Who Owns the Title “Doctor”? Power, Perception, and the Case for Inclusivity in Healthcare

Warning: Do not read if you get offended easily. Nooffense meant for both sides.

For centuries, the prefix “Dr.” has carried weight, respect, and trust. It is one of the most recognizable professional titles in the world — yet few pause to ask: who truly owns it, and why? The simple answer is: no one owns it. But the complicated truth is: some professions have controlled it.

A Brief History of “Doctor”

The word “doctor” originates from the Latin “docere,” meaning “to teach.”In medieval Europe, “Doctor” was not a medical title — it was an academic one, reserved for scholars who had achieved the highest university degree (the Doctorate).

Physicians, at the time, held bachelor’s or master’s degrees. Yet, over the centuries, society began associating doctors with healing. By the 18th and 19th centuries, physicians formally adopted the title “Dr.” as a mark of professional respect and authority — even though their qualification (MBBS or equivalent) was not a doctorate. Medicine, in short, borrowed the title from academia, and the world accepted it.

When Exceptions Become Rules

Once medicine established this convention, other healthcare fields followed. Dentists, veterinarians, homeopaths, and Ayurvedic practitioners — all holding bachelor’s-level professional degrees — began using “Dr.” by approval of their respective councils.

The logic wasn’t academic; it was professional authority and public trust. Yet, this inclusion was selective. As other professions like speech-language pathology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and psychology evolved into autonomous clinical sciences — diagnosing and treating their own range of disorders — they were not extended the same courtesy. Why? Because the title had become a symbol of control.

Control, Power, and the Politics of Professional Identity

Titles are never just words — they are symbols of status, influence, and legitimacy. In healthcare, “Dr.” became more than a prefix; it became a boundary marker — defining who holds primary authority over patients, and who is perceived as secondary.

Medicine, being the earliest organized profession in health, naturally built structures of power — councils, licensing laws, and hospital hierarchies — around itself. The result? Even when other professionals gained equivalent levels of education and diagnostic autonomy, they remained outside the symbolic boundary of “Dr.” It’s not about competence. It’s about control.

The Personal Side of It

For me, it’s not about the title — or who wins. It’s not about competing with anyone. If tomorrow the world decides to call every healer “Dr.” or decides to drop the word entirely, it doesn’t change the essence of what we do. We show up for patients. We make a difference in their lives. We ease swallowing, restore speech, bring back voices, and give people a sense of dignity and connection. That’s not a fight for a prefix; that’s a commitment to purpose.

Still, if recognition helps the world understand what we contribute — if it helps a patient see that their SLP or therapist is a clinician in their own right — then yes, it’s worth the conversation. But not for ego, only for clarity and respect.

The Reality of Modern Healthcare

Walk into a hospital today. The patient with dysphagia is treated not only by a physician. An SLP assesses and diagnoses swallowing physiology. A dietitian plans a safe feeding regimen. A physiotherapist optimizes posture. A nurse implements the care plan.

Every one of them diagnoses and treats — within their domain. Each holds professional accