have the time to do another editor's research for them - especially when the degree is being proposed as a 'straw-man' (not an honest reflection of the given editor's opinion). Naturstud (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One problem is you've created an almost impossible task of listing every a source from a government board citing every slight different title as a separate reference. Example: There are multiple titles of dental degrees (every University has a different tradition of titling their degrees). Examples: BDS, DDS, BDM, BDent, BDSc, BChD, DMD, CD, Dr.Med.Dent, etc. I can't find sources for every single one. But I can find a list that says they are equivalent in general. I would think this should be enough. The same goes for all other professions. Example: If a Doctor of Chiropractic, then why not a Master/ Bachelor of Chiropractic from Australia (which are professional equivalent degrees to the US DC degree). Jwri7474 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, JWri, your claim that references can not be found does not mean that the guidlines should be set aside and all professions should be included. I am not here to help you become a better researcher. No doubt, someone who honestly cares about adding a bona fide medical degree will do the work necessary to convince us. Your motivation for adding these degrees is that they will help you build your straw man. No doubt someone with a genuine motivation - a dentist or chiropractor from europe for example - will be more successful. Naturstud (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well.. if the UK does not describe the BDS as a "medical degree", but the US does describe the DMD/DDS as a "medical degree". But I can find references from both countries that state that the DDS/DMD degrees are equivalent to the BDS,BChD,BDM, etc. Then yes, I feel this would cover all of these degrees as falling under the category as "medical degrees". This is not a strawman, because I am not trying to misrepresent your viewpoint. I can say however that you have a personal bias in this argument and that you attempting to write and follow guidelines which fit your agenda and exclude others. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that if we were collaborating, we could agree on meaningful references for the various dental degrees. But we are not collaborating. And the reason that we are not collaborating is becuase, in your heart of hearts, i suspect you believe that only the DO and the MD are the only 'real' medical degrees. And so until you 'fess up and admit that adding reiki, pharmacy, naprapathy, nursing etc were indeed bad-faith, straw man edits we never will collaborate. Having said that, I will not block any reasonable edits you may make in the future. I absolutely do have a bias. Don't we all? The difference is that I have only sought to describe my views, and make honest edits that are congruent with those views. You also have a bias. But instead of professing it, you have made edits that oppose your own view. Instead of justifying these strawman edits on this page (difficult), you spend your time on here arguing with things that I have never actually said. So you have managed to misrepresnt your own thoughts on the article page, and misrepresent my thoughts on the talk page. Naturstud (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We were both asked to refrain from editing the talk page at this point. But if you are going to continue to post then why should I not equally be allowed to return comment. I've already stated that I feel that the best reference for this article is the list of "medical degrees" which are approved by the IMED/WHO directory which lists every single accredited "medical degree" in the world. This is a good international sources which is verifiable and allows for a neutral worldview. You refused this suggestion. You want to include your own professional degree to the list. I allowed this, with the rule that if we are to widen the definition. Then you must equally allow other forms/types of medicine in the list as well such as chinese/Oriental, holistic, homeopathic, etc. You again refused and only want to include MD, DO, and your ND (naturopathic degree). This is unfair and biased. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ways forward

I think that we should consider the following as possible ways forward.

1. List the article for a full RFC.
2. Ask for help at the WikiProjects
3. Agree to go for WP:MEDCOM

My preference is either 1 or 3; comments?

fr33kman -s- 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any of these, so have no preference. I think that we have more of a behavioral problem than an honest dispute over content, so a process that can address issues of alleged vandalism/editing in bad faith would be ideal. Naturstud (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am equally not familiar with these. I feel we have someone editing in bad faith who has a personal bias in regard to the information presented and so I feel that a process that can address this issue would also be ideal. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCOM then

Okay. MEDCOM can be approached here since you have tried an alternative for of DR; namely, the third opinion route. RFC can be about content only in this case and its results are not binding. I think MEDCOM should be used because its results are are not binding. If you both signal below that MEDCOM would be okay, I'll submit a case request to MEDCOM. fr33kman -s- 01:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCOM will can address both content and conduct of editors. fr33kman -s- 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. Thanks Fr33kman. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks. Naturstud (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll submit the case today. I'll let you know when it's been submitted and you will both have to go and formally agree; I'll tell you where and when. fr33kman -s- 02:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Continued edits

Just to let you both know. You have agreed to go to MEDCOM, any continued arguments now, will reflect poorly! FYI :-) fr33kman -s- 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB listing after MEDCOM rejection of case

Listed at MEDCAB

I have listed the dispute at WP:MEDCAB as per the MEDCOM mediators suggestion. This is not binding and if you do not wish to take part in MEDCAB, please let the MEDCAB mediator know this when they take the case and they will drop it. As a member of MEDCAB I now need to abstain from partaking in this case. I will be available to the MEDCAB mediator if they require clarification on a point. Thank you both and good luck! fr33kman -s- 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help Fr33kman Jwri7474 (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems, do let me know if I can be of any further assistance; I'm still willing to help! :-) btw: Please do add the BDS degree as it is 100% appropriate to the page! fr33kman -s- 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Permanent header"

I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but can we please put up a more decent header instead of the ugly blue-white thing? Why not just a hidden message like {{NoMoreLinks}} ? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was my first ever header ;) fr33kman -s- 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to request to Medical Wikiproject for views

• Personally, coming from the UK, I would only expect to see this article title to cover those who prectice Medicine (an article that is very restrictive in its consideration) - that's both a definition issue and a consistancy within Wikipedia articles. I appreciate the US quaint alternative of DO vs MD, and that would be acceptable (a US DO is quite different from an osteopath in much of the rest of the world who would not have investigation nor prescribing rights). Other entries like Podiatry would not be viewed as a "medical degree", which in UK would be seen as needing to be synonymous with someone being a (non-PhD) doctor, but I would fully accept them as an important part of the overall healthcare team. Therefore would a renaming of the article to Healthcare degree sort out much of the problem with inclusion criteria ?
  There really is probably little to say over the UK's MBChB or MBBS that is not covered in existsing Doctor of Medicine article and so this is meant to be just a disambiguation page. Further I whilst would somewhat object to being categorised under "Conventional Medical Degrees" as if given some equal weighting to quackery of naturopathy (but that's another discussion entirely, so bear with me here), yet I have no problem entirely agreeing that naturopaths provide an alternative/complmentary healthcare. Similarly I would expect "medicine" (conventional or alternative) would include topics relevant to just humans, yet there is no doubt that "Veterinary medicine" is a correctly termed expression. Finally the article misses out a further American "Medical degree" - see Physical Therapy and its mention of Doctor of Physical Therapy (which not being a PhD is therefore using "doctor" in the "medical" sense). So either restrict to a list of medical doctor, or be inclusive and transparent with title of Healthcare degree (and redirect "Medical degree" there) ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Davidruben, I think the best source for this article would the IMED/Faimer/WHO list of "medical schools". This list is an internationally agreed/accepted list of every recognised "medical school" in every country from around the world. It also includes all US-DO schools.

I also agree with you in that if we are to widen the definition (also in keeping with a worldwide view of this term) then I also feel that we might want to change the title of the article to Healthcare degree . Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

An interesting reference, but also hopelessly inaccurate. See http://imed.ecfmg.org/results.asp?country=0&school=&currpage=1&cname=&city=London&region=0&rname=&psize=25 for London Medical Schools - it separate lists St Thomas' Hospital and Guy's Hospital as having medical schools but these long ago merged to form United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, which then got incorporated into King's College Hospital - all these are listed as if separate on the list and bizzarely KCH gets listed twice over in the WHO listings, yet the current offical name for the group is "King's College London School of Medicine at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals". Likewise Middlesex Hospital was closed & sold off in 1992.(struckout per Jwri7474 correcting me below) In fact the "medcal doctor" range of degree name is already best listed at Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (see multiple English options of current MBBS, MBChB and up until 1999 the Conjoint degree options of LRCP, LRCS, LMSSA). This Medical degree article therefore fails itself to explain "medical doctor" degrees at all (quite aside from the inclusion of other health professional fields) and its redirect to the profession of Doctor of Medicine would be better changed to Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery which sets out the worldwide naming of relevant degree names. David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Davidruben, it is VERY accurate. If you actually click on the "Guy's Medical school" link and read further... you will see that it states "Graduation Years 1953 - 1981". So, it actually tells you that it was an accredited medical school (hence there are graduates of GMS still working today, which is why they have kept the school in the "list of medical schools"). If you scroll down it also lists the current medical school of "Guy's and St. Thomas" as a seperate school, and details the dates of which it was/is in operation. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery article and the Doctor of Medicine article describe all "medical degrees" quite well. (the MD article also explains that the US-DO degree is equivalent and gives a link to further information about the DO degree). Yes, the MBBS article describes medical degree titles in more detail in a better "worldview" than the MD article as it actually lists out countries and their system. You could also refer to article Medical education for more similar information (it also has links to medical education systems around the world). Again, I feel this article should either be a mirror of the WHO/IMED list of World Medical Schools, or it should be a redirect to the MBBS or MD wiki article, or I feel that the title should be changed to "Healthcare degrees" or something similar and the list expanded to include all different types of health care degrees from around the world (not just US/Canada). Jwri7474 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On following through, indeed fair point re IMED/Faimer/WHO being historical list of medical schools (vs just current listing) :-) I've struck out my misunderstanding. I do concur with your summation of choice of options. David Ruben ^Talk 10:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename else restrict coverage proposal

So, time for a straw poll to see if we can better assess for a consensus ? The proposal is: the current title/content mix is inconsistant, so either the title or the content should be modified. Please offer your suggestions to restricting content list to the WHO stated list of medical school awarded medical degrees (ie follow strictly the current title using an authorative reliable global source), or rename to "Healthcare degrees" (ie follow the curent content and allow the inclusive richness in health care training) David Ruben ^Talk 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to "Healthcare degrees", with "Medical degree" redirecting to existing global description at Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery David Ruben ^Talk 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not acceptable to me to redirect 'medical degree' to one specific medical degree (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery), since the term medical degree is also used to describe DO, DC, ND etc. These are all examples of medical degrees. It seems to me that both of the options you suggest would have the same effect, namely to reserve the term medical degree as some sort of priviledged title that is only used to describe the training of allopathic/contentiional/mainstream doctors. Naturstud (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, did not mean to exclude DO, which I accept in specific case of the US seems equivalent (per Medical education in the United States#Medical school description). No easy solution as Doctor of Medicine which covers this is US-centric (vs Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery covers elsewhere but does not mention US). Medical education in the United States of course gives equality of MD & DO re being acceptable, and Medical education gives links to the various "Medical Education in ..." series but is not really an obvious target for a redirect from "Medical degree". So would still redirecting "Medical degree" to MBBS (as that this is currently the most globally inclusive article available to us) but adding to MBBS a brief section to include the US situation (ie explaining what the equivalent acceptable MD & DO degrees are) cover the both the need for a global scope target, but not missing out on the US MD/DO issue, be a satisfactory solution ? As far as I understand from a UK perspective, US DO's are essentially conventionally trained doctors (perhaps with a slightly different slant/emphasis in training, but essentially equivalent in having equal access to hospital physican posts and equally able to investigate, prescribe or operate - i.e. in all regards are "medical doctors"), but this very US-centric issue of alternative training degrees, needs be distinguished from the non medical doctor fields of physical therapy, podiatry etc - which is the thrust of my proposal to untangle title & content being mismatched at present :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Alternatively move non "medical doctor" degrees into "Healthcare degree" and leave this "Medical degree" artcile to act as disambinguation pointing to MBBS & MD and also (perhaps then in a separeted section or the same) mention the US-specific alternatives ? - just seems rather more convoluted Venn diagram of articles and spread of material, and at this time of night giving me a slight headache I think :-( David Ruben ^Talk 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that physiotherapy is not a medical degree, do not know much about podiatry so will not comment. I agree that this page should remain essentially a point for disambiguation and would support adding a geographical layer to the info. To be clear, the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' degree is a medical degree in Canada and the United States. Perhaps something like...

  Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine: ND, NMD in North America Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Demoting the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree' from the medical degree page to a 'heathcare' page is a non-starter to me, since the degree in North America is required before NDs can order and interpret labs, perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, perform minor surgery, prescribe drugs etc. There is a reason why "naturopathic medical degree" returns over 700 hits on google. For better or worse, ND holders in north America describve themseleves as primary care providers, and have acheived a degree of recognition from legslators acknowledging that their's is a medical degree. Lumping a four year degree that legally allows an ND to diagnose and treat disease with a three weekend course that allows someone to call themselves a reiki or ayurvedic practitioner is a bit much. Naturstud (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is on this last point that we therefore reach some accord :-) so what are we to do at this level of agreement - either exclude reiki/ayurvedic from this page for not being "medical degrees" (there will be editors who would wish inclusion of ayurvedic, and we'll find ourselves in joint action trying to reject that) or allow a very loose inclusive approach which therefore make sense only if we refine the article name ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, renaming the page would probably be the path of least resistance, but there is an argument to be made that although enforcing the guidlines will be more work, the result would be more informative and safer for the public. Do we have a responsibility to delineate state-sanctioned medical degrees from a (presumably endless) list of degrees that do not come with any guarantee of standard or quality of care? Personally I see value in this. Using my knowledge of the North American ND situation to provide an example: In addition to the 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' degree recognized by the US Dept of Education and required by jurisdictions which regulate naturopathic doctors, there also exist various diploma mill degrees/diplomas such as the 'Doctor of Natural Medicine' which pretty much anyone can get via correspondance. The former can be sourced as allowing its holder to perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, and even prescribe drugs and deliver babies in some jursidictions. The latter is not recogized by the US Dept of Education and does not permit its holder to perform any controlled medical acts in any jurisdiction. My question is this: Is it enough to have these degrees appear side by side in an article called 'healthcare degrees' or is this a misleading and potentially dangerous way to categorize them? I am willing to take on the editor who demands that 'psychic iridology' should be listed as a medical degree but who can not provide references that meet the usage-based and practice-based criteria. If this prevents even one wikipedian from being taken off their insulin because they thought that their iridologist's diploma qualified them to advise such a thing, then I am willing to put in the work.Naturstud (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud: It is NOT officially considered a "medical degree" in Canada, because if it were.. then it would be listed along side osteopathic medical schools in the WHO/IMED list of "world medical schools" (.. but its NOT). Until the naturopathic medical degree is listed here, I will have to disagree. The WHO/IMED is the world's gold standard resource. It is a comprehensive list and is checked and updated VERY regularly. It is the resource that is used by every medical council/board in the world as a reference for what is and is not considered a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Refuted below. Naturstud (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, you said, "NDs can order and interpret labs, perform physical exams, communicate a diagnosis, perform minor surgery, prescribe drugs etc." .... Again.. thse are all things that many other "health care" providers can do (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, chiropractors, podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, ayruvedics, etc). I would still argue that even Reiki fits your "practice based critera" in that they "diagnose and treat disease"... same goes for osteopaths. Again.. you either need to include all of these different types of "health care providers" or non of them. You can't choose the ones you like. They all hold degrees in "health care" but they do not hold "medical degree"s. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that reiki practitioners have a legal basis to perform controlled medical acts, I am willing to look at these refs. I know that in my neck of the woods, the reiki master who performs a gynecological exam or interprets a lipid panel is in pretty deep water. NDs are permitted by law to do these things. Naturstud (talk)

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said that Reiki practitioners technically "diagnose and treat disease" which fits your "practice based guidelines". Now you are changing your terms/definition to "controlled medical act". I asked you about this before you and you said they were the same things. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You like to point out that naturopathy training is 4 years long and that it trains you to do "minor surgery". The procedures and "minor surgery" that we are discussing is the same things that a nurse practitioner is allowed to do who only attends a 2 year post grad program. These procedures are mainly: insert IV canulas, take small incisional biopsies of non-malignant skin lesions, assist in the delivery of babies (midwifery), etc. Simply because you are allowed to do some small procedures in a few regions does not make you a "medical doctor" who holds a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The nurse and paramedic perform these acts when delegated by a doctor who has the legal authority to initiate them. Naturstud (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in all regions and states. Some regions allow them to work independently no different than naturopaths. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY thing the US dept of education has to say on the naturopathy programs is that they are approved for US financial aid programs/support.[4]. Which by the way is no different than any other "health care" profession. The US dept of education approves the political body of the council for naturopathic schools, etc to accredit and regulate their own profession as they see fit (because it is not the role of the US dept of education to regulate each profession). The US/Canadian naturopathic societies, and regulation bodies may "self-describe" their degrees as "medical degrees" (again.. which is bias self promotion). But again.. this is not the view of the US dept of education, nor their role to say so. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The US Dept of education does not acredit the CNME and let it go around inventing whatever degrees it likes. The Dept of Ed explicitly names, recognizes and defines the degree that the CNME oversees... "graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.)" [5] Naturstud (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It IS up to each (state/country/regional)'s "Board of Medicine" or "Medical Council" to regulate the profession and practice of "medicine". It is up to them to say what is and is not a "medical degree" for the practice of "medicine". No "Board of Medicine" or "Medical Council" states that a degree in naturopathy is a "medical degree". In a few states or provinces in North America naturopaths may practice "naturopathic medicine", but this is not the same thing. Naturopathic medicine a form of "complementary and alternative medicine" which is allowed in a few regions and maintains a very narrow and restricted scope of health care practice. This is no different to Podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, etc. Each of these professions are allowed to diagnose and treat "some forms of disease". Do the people who practice these professions hold a "medical degree". This is the debate. I say no. The State/Provincial boards and colleges of Medicine also say no too. But hey.. the debate continues.... Jwri7474 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the debate was that you wanted reiki to be listed as a medical degree, no? The semantic hair splitting has been adressed previously. The fact that a Naturopathic Board of Medicine uses the adjective Naturopathic to distinguish itself does not negate the fact that it is a board of medicine. A green apple is still an apple, even if most people prefer red ones. Naturstud (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, its not... the board of dental medicine/surgery is also a board which supervises dentists (another type of 'health care profession'). Dentists however, do not hold a "medical degree", they hold a "dental degree"... they do not hold a license to practice "medicine", they have a license to practice "dentistry or dental medicine". Naturopaths equally hold a license to practice "naturopathy or naturopathic medicine", but they do not hold a "medical license". Again, just because your degree has the word "medicine" in it does not make you a "medical doctor" who holds a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that suggestion Davidruben. I think this may satisfy both sides. It would allow a list of world-wide "health care" degrees in which Naturstud can list his Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) degree (maybe under a "Alternative Medical Degrees" subheading or something if he/she still wishes to maintain the "____ medical degree" as a sub-heading). Jwri7474 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Example:

Health care degrees

Complementary and Alternative Medical degrees

• Ayurvedic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BAMS)
• Homeopathic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BHMS)
• Naturopathic Medicine: (BSc, MSc, BNat,ND, NMD)
• Naprapathic Medicine (DN)
• Oriental Medicine: (BSc, MSc, DOM)
• Osteopathic Medicine: (BOst, BOstMed, BSc(Osteo), DO, DipOsteo)

Dentistry

• Dental: (BDS, BDent, BChD, DDS, DMD, BDSc, CD, Cand.Odont., Dr.Med.Dent., BDM)

Dental hygiene

• Dental hygiene: (BSDH, BSc, BOH, RDH)

Medicine/Surgery

• Medicine/Surgery: (MBBS, MBChB, MB, BMed,MD, MDCM, Dr.MuD)
• Osteopathic Medicine/Surgery: (DO)

Nursing

• Nursing: (BSN, BNurs, BScN, BSc, RN)

Optometry

• Optometry: (OD, B.Optom)

Pharmacy

• Pharmacy: (BSc, BPharm, MPharm, PharmD, DPharm)

Physical therapy

• Physical therapy: (BSc, BSPT, MSPT, DPT, or DPhysio)

Podiatric Medicine

• Podiatry: (DPM, DP, BPod, PodB, or PodD)

Psycology

• Clinical Psychology (PsyD, ClinPsyD, LicPs.)

Anyways.. you get the idea. We don't have to clump the first group under "Alternative medical degrees" of course.. each health care field can have their own subheading. Doesn't matter to me. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes your listing seems to address issue that we do not imply by a "Medical degree" title only dealing with medical (conventional or DO) doctors, when physiotherapy & podiatry also included, yet provides a very comprehensive list that includes CAM fields without being seen to impose some "conventional medical cabal prejudice" as to what is or is not "proper" medicine. David Ruben ^Talk 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The list fails to distinguish between degrees/diplomas that form the legal basis for initiating controlled medical acts and those that do not. If the proposal is to make a new page called 'healthcare degrees' then this should be an uncontroverisal list. If the proposal is to have this 'medical degree' page point exclusively to an MD/DO article and exlude other verified well sourced medical degrees such as the ND in North America, then I remain opposed. Naturstud (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To you.. (see below).. "controlled medical act" and "diagnose and treat" are the same thing. Again, many types of "health care providers" do this.. but they are equally not considered to hold a "medical degree" or to be a "medical doctor" or to "practice medicine". Jwri7474 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what I think. You get it wrong every time! I must strongly request that you stop (mis)representing my thoughts and focus more on your own. Naturstud (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IMED/WHO list

A list of medical schools would be a great reference...for an article about medical schools. A list of allopathic medical schools would be an even better reference if we were talking about allopathic medical schools. This redirect page is not about medical schools or allopathic medical schools in particular, so I do not see the relevance of the WHO/IMED reference. I can see no reason to restrict the term 'medical degree' to the allopathic realm. I am not opposed to someone creating a page called 'heathcare degrees', but this page - which lists medical degrees - should be maintained, since it lists those specific degrees that prepare doctors to diagnose and treat disease.Naturstud (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The IMED/WHO list does not only list "allopathic medical schools". It lists every program that is officially recognised as a "medical school" by each respective country in the world. For example: the United States also recognises DO schools (osteopathic) as "medical schools", therefore, the IMED/WHO list includes these programs as well. Until the United States and/or Canada officially recognises the ND (naturopathic) programs as "medical schools" and they are put on the internationally accepted list of "medical schools"... they will not be accepted as such. Sorry. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The IMED/WHO list does not list every officially recognised medical school in the world. It is of no significance that naturopathic medical schools do not appear on a list of allopathic medical schools. Entree's do not appear on the wine list, but you would not assume when they bring you the wine list at a restaurant that they serve no food. It does not claim to be an exclusive list. As a refereence, the IMED/WHO list could be used to support the existence of various allopathic degrees (not that they are in question). It could not be used to proove the non existence of non allopathic degrees however. Naturstud (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does... it lists every past and currently officially recognized medical school in the entire world. (please stop with the "allopathic" descriptor). US osteopathic (DO) programs are on the list because they are recognized by the United States as an official "medical degree". Naturopathic programs are not on the list. It is of significance because it means that every country around the world will not recognize you as graduating from "medical school". You may have graduated from a program in "naturopathic medicine/naturopathy", but this is not the same thing. In order to be internationally recognized as holding a "medical degree" your program must be on this list. It is an exclusive list in that it it is the only list that is used by every country around the world when it comes to deciding whether or not to grant a license to practice "medicine". In order to be eligible.. your "medical degree" program must be on this list. Simple as that. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the officially accepted "medical schools" in Canada and the United States. In those 2 countries... the only degrees that are officially recognised as 'medical degrees" are (MD, DO, and MDCM). Jwri7474 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to inform the US Dept of Education that they must stop accrediting "graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" because the United Nations has not 'officially recognized' them, or should I? Naturstud (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The US dept of education does not "accredit" Naturopathy programs... nor do they describe such programs as a "medical degree". They only "approve" outside bodies to regulate professions. (it is not the role of the US dept of education to regulate each and every health care profession). They have "approved" Council on Naturopathic Medical Education to self regulate the profession of Naturopathy. The CNME is made up of a group of naturopaths who have a mission to promote the practice of naturopathy. It is in their self interest to self describe themselves as "medical doctors" or those who "practice medicine" or hold "medical degrees". Just because a society of Naturopaths or Naturopathic colleges self describe their degrees as "medical degrees" does not make it so. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not correct. The US dept of education charges the CNME with acrediting schools that offer a very specific four year program leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree. The US dept of Ed recognizes and names this degree title explicitly. Naturstud (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, You claim, "but this page - which lists medical degrees - should be maintained, since it lists those specific degrees that prepare doctors to diagnose and treat disease", suggests 2 things. 1) that we should list any program that prepares a graduate to diagnose and treat any form of disease. Problem: Many "health care" professionals do this.. podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, physicians, surgeons, nurses, physicians assistants, etc, etc. 2) By including the word term "prepares doctors"... you are infering that all the degrees we list have to be titled as a "doctorate" or that the profession allows those practicing to use the title "Dr.". Problem: Not all countries use the word "doctorate" or "doctor of....." in the title of their degree (ex: MBBS = Bachelor of Medicine = MD = Doctor of Medicine). You can't use language which excludes other equivalent degrees, diplomas, etc from other countries from such a list. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A careful reading of the guidlines will reveal that both of the concerns you raise have been adressed previously. 1) The guidlines do not require the word 'doctor' in the name of a degree, as has been pointed out to you on no less than three occasions. 2) The guidlines suggest that medical degrees are those degrees which are named by governments as being required before a practioner may intiate a controled medical act. Pretty straighforward stuff. Naturstud (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, WHY... do you keep deleting every degree I post without "doctor" in the title? Define a "controled medical act". Jwri7474 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I remove entries that do not meet the guidlines - some of your additions had no refreences at all. I have not removed entries simply because they do not contain the word 'doctor' in the title. Once again, this is old ground. You asked me about this in an earlier discussion, and I explained it there. I am beginning to feel baited by the amount of sheer repetition you are forcing us to go through. Naturstud (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted: The term Allopathic medicine was coined by Samuel Hahnemann, who was the founder of homeopathy. This term was rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. The term has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that medical graduates as individuals apply to themselves. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We have covered this ground before. I asked you to consult http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:allopathic. The AMA itself uses the term. Naturstud (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this article: When did I become an Allopath? Jwri7474 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Read it a while ago. The answer is: 'over a hundred years ago'. I have made it clear that I do not like using this (extremely inacurate) term when you asked about it before. I also made it clear that I do not intend it to be an insult. Do we need to repeat this earlier conversation? Naturstud (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Puropse of the page

I see another author above is arguing that naturopathy should be excluded because it is 'quackery' and not a medical degree. I can only suggest that editors refrain from choosing their favorite flavour of medicine and examine the references and facts as they pertain to the use of the term medical degree. It is a fact that the ND is routinely described as a medical degree (google "naturopathic medical degree" for this). It is also a fact that various governments have created legal recognition that enables NDs to diagnose and treat disease, to use the title 'doctor' etc. One may not agree with, like or respect NDs, but this does not alter the fact that the degree is indeed a medical one. Can we agree to avoid a debate over what is 'real medicine' and focus on finding references that support the correct use of the term that is the subject of this redirect page? Naturstud (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor of Naturopathy programs are not accepted as "medical degrees" by the United States or Canada. They are not equal to the MD, MBBS, or DO degrees and as such are not equally not internationally accepted as "medical degrees" by the World Health Organisation/IMED. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, my aim was to try and not imply (coventional or otherwise) medical doctor be mixed with other specific health care fields (podiatry & physiotherapy) by the current article title. Hence why I suggested the "Healthcare degree" as has been exampled a few threads up, and seems fully inclusive - indeed it even would clearly include other areas of say Ayurvedic Medicine, and those who work in that area would clearly, and rightly, perceive themselves as "medical practioners". The renaming therefore sidesteps need to engage in any debate (ie arguing) over what is or is not "proper" medicine, that you rightly raise as a concern, and allows naturopathy and other items in the example markup above.

Just as an explanation of my throwaway remark, us outside of US have very different perspective of some of the terms eg Osteopaths in the UK are not doctors in the sense that they rightly seem in the US (but it is a regulated term requiring prescribed training) whereas Naturopath in the UK is not a legally protected term and so can be used by anyone even without any training - as such I personally tend to think of their practice as quackery, however I did try and indicate that I though such issues indeed irrelevant to the title/content mismatch as the article currently has with inclusion of also podiatry & physiotherapy (do you agree with incongruity of at least these items?) (PS I fully agree "avoid a debate over what is 'real medicine'"). David Ruben ^Talk 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I understand that in Europe there is no equivalent naturopathic medical degree. In my neck of the woods, however, the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine is an academic degree required by the state before one can practice naturopathic medicine - a practice that is explicitly defined as a form of medicine. Some background: the ND degree over here requires the same pre-med courses as the MD curriculum, consists of the same core courses in the first few years (Anatomy, Physiology, PCD etc) and concludes with a 1 year clinical rotation. We are required to pass two sets of comprehensive board exams, carry malpractice insurance, complete continuing ed courses, etc. I include this info not to invite comparison with the MD but to point out that 'naturopathic medicine' is a loose concept whereas 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine' is the name of an actual medical degree that can be researched and referenced as such. I appreciate that in your part of the world, 'naturopath' implies a poorly defined, non-professional association of individuals with various amounts of training. No doubt some are quacks. My hope is that this page will remain focussed on the degrees themselves, which are readily verified as leading to state-approved medical practice - or not.

As for other degrees that may not belong on the page, I will support the removal of any degree that does not meet the usage/practice based criterion that we worked so hard to define because I beleive that there is value in deliniating medical degrees that train practitioners to diagnose and treat disease from other healthcare degrees.If we can not find substantial references to physiotherapy or reiki as a 'medical degree' and if we can not find any evidence of legislation that permit these practitioners to initiate controlled medical acts, then they should be removed. Likewise, I will support the addition of any degree or diploma where there are references that clearly show usage of the term 'medical degree' and/or can document that holding the degree enables one to initiate a controlled medical act. Naturstud (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, If we do decide to include all degrees that are considered a "medical one"... then you equally cannot continue to delete all other complementary and alternative medical degrees (other than the "doctor of naturopathy" that you yourself hold). Fair? You will have to allow all diplomas, certificates, degrees from other countries (outside the US and Canada) which also train professionals in these health care fields. Regardless of how they are titled. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will contine to remove any additions that are clearly not medical degrees, as per the guidlines. For example, If you want to add reiki certification as per your previous edit, please find some references that refer to the the reiki diploma as a 'medical degree', and or some legislation etc that permits Reiki masters to initiate controlled medical acts. Naturstud (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please define "controled medical act".... this is yet another guideline that you are now instituding. Before you said "anyone who diagnosed and treated disease". Is this the same thing or are you changing your definition yet again? Jwri7474 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples are provided in the guidlines - they are the original guidlines that we agreed to. I do not think that they have been altered in any way. I have not changed my position. Naturstud (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, just because you can do a google search and find pages that market the Doctor of Naturopathy as a "medical degree" to would be students doesn't mean it is officially accepted as a "medical degree" by Canada and the United states (or any other country for that matter). A degree in "Naturopathy" or "Naturopathic medicine" yes.. a "medical degree"... no. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my position that the presence of copious usage-based references should automatically include the ND degree on the page. It is my position that it meets both the usage based and the practice based guidlines.

You said, it must describe someone who is allowed to perform a "controlled medical act". When I asked just now if your definition has changed from your previous definition of "anyone who diagnosis and treats disease", you said no... that your position hasn't changed. So I am inferring that you equate "controlled medical act" to mean the exact same thing as anyone who is allowed to "diagnose and treat any form of disease". Again.. pretty much every form of "health care" professional can do this. soo..... Again.. this means that we will have a very long list of providers. You are going to have to keep working on new ways to better twist your legal language/terms so that you can fit your ND degree as equal to MD, MBBS, and DO (medical degrees). Still not good enough yet. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making accusations - I have not 'twisted' anything. Please read the guidlines - you will find some examples of controled medical acts there. They are pretty much what you would expect - acts that are prohibitted to the general population and can only be initiated by a doctor. Communicating a diagnosis, prescribing a drug, inserting a finger or instrument beyond certain anatomical landmarks, making an incision, and so on. They may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the theme is the same: these are acts that should only be initiated by someone with a medical degree. The guidlines suggest that any medical degree that qualifies its holder to be licensed to perform such medical acts is probably a medical degree, especially if it is backed up by usage based citations. Naturstud (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The practice based guidelines state that as long as I can give references that someone is doing any one of the following: "conducting a physical exam, ordering or interpreting a labratory evaluation, determining and communicating a diagnosis, and prescribing treatment"... then I can include them as holding a "medical degree". Again, almost all "health care" professionals perform physical exams, diagnose, and treat disease. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of what decision we are trying to make

I am not sure what is being debated any longer. The current problems started becuase I removed some degrees/diplomas added by another user (reiki for example) because I felt that they did not meet the usage-based or the practice-based guidlines. If I understand that user's main argument now, it is that the page should not include all healthcare degrees but that it should only include those that are real bona fide 'medical' degrees which, in that users opinion, not be said to include Doctor of Naturopathic medicine.

It seems that there are two debates here. For clarity: 1) I do not believe that paramedics, reiki masters and nurses have degrees that meet the guidlines to permit their inclusion on this page but am open to further discussion on a case by case basis if any editor would like to find references that support these additions. 2) I do believe that the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree meets the guildines to be included on this page, and am willing to go get more references supporting this addition if need be.

Apart from that, I feel we are stuck in an endless circle, with a single editor simultaneously demanding that the medical degree page must be inclusive enough to accomodate a three weekend certificate in Reiki and at the same time exclusive enough to de-list the four year natitionally acreditied degree, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. The fact that both arguments are coming from one editor does not bode well. Naturstud (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nurse Practitioners and Nurse anesthetists can work independently without physician supervision in areas as well. They can equally do some of the same things you can do as I've stated before. Their programs are only 2 years long. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(summary of what follows "lets go with what can be agreed, then seek wider views of what has not been agreed"):

Jwri7474, I think the above misses Naturstud's sensible summation above. Naturstud agrees above with non-doctoring medical degees not being appropriate within "Medical degree" article (ie nurses, physios, reki), and (now getting to be) someway up in the discussions addressed whether to have simpler option of more inclusive "Healthcare degree" as being less useful (although I would disagree with line of reasoning that articles need to be of use to patients, for WP does not give advice and WP is for all readers).

So if article is not to be renamed/changed in scope, then 2 issues remain: a) remove out the non-doctoring degrees which is what a general reader would expect "Medical" to mean (be prepared for US physiotherapists with "Doctor of physical therapy" degrees and the Vets to object) b) decide on specific issue of very geo-localised issue of US/Canada alternatives - i've been previously won-over (from my initial suspicion) re status of DO, indeed will actively argue for its inclusion. The issues for ND are much harder to judge from here in UK and whilst wikipedia article is interesting reading, wikipedia as a tertiary source not the way I would wish to make a firm personal decision :-)

At this time, lots of links, issues of specific terminology and interpretation been raised by just the few of us and this nolonger seems resolvable with only 3 participants on a talk page. Emotions been high, but time for a cool-down, else civility & agf will be strained :-)

What is needed at this point is just confirmation on taking step (a) above, and then perhaps try and seek a wider opinion of editors to ensure discussion focuses on issues rather than risk becoming overly personal. Would someone like to consider adding a RfC to the folks at WP:MED, WP:ALTMED & WP:RfC (perhaps even WP:NPOV or WP:RS if it is a question of finding and accurating reflecting real-world opinions fairly, i.e. per WP:NPOV against WP:WEIGHT) ? David Ruben ^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, it seems that what you are asking for is that we agree to enforce the guidlines that appear on the top of the page in two steps. Step a) would remove degrees that do not even come close to meeting the guidlines. Step b) would involve seeking out aditional opinions to re-examine weather or not DO, ND, DC meet the guidlines. I support this plan, but only if there is agreement to use the guidlines! If any editor has a problem with the guidlines, then I suggest that the mosty important first step is to take the time to reestablish consensus and or rebuild them. I agree that it is important to avoid having the situation getting more personal - in my opinion what we have here is little more than a case of professional jelousy between two professions that have a long history of such disputes. All of which is a long way of saying that if Jwri is willing to accept and begin using the guidlines, then I will sign on to your a+b design. I have some reservations extending an assumption of good faith with this editor given the history (s/he agreed to follow the guidlines once before, then proceed to add reiki and other strawman degrees), but the options seem rather limited so am willing to try again. The first job is to agree on how we know when something is a medical degree or not in a general sense. If we can not establish this consensus, then I doubt that we will find agreement on specific degrees. Naturstud (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. PS I wondered if rename to "Conventional and alternative medical degrees" might both keep this as medical fields and yet stop any of us conventional lot from have grounds to complain... but I think this might prove just as problematic with then degrees in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Homeopathy, Herbal Therapy etc might also then need to be included - resulting in moving the debate only to discuss an alternative demarcation line. David Ruben ^Talk 19:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the words 'conventional and alternative' are redundant in the phrase 'conventional and alternative medical degrees' (What other kinds of medical degrees are there?), your solution is worth considering. It softens the blow for those conventional practitioners who thought that theirs was the only medical degree in town and were unaware of the existence of alternative/complementary degrees. It could serve to create a comfort zone for editors who imagine one type of degree to be superior to the other. As long as we can establish consensus on the guidelines, this could actually work. My reading of the guidelines would exclude nursing, pharmacy, paramedic degrees from the 'Conventional medical degree' branch of the page and exclude reiki and iridology diplomas/degrees from the 'Alternative medical degree' branch. My concerns are that, as you say, we would merely have a new front for the battle, with the 'North American NDs are not real doctors' faction pushing hard POV edits to include all sorts of alternative non-medical degrees under the complementary branch. It does not solve the underlying disagreement between Jwri and myself about the ND being/not being a medical degree. So the legitimate ND from a four year nationally accredited graduate program who is legally certified by a state board to practice medicine, perform exams, order labs, prescribe drugs, use the title 'doctor' etc will be listed below the psychic iridologist who got his degree by mail order, never cracked a textbook, doesn't even own a stethoscope, and has no legal basis for practice. Still, it is worth exploring. Will wait for Jwri to comment, and hopefully others as well. Naturstud (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel that the guidlines themselves may need to re-evaluated and rewritten. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, do you disagree with your degree in "naturopathy" being included under a subheading of complementary and alternative medicine? Jwri7474 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, you just said, "So the legitimate ND from a four year nationally accredited graduate program who is legally certified by a state board to practice medicine". This is not true. You are NOT certified by the state boards to "practice medicine". You are licensed by the Naturopathic boards (in those few states that even allow and protect the practice of Naturopathy) to practice "naturopathy" or "naturopathic medicine"... you are not licensed to "practice medicine". You could be fined or even prosecuted for advertising yourself as such in the United States. Again, if you need me to provide sources for this I would be more than happy to. This would be like saying... Because that dentist has a "doctor of dental medicine" degree they are licensed by the state board to "practice medicine"... they are not. They are licensed to practice "dentistry" or "dental medicine". Just because a dentist can prescribe antibiotics and pain killers and do minor oral surgery does not make him/her a "medical doctor" or hold a "medical degree". Jwri7474 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, If we are going to include a subheading of "complementary and alternative medical degrees", then why do you feel that YOUR degree should be included but that we should exclude most all other complementary and alternative practitioners (homeopathy, chinese medicine, reiki, acupuncture, etc)? How can you say that an eastern view of "disease" and "diagnosis and treatment" of said disease is inferior to yours? Again, I feel you have a double standard here. You want to include your profession as a "medical degree". Naturopathy is (whether you like or not) classified as a "complementary and alternative medical" practice/profession. If you want to convince everyone that your degree should be included in a list along side those with "medical degree"s that are internationally recognized as such... but you that you also wish to write guidelines and enforce rules that would (effectively) exclude most all other "complementary and alternative medicine" providers... I don't think this would be fair.. and I don't think this would represent a neutral point of view. Again, I feel we either need to maintain this article as a strict definition of what is "internationally recognized" as a "medical degree" for the "practice of medicine" as per the WHO/IMED guidelines, or I feel the only fair and balanced alternative is to create a much wider definition such that all providers of conventional and all forms of alternative medicine are included equally together. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from inventing quotes - I have not made any claims about eastern views of disease being inferior to my own. Never thought it, never said it. You have asked a valid question about why I think the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree should be included as a medical degree but that a discipline like reiki, midwifery, herbalist, or phramacist should not. A very good question indeed. I can understand how that could look unfair. An excellent question in fact. My answer appears above. I will not repeat it here. Naturstud (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, from what i understand...(please correct me if I'm wrong) your reasoning for including your own profession of naturopathy and not other complementary and alternative medical professions in this list is because you think you "deserve it" more because your program was 4 years long (you worked hard for those 4 years) and that you are allowed to do "minor surgery" and work unsupervised. I'm sorry, but I still think this is biased and unfair way to look at it. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You have either not understood my argument or are purposefully ignoring it in an attempt to bait me into an endless, infurating conversation. The fact that you had to ask for examples of controlled medical acts two days ago was either an indication that either you had never even read the guidlines (unacceptable) or that you had read them but are waging a slow frustrating baiting campaign (equally unacceptable). I can't really tell, but either way we need to wait for more editors. Naturstud (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you keep bringing up the fact that you are very upset at the idea that your challenging 4-year "doctor of naturopathy" could be placed next to a certificate of chinese medicine or reiki medicine. You keep going on about how you are able to diagnose and treat disease from a western medical viewpoint and that you are able to do some minor procedural stuff equal to nurse practitioners or midwives. Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your viewpoint. Its pretty obvious that you want to exclude other qualifications that you don't feel deserve to be in the list because they are "only short certificate courses" and not up to par with your degree. I kept asking you to go into further detail about the "practice based guidelines" because I felt that most all of the other alternative health care professions fit this description. The entire idea that you are writing guidelines to include your alternative medical degree but exclude other alternative medical degrees I think is biased and not a neutral viewpoint. Which is why I feel we should start from scratch and re-write the criteria to be more inclusive of all alternative medical providers if we are to include naturopathy. Simple as that. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing medical degrees from non medical degrees: take the ND challenge.

...but just for fun here are a few relevant examples of laws govering naturopathic medicine. I have replaced all references to 'naturopaths' and 'naturopathic physicians' with other practitioners however! Do any of these sound odd to you?

From California: http://www.naturopathic.ca.gov/

• ...Reiki means a distinct and comprehensive system of primary health care practiced by a reiki practitioner for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human health conditions, injuries, and disease.
• ...An iridologist may order and perform physical and laboratory examinations for diagnostic purposes, including, but not limited to, phlebotomy, clinical laboratory tests, speculum examinations, orificial examinations, and physiological function tests.
• A homeopath may order diagnostic imaging studies, including X-ray, ultrasound, mammogram, bone densitometry, and others.
• A faith healer may utilize routes of administration that include oral, nasal, auricular, ocular, rectal, vaginal, transdermal, intradermal, subcutaneous, intravenous, and intramuscular.
• ...An herbalist who holds a specialty certificate in childbirth may administer, order, or perform any of the following: Postpartum antihemorrhagic drugs; Prophylactic opthalmic antibiotics; Vitamin K; RhoGAM; Local anesthetic medications; Intravenous fluids limited to lactated ringers, 5 percent dextrose with lactated ringers, and heparin and 0.9 percent sodium chloride for use in intravenous locks; Epinephrine for use in maternal anaphylaxis pending emergency transport; Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to nonimmune, nonpregnant women; HBIG and GBV for neonates born to hepatitis B mothers, per current Centers for Disease Control guidelines; Antibiotics for intrapartum prophylaxis of Group B Betahemolytic Streptococcus (GBBS), per current Centers For Disease Control guidelines.

From Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/OBNE/rules/ORS685_2007-09.pdf

• ...Quantum Touch practitioners are authorized to sign birth and death certificates.
• ...A speech pathologist shall not prescribe amphetamine for the purpose of weight reduction or control.
• ...Substances listed on the formulary compendium can be prescribed by physiotherapists in any dosage or any dosage form...(1) Abacavir;(2) Acarbose;...(158) Fluorouracil;(159) Fluticasone propionate;(160) Fluvastatin;...(225) Metformin;(226) Methadone;(227) Methimazole;(228) Methoxsalen;(229) Methscopolamine;...(377) Zalcitabine; (378)Zidovudine;(379) Zolpidem".

Finally, from Idaho: http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/54051KTOC.html

• ...A shiatsu physician means a person authorized and licensed to practice shiatsu medicine under this chapter.
• ...Aurvedic physicians are authorized to dispense, administer and prescribe prescription drugs and medical devices.
• ...No naprapath regulated under this chapter shall use the title "Doctor" or the abbreviation "Dr." in writing or in advertising in connection with his practice unless he simultaneously uses a clarifying title, initials, abbreviation or designation or language that identifies the type of practice for which he is licensed.
• ...A crystal-healer may perform minor office procedures...."Minor office procedures" means the methods for the repair and care incidental to superficial lacerations and abrasions, superficial lesions and the removal of foreign bodies located in the superficial tissues.

Do you see why the guidlines for this article are necessary? The Doctor of Naturopathic medicine degree permits Naturopathic Physicians to inititate a whole host of controlled medical acts. It also prepares them for the awesome responsibility of 'primary care'. Reiki, shiatsu, pharmacy etc are great but they are not legally defined as a "comprehensive system of primary health care" as naturopathic medicine is. No one expects a reiki master or a shiatsu therapist to be able to 'pick up' SLE, anemia, cardiomyopathy or cancer in their clients. This is expected of NDs. I hope the above helps you to distinguish the ND from other complementary/adjunct healthcare practices. And now, just as an added bonus, if I told you that two of the entries above were actually taken from allopathic/conventional state medical boards and not from naturopathic state medical boards at all, would you be able to identify them? Naturstud (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No.. these are procedural and scope of practice issues that have to do with naturopathy in (only a few) US states and Canadian provinces (and even these vary greatly depending on which region you go to). Yes, I could easily substitute "nurse practitioner" or many other "health care" professionals in that list no problem. Naturopathy is a complementary and alternative medical practice. Yes, your particular program was a great program that educated you in an alternative medical practice (from a more western medical) perspective and educated you in a western scientific manner. However, this does not negate the fact that bachelor of naturopathic medicine programs in the UK, and diplomas of reiki, and certificates of Chinese medicine are also equally considered complementary and alternative medical practices just like naturopathy and should also be listed in this list if we are going to include naturopathy. Just because a group of professionally motivated and politically smart naturopaths were able to convince some lawyers successfully get a few US states and provinces of Canada to allow them to advertise with the title "Naturopathic Physician" and put in IV cannulas, and take small biopsies unsupervised does not mean you are a "medical doctor" or hold a "medical degree"... or that you are now "special" and no longer considered "alternative medical practitioners". Jwri7474 (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is clear to me now that either you have not read/do not understand my arguments or that you do understand my arguments but choose to avoid responding to them becuase it suits you. Either way, I am not interested in watching you invent and shoot down any more of these clay pigeons. The ND degree meets the guidelines. Reiki does not. I will continue to enforce the guidelines, but there is no point in continuing the 'debate'. Naturstud (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturstud, "diagnosis and treatment of disease" is in the practice based guidelines. Reiki fits this description (as well as Chinese medicine, acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, etc). Reiki and Naturopathy are both classified as "complementary and alternative medicine" practices. I feel they should all be included in this list. I thought when you wrote that the bits in the guidelines about including international degrees, and certificates that also may cover world wide medical and alternative medical practices. You want to include your degree and leave out others in some form of exclusive list based on a western view of diagnosis and treatment. This does not support a neutral view point WP:NPOV. I feel we should therefore either re-write the guidelines to either create a list of "medical degree"s as is "internationally recognized" for the "practice of medicine" as per the internationally accepted IMED/WHO list of "medical schools"; or that the ONLY alternative is to include a list of ALL alternative and complementary medical practitioners in order to keep this list fair and balanced (WP:NPOV). I kept asking you to go into further detail about the "practice based guidelines" because I felt that all of the other alternative health care professions fit this description. The entire idea that you are writing guidelines to include your alternative medical degree but exclude other alternative medical degrees I think is biased and not a neutral viewpoint. Which is why that (if we are going to include Naturopathy at all in this list) we should start from scratch and re-write the criteria to be more inclusive of all alternative medical providers equally. Simple as that. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CleanUp in progress

• I attempted to restructure the article a bit to better comply with a NPOV policy and appease all parties. Thoughts? Jwri7474 (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a poll/survey to see if this new format is acceptable?

• yeah! Jwri7474 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• It looks much better. About like other disambig pages [6] [7] [8]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jwri:I have reverted your edit, even though it is very close to a reasonable compromise. I do this mainly because you have removed all refs from the article. If you would like to present a version with that preserves the original refs, I am willing to tyake a look at it. Naturstud (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at other disambig pages (above), they don't need refs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here, since I haven't followed this article closely, but here are some thoughts. Most disambiguation pages don't need refs because all the necessary refs are found in the articles that are wikilinked. If there is any controversial content on a disambiguation page that is not in the relevant wikilinked article, then it should be moved to that page or at least referenced here, just like any other article. The references must be in one or the other. That will help the item to comply with inclusion criteria, which include other things like V & RS. -- Fyslee / talk 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing the refs either way. We can either remove Aurveda and Pharmacy because they do not have refs on this disambiguation page supporting the claim that they are medical degrees, or we can remove Ayurveda and Pharmacy because they do not have refs supporting the claim that they are medical degrees on their source pages. My vote is that the refs should be provided as close as possible to the claim itself, but since they lack refs in both locations, it is somewhat moot.Naturstud (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the interminable discussion going?

This page has been the subject of several attempts at mediation and outside opinions over the past two months, since it was changed from a simple redirect to Doctor of Medicine.

There is a mass of discussion relating to what is in, and what is out, but the central theme remains.

The central issue is that one user (Naturstud) wishes to use the page to push a POV, namely that Naturopaths are of an equal standing to those who hold a conventional medical degree, and of a higher standing than those who hold other healthcare qualifications. Given that Naturstud is either studying for such a degree, or already holds one, he has a clear conflict of interest.

It is (IMHO) impossible for this page to continue as it is without expressing a POV on the question of equality of status (or otherwise) of Naturopaths, and in the absence of reliable sources to back this up, I think that it is untenable that the page should remain.

With regret, for the amount of effort that many editors have put into it, I can see no way forward other than to delete the article, on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX

Mayalld (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another option, and that is a topic ban for Naturstud, since it is that one editor who keeps vandalizing the page. The LEAD states what the article is for, and he should either cooperate or stop editing the article. -- Fyslee / talk 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Came here because of the various wiki-drama's involving the usual suspects, and I found POV-pushing that basically anyone who claims they have a medical degree should have that listed here. No. And I'm not going to read all of the above, because it's wayyyyyyy too long. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to strictly define and limit "medical" to mainstream. If so, the lead needs qualifiers that define the inclusion criteria for this article. The other professions you have removed will need to make another article for their diplomas, certificates, and diploma mill mail order junk. -- Fyslee / talk 01:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, If we are going to remove CAM fromt he list... then I would be quite happy to remove podiatry, dentistry, nursing, and all other health care professions other than what is internationally recognised as a "medical degree" by the WHO/IMED. (ie: only DO, MD, MBBS, MBChB, MB, BMed, Cand.Med, Dr.MuD, etc) Jwri7474 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A podiatrist is a medical doctor. As for the others, those aren't medical degrees.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, it not just important to get what degrees are specifically medical degrees, but also to list those degrees which could be confused as being medical degrees. I personally think its important for people, who dont have a great knowledge of medicine, to realise that alternative medicine degrees arnt the same as degrees which make people medical doctors. Prehaps having a link to alternative medicine (please note, not medical) degrees, would be most helpful to our users. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed CAM

Those are not medical degrees. Medicine is "the application of health science, biomedical research, and medical technology to diagnose and treat injury and disease, typically through medication, surgery, or some other form of therapy." And I'm not going to read the long, interminable discussions above per WP:TLDR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, people who hold these CAM medical degrees are licensed to make diagnoses and deliver therapies. Here are a few examples:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_907_bill_20030922_chaptered.html http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=1501 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.25.005

Also, at the top of the discussion page is a note about the consensus reached after a mediated dispute. Taking that into account, maybe we can all agree to bring things up on the talk page before deleting large portions of text. I propose restoring the deleted CAM medical degrees. Any objections? Lamaybe (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the reintroduction of the CAM list as they are not "medical degrees" but degrees in CAM/a CAM "modality". The WHOs definition, plus those of many many countries is a good source for this. Verbal chat 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal. Again, if we ARE going to stick with the WHO/IMED (internationally agreed upon guidelines)... then I also feel we should remove all other "health degrees" other than the WHO listed degrees (ex. MD, MDCM, DO, MBBS, MBChB, MB, BMed, Dr.MUD, Dr.Med, Cand.Med., etc. only) Jwri7474 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The WHO/IMED definition seems quite sound, but as we all know from [NPOV], wikipedia articles are meant to represent all significant views published by reliable sources. Reliable sources use phrases like [naturopathic medical degree], [Oriental medicine degrees], and [needing a degree to practice chiropractic medicine]--significant views we should consider. I imagine that people who have only seen an MD or DO for their medical care might have a cultural perspective which makes them think that these degrees are the only medical degrees. People who receive some some or all of their medical care from DCs, NDs, and LAcs would, I imagine, be similarly inclined to think that the people who are licensed to diagnose and treat them hold medical degrees. Given the worldwide scope of wikipedia, I suggest that we do our best to represent all of these views which have reliable references, such as the state laws etc. cited in this and my earlier post. Looking forward to hearing eveyone's views, Lamaybe (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Put bluntly, CAM degrees are NEVER called simply a "medical degree". They only ever occur with a qualifier as "x medical degree". Mayalld (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the term "medical degree" is used without a preceding qualifier, for example: "Dr. Dunne received her medical degree from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland Oregon in 1989." from [here], "SCNM offers a four-year professional medical degree in Naturopathic Medicine" from [here], "The type and amount of advanced standing will depend upon the type of medical degree already achieved (MD, DO, DC, etc.), and on the college attended." from [here], "Both TCM and western medical degree programs require 4 years of college and a one year internship in China." from [here], and "Dr. Zou received her medical degree in Chinese medicine from the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine in 1994." from [here].Lamaybe (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mayalld. And whether these groups choose to call themselves "medical degrees" is kind of silly. I could choose to call myself a baseball player, but I can't hit. Or throw. Or actually anything, but I like to watch. Medicine is defined as I said above. None of these non-medicine practices attain that level. And as for those in the world who use CAM, oh well, there are those who believe in aliens and sasquatch, but as much as the article on human evolution doesn't mention sasquatch or aliens, neither should this article list out fringe or non-medical practices. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I follow your analogy correctly, you're saying that it is silly for someone who can't hit or throw to call themselves a baseball player, and in the same sense it is silly for someone whose license doesn't qualify them to diagnose or treat to say they have a medical degree. My previous post included links to laws which license practitioners with medical degrees in chiropractic, naturopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine to diagnose and treat. Please clarify your analogy if I'm not getting it right. And as for aliens and sasquach--if there were a well-documented portion of the population who believed that bigfoots from mars were an important part of human evolution, it would be the job of any well-written encyclopedic article to report on that portion of the population and their beliefs. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Lamaybe (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All of those are qualified - they don't stop at saying a medical degree; and they don't because it would be misleading and wrong (and probably illegal) to claim you had a medical degree when you had a degree in Naturopathy, etc. Verbal chat 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A third option

Perhaps listing the other degrees as "Biosciences". I know in that in the university im studying at, medical degrees are degrees which enable you to become a doctor of medicine, the other degrees such as nursing, pharmacy etc are grouped under biosciences. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seddon, so what you're suggesting is listing conventional, alternative, and allied health degrees and then changing the article name from "medical degree" to "bioscience degrees"? Still doesn't resolve the problem when someone else decides to recreate an article "medical degree" afterwards. (which I'm afraid will happen). Would there be anyway to prevent the recreation of the article with that name if we did agree to go with your suggestion or the other alternative of equally listing all degrees under an article health care degree"s? Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Im going to edit the article with a suggested version, please inform me if the changes I make are not suitable. Please do not get into a revert war over the changes. If something needs changing, make small edits, if the whole page isnt suitable, leave a message on my talk page revert and discuss with others. :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is going to make the problem worse! Ah the heart of the issue is that ONLY plain and simple medical degrees belong here. Everything else is just pandering to the POV pusher's agenda. Mayalld (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If this was an article, then i would be inclined to agree. However this is a disambiguation page, ie. to remove ambiguity between things that share similar names, topics, events etc. The purpose of this page is to direct people in the correct direction, ie. sending people to the proper degrees that allow people to practice medicine, rather than a broader range of bioscience degree's. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Right; there are articles describing the degree in conventional medicine, naturopathic medicine, traditional chinese medicine, veterinary medicine, dental medicine, etc etc... methinks this page would do well to disambiguate them. Lamaybe (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Apart from "conventional", those aren't "medical degrees". Verbal chat 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, but we arnt just satisfying what we all know, we have to deal what people without a knowledge of medicine think. There are many people who do think this is medicine. See my post above for a suggestion. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, in the "removed CAM" section of this talk page, I suggested that editors in favor of removing the CAM degrees may be inadvertantly pushing a dominant-paradigm POV. I'm sure we all agree that a NPOV encyclopedic article should strive to represent both dominant- and minority-paradigm perspectives, particularly ones that are well documented in reliable sources such as the state laws cited above. By the way, there are hundreds of laws like those, all over the world, licensing people with chiropractic, Chinese medicine, and naturopathic medical degrees to diagnose and treat patients using the scientific and folk traditions accessed by their respective professions. But trying to cite more of them would only be an attempt to represent the CAM professions as less minority, and that's not the point I'm making. I am proposing that they are minority medical professions, but since they are clearly licensed to diagnose and treat patients if they hold their particular degrees, that those degrees are medical degrees.

I feel clear that the legislative references I've provided are all that anyone needs to cite to substantiate the inclusion of the CAM degrees they reference, but to make it easier for those editors who may have a hard time identifying with the minority cultural perspective, I'd like to give some examples of the cultural perspective on medical care where I live, in Oregon USA.

Mrs. Jones living in Portland gets a job that offers health care. She's looks on the list of primary care docs her insurance company provides her, and picks out Dr. Smith, a [naturopathic physician]. When she goes to Dr. Smith's office for an initial visit, Dr. Smith takes a history, does a physical exam, and runs some labs. The history reveals type II diabetes, and the labs show that the diabetes is poorly managed , and that Mrs. Jones is exhibiting marked hypertension. Dr. Smith prescribes Metformin for the diabetes and Lisinopril and Crataegus laevigata tincture for the hypertension. On the followup visit, Mrs. Jones' blood pressure is better but the diabetes is much worse, so Dr. Smith reduces the Lisinopril prescription, and switches her from Metformin to insulin. She is also diagnosed with Strep throat on the followup visit, so Dr. Smith prescribes amoxicillin and performs some hydrotherapy. Mrs. Jones thanks Dr. Smith, and comments on the beautiful flowers sitting below his framed medical degree. Dr. Smith says "no, that's not a medical degree--that's a naturopathic medical degree." (just teasing with that last part) Lamaybe (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lamaybe, your little story and argument sounds very similar to Natrustud. I wish we could stop saying that "X type of provider can order labs and take x-rays, and suture my scratches and cuts and so X provider is a REAL doctor just like and MD." (you're suggesting requirements for inclusion... ones which will be argued for the next 50 years). That is not the point of this page. Again, we either need to stick to the WHO definition of what is a "medical degree" (MD, DO, MBBS, MBChB, MB, BMed, Dr.Med, Dr.Mud, etc) or we need to include a list of ALL types of health care providers regardless of what they are or are not allowed to do in X state or region, and regardless of what type of "theory" they base their therapies on (eastern or western). This is the only fair and NPOV way to move forward. Agree? This page was changed from a re-direct to MD to a disambiguation page. If we are to keep it as a disambiguation page, then we have (as I see it) only 2 options: 1) only list WHO listed "medical degrees" or 2) list ALL health care providers (without exception). Jwri7474 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jwri, sorry, I think I didn't differentiate two separate points clearly enough. My little story was an attempt to give you a different cultural perspective, since I have the impression you are proposing edits while having a hard time seeing outside your own cultural perspective. My argument (for the inclusion of the CAM degrees in this disambiguation page) is as follows: WP is clear that every point of view cited by verifiable, authoritative sources should be presented accurately, especially on controversial subjects. There's only one country in the world that issues a DO degree that allows you to diagnose and treat patients. Yet, to be fair and inclusive, and offer a worldwide perspective, of course we include that degree in our "medical degree" disambiguation page. And if there were only one province which licensed DCs and NDs and LAcs to diagnose and treat, we would of course include it too. Jwiri, you have proposed that the only options are to list the WHO perspective or to list all health-care providers. Instead, I suggest we follow the NPOV pillar and list every degree for which a verifiable, authoritative source says the holder is licensed to diagnose and treat patients. Lamaybe (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lamaybe, Hey, don't get me wrong... I'm all for listing all of those other degrees in the list. Again, it has been decided for this article to be a "disambiguation page". I was simply saying that we shouldn't be creating some list of requirements (as Naturstud wanted to do) where by (in order to be listed on this disamb page) the degree holder has to be able to be licensed to perform X,Y,and Z "just like a real doctor". Do you see what I'm saying. I agree with you that we should simply list out EVERY health care providers degrees in order to fall in line with a NPOV policy. I was simply saying that if everyone is set on creating some silly list of requirements for inclusion, then I was saying we should instead just stick to the WHO internatinoally agreed critera (of which DO is listed). I hope that is more clear. Sorry for the confusion. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreeement, Jwiri, except for one thing: I don't want the degree holder to be licensed to do X, Y and Z, but just X and Y: diagnose and treat. So I propose that:

• the intro read that "Medical degree is a disambiguation page. It lists degrees which allows holders to diagnose and treat patients."
• We include every degree that a verifiable, authoritative third-party source cites as having the authority to diagnose and treat patients.

Not a very complicated criterion, so it should be easy for everyone to follow, and easy enough to monitor in the future. Since it's just a disambiguation page, we could add degrees to our heart's content assuming good faith, adding references only if a controversial degree were added. For example, if someone added "reiki healer" to the list, I'd probably ask that editor for a reference. OrangeMarlin, Verbal, Seddon, any thoughts? Lamaybe (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusion remains: The problem is... we are still arguing on what does it mean to "diagnose and treat". Does this mean I have to be able to diagnose through use of x-rays, does this mean I have to treat with prescription medicine, surgery? ..what? Would this exclude an eastern world view health care profession which may "diagnose and treat" disease through "energy channels" and chi? You see the problem here? You're still stating that we should be able to source claims that the degrees we list can "diagnose and treat disease"... but from what worldview? Remember we have to keep this NPOV. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Any time an authoritative, third party source uses the words "diagnose" and "treat." If there's one province in China that gives holders of a reiki degree to "diagnose and treat" their patients using chi channels (according to a verifiable and authoritative third-party source), then this page should include that degree. Again, verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in WP, and who knows, maybe reiki really is the most effective medicine ever invented, and all the editors using reiki as the quintessential example of what is not medical (including myself) are wrong. We are not here to argue for one truth or another, but to document what authoritative sources are saying about a topic. Lamaybe (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading most of the discussion on this talk page I can say with certainty that this debate would be of great interest to many wiki users looking up "medical degree". The many sides of this debate will never agree and that's fine. Wiki wasn't designed to resolve these conflicts. If education is our goal, this entry should make wiki users aware of the controversy and the various positions each of you are taking. Good luck! StephenMeeneghan —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

Exactly, wikipedia isn't the place for these conflicts. Ergo, we should use the established definition of medical degree. If the WHO, EU and US change their definitions to include degrees in unproven therapies then we can revisit this topic. Verbal chat 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So, again.. I'm all for listing CAM back into this list. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What "medical degree" usually means

I think the lead should actually say "The phrase 'medial degree' seen by itself, almost always refers to the conventional medical degrees recognized internationally by the WHO/IMED. In addition, this disambiguation page lists every degree which grants the holder authority to diagnose and treat patients." Does this meet every editor's criterion? Lamaybe (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. Although I still think (if we are going to include eastern worldview medicine) we "may" need to continue to refine the words we use. There may or may not be websites advertising reiki and acupuncture as "Diagnosis and treatment" verbatim. I'm very conservative in my views. I originally wanted only medical degrees which are approved by WHO listed on this page. I only think if we are going to widen he definition to include eastern and alternative practices... that in order to be NPOV.. it HAS to be ALL inclusive. So, again. We need to be careful with what terms and requirements we create before moving forward. agreed? Jwri7474 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you just want to make sure the mainstream view of medicine isn't obscured by fringe theories. Really, WP guidelines direct every editor to make sure of the same thing. I propose that the laws cited above are authoritative references that NDs, DCs, and LAcs are medical degrees, and that if someone could dig up a law granting the holder of a crystal healing degree to diagnose and treat patients, that would deserve inclusion as well, whatever we may personally think of the practice. A reiki or acupuncture website is not an authoritative source, while a state law is. Lamaybe (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Round and round we go Lamaybe: So you are stating that we have to "dig up a law" to prove that every degree we list on this "disambiguation" page allows its holders to "diagnose and treat". Do we have to give sources for everything we add on a disambiguation page? This is right back where we started with Naturstuds laws of what defines the practice of "medicine". "sigh" Jwri7474 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, normally anytime we edit WP we give sources for everything we add. Normally that's not the case for a disambiguation page, but this one seems to be quite controversial, so it seems appropriate that we do cite sources. We don't necessarily need to "dig up a law" to demonstrate that the degrees listed on this page allow their holders to diagnose and treat, but we do need to dig up an authoritative, verifiable, third-party source, of which laws are a great example. A peer-reviewed journal, a newspaper or magazine referring to a degree as a medical degree would be fine too. I think we are lucky enough that we don't have to define the practice of medicine, it is quite succinctly defined elsewhere as the art and science of diagnosing and treating patients. Lamaybe (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the "practice of medicine".. which is why I still think to avoid conflict we should stick by the international agreed WHO list of medical degrees and then we don't have to continue arguing over everything else. However, if we are going to include "other" forms of health care providers... then no, I don't think its fair for us to come up with some "westernized view" of inclusion criteria for eastern health care professions. I think its bound to fail from the beginning. What if I can't find anything in English from a US state stating verbatim that a reiki practitioner can "diagnose and treat", but that it is in Japanese from some regional board in Japan (where reiki is from) just as an example. If we want to stick by the already internationally agreed upon definition of "medical degree" from the WHO/IMED list this will be a LOT easier. If not, then we have to include ALL forms of health providers eastern and western without exception in order to maintain NPOV in my opinion. Otherwise you're bound to have bias and this argument will continue. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think defining medicine as diagnosing and treating is Western at all. It's just the most succinct meaning we have for the word in English--and this is the English language WP. If you can find a verifiable, authoritative, third-party English language source saying that a regional legislative authority in Japan gives holders of a reiki degree the legal right to diagnose and treat patients, then of course that degree would deserve inclusion in this disambiguation page. I agree that sticking to the WHO/IMED list would be easier, but these pages aren't supposed to be easy, they're supposed to be correct, and I think that only including the WHO/IMED degrees is only including the dominant cultural perspective, while excluding the verifiable minority perspective. However, including every form of health care is incorrectly casting our net too wide--it would be incorrect and misleading to include a reiki certificate, because there is no authoritative source we can reference indicating that a reiki certificate grants its holder the authority to diagnose and treat. This is really my clearest picture of what NPOV looks like for this page, so if you detect bias in anything I'm saying, please point it out. From my perspective, editors arguing for only the inclusion of the WHO/IMED degrees may be so deeply rooted in the mainstream medical culture that they suspect a minority medical culture degree like the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, which allows its holders to be licensed as [primary care physicians] of being a tiny-minority or fringe view. Lamaybe (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What does someone obtain Reiki for then? Would you not agree it is a form of "treatment"? What are they treating? Some form of "illness". I know it is an eastern philosophy health and treatment... but I don't see how you can argue that it is not a form of "diagnosis and treatment of illness".[9],[10] Jwri7474 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jwiri my friend, now I too am starting to feel like we're going round and round. I propose that

• 1. A degree that allows one to be licensed to practice medicine is a medical degree.
• 2. Medicine is most clearly and succinctly defined as "diagnosing and treating".
• 3. A law or other verifiable authoritative third party source that says holders of a degree are qualified to "diagnose and treat" patients qualifies that degree as needing disambiguation on a disambiguation page about medical degrees.

If you disagree with any of those points, I look forward to finding out which one(s) and why. If you agree with my three points, then we should include the DC, ND, and LAc degrees, as per my references above. The references you cited for reiki indicate that it may be an effective therapy for decreasing pain and fatigue and lowering stress-induced tachycardia, which is great. If you also find an authoritative third-party reference about a reiki degree which says holders are qualified to diagnose and treat patients, then we should include that degree on this page too. Lamaybe (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in regards to your views on "medical degrees" (as I've said before... I'm all for the already agreed international WHO listed degrees). However, I still think it is unfair to to invent inclusion criteria for Japanese and Chinese health care professions for this list as this will inevitably create bias. If we are truely sticking to creating a disambiguation page, we shouldnt have to cite sources for inclusion. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right; this is a little too nuanced for a disambiguation page. I propose we turn this into an article, and we can talk about the history of the medical degree, political & socioeconomic importance, the accreditation process, the conventional medical degrees, CAM and other medical degrees. Lamaybe (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a bad idea "generally"... however, If this talk page is any indication.. I firmly believe that such an article would be rife of edit wars daily. I still think the best NPOV unbiased option is to have this page as either 1) a list of ONLY WHO/IMED "medical degrees" or 2) a disambiguation page with ALL forms of health care providers listed without exception or biased inclusion critera. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, true, this topic is rife with controversy, so we might as well find a position that neutrally represents every significant & verifiable point of view here on the disambiguation page. Let's see if we can find out exactly what we're disagreeing about. My post of Nov. 27 made three points. If there is an editor who disagrees with one or more of the aforementioned points, I respectfully request that s(he) post here on this discussion page which one and why so we can try to reach a consensus. If no-one disagrees with any of those points, it seems to me that we should include the LAc, ND, and DC degrees, but not at this point include degrees in reiki or pharmacy. Re: your post above, Jwiri, I am proposing that the most accurate, unbiased, and NPOV disambiguation page about things that might be called a medical degree would include more than the WHO definition, but not every therapeutic modality in the world. Just the degrees, like MB, MD, DO, DC, ND, etc. which entitle their holders to be licensed to diagnose and treat patients. Lamaybe (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You say DC and ND degrees... Well.. then what about chiropractic and naturopathy degrees from other countries? That is just more worldview bias. It simply can't continue. Who are you to say what should and should not qualify as a degree on this list? Even if you did say only X,Y, and Z degrees can be on this list.. but not A, B, C, because they are eastern worldview therapies and just because we can't find sources in USA in English documenting them as such then we are taking them off the list. You want to include an LAc (acupuncture) degree but not Reiki... even though they are both based on healing through energy channels from an eastern worldview. Why one but not the other. This is Not NPOV! Look, if we want to have a a list which no one can argue with... then again, just stick to the international WHO list of "medical degrees"... PLEASE! If not, then include everything. Jwri7474 (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jwiri, I'm not proposing that we include or exclude degrees because of the world view they are based on. I'm proposing we include degrees that verifiable sources say allow one to diagnose and treat. If that includes naturopathy and chiropractic degees from other countries, great! If it doesn't, great! We're not here to add our opinions, just to cite reputable sources. I want to bring up what I still think is a good starting place:

• 1. A degree that allows one to be licensed to practice medicine is a medical degree.
• 2. Medicine is most clearly and succinctly defined as "diagnosing and treating".
• 3. A law or other verifiable authoritative third party source that says holders of a degree are qualified to "diagnose and treat" patients qualifies that degree as needing disambiguation on a disambiguation page about medical degrees.

If you disagree with one of these points, please explain which one and why, and we can move toward consensus from there. Lamaybe (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Lamaybe, Are you going to require sources for all of the conventional medical degrees as well. One for every naming convention (MD, MDCM, MBBS, MB, BMed, etc)? A medical degree in London is a medical degree in New York is a Medical degree in Sydney. If you are going to accept a chiropractic degree from LA, why not a chiropractic degree from London? It will get ridiculous. ...and again, this is a simply a disambiguation page. There is no need to cite every thing listed here in that case. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I submit that a degree which allows one to practice medicine anywhere is a medical degree. For example, if Singapore stopped licensing BMeds but kept licensing MDs, a BMed would still be a medical degree. It isn't a question of universality--it's simply a matter of whether or not a degree allows one to be licensed to practice medicine somewhere. Any chiropractic degree, be it from LA or London, which allows one to practice medicine somewhere, is a medical degree. I know we don't usually get into a lot of citing of sources on disambiguation pages, but this is clearly a controversial topic, at least between you & me Jwiri, so we either need to make an exception and cite sources here or we should turn this into an article. Here's my perspective in a nutshell: excluding minority-paradigm medical professions like NDs, DCs, and LAcs is POV because it's excluding a valid minority perspective. Including degrees like reiki or pharmacy on this page is inaccurate beacause holders of those degrees are not actually able to diagnose and treat patients. Lamaybe (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) OK, to clarify that, I don't know of any sources citing that people with degrees in reiki or pharmacy can practice medicine. Lamaybe (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no editors responded to that last post, I'll make a proposal: I intend to add the DC, ND, and LAc degrees to the page, with references, and the intro that I proposed above. If any editor has a sound argument as to why these are not medical degrees, please respond here. (Orangemarlin? Verbal? Jwiri? Seddon?) If anyone has a reference for another degree establishing it as a medical degree, s(he) should add that one too. Lamaybe (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding these degrees with the exception that 1) references should not be required on this disambiguation page and 2) if you are going to add North American degrees in Acupuncture, Naturopathy, and Chiropractic; that you should equally add all other degrees for the same professions which are provided from around the world as per Wikipedia's neutral worldview policy. Jwri7474 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a perfect situation for formal mediation--this has been a topic of conversation on this talk page for quite some time without much progress being made, and we are both able to acknowledge that the other is making good faith edits. I think an outside party could really help us out of the boxes we each seem unable to see out of. Lamaybe (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lamaybe, I agree with you and have no problem with requesting formal mediation. Just out curiosity.. I have added the North American chiropractic, acupuncture, and naturopathy as you desired. Why do you disagree with adding the European, Australasian, other regional equivalents of these professional degrees? This again is the only fair way to make such an addition if we are to fall in line with wiki's NPOV equal worldview policy. Again, it would be biased and unfair to include only North American qualifications, especially in light of the fact this is a disambiguation page. Jwri7474 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think readers get the most clarity if we list degrees which authoritative, third party sources describe as "medicine." To me, that means using the word "medicine" itself, or using the words "diagnose" and "treat". I think we're in agreement about that, so I can't figure out why you want to include degrees in homeopathy and pharmacy, for example, when no verifiable source I know of refers to these as medical degrees, or refers to holders of those degrees diagnosing and treating patients. If a holder of one of those degrees was referenced in a third-party source as diagnosing and treating patients, I think it would belong on this disambiguation page. Lamaybe (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Laymaybe, I wouldn't be opposed to removing: Health administration, Pharmacy, and Nursing because as you said they do not diagnose and treat disease. However, practitioners of homeopathy, and all of the other CAM practices (even reiki) do in fact diagnose a movement of the body from normal "health" and "treat" patients through particular methods (even if we all don't agree with the methods or philosopy by which they do this), this still falls under diagnosing and treating disease and therefor should be listed in a such a disambiguation page that lists all practitioners who treat patients. We also not require a list of sources for a disambiguation page. Just as I explained to Naturstud, we also cannot individually cherry pick the degrees or professions we want in this list, equally we cannot include degrees from only one region. Example: if we are to include chiropractic degrees from the US and Canada, then we equally have to include chiropractic degrees from the UK, Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia, etc. as per wiki's NPOV worldview policy. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got me pretty well convinced, Jwiri, but I still have one issue: a "degree" is an academic title given by a college or university. Although one can get a degree in pharmacy, we agree that it is not medical. Although you have now convinced me that in the broadest, most worldview-inclusive sense reiki is medical, I don't think there is actually a degrees in it, just a certificate. Otherwise I'm happy to finally reach a compromise. Lamaybe (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Laymaybe: in some areas of the world "medical degree" (MD) is actually a medical "diploma" or certificate as well and not a "degree". LAc is not a "degree" either, but we are including it. There was previous consensus here to include anything that was certificate, diploma, degree, etc that was "medical" related. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New article in See also

I've moved the degrees in altmed topics to their own article, and added a see also to this page. I called it Alternative medicine degrees trying to keep the style of this article, but also the style of Alternative medicine. I'm not wedded to this name though, and alternatives could be discussed on that articles talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this format. Thanks Verbal. Jwri7474 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)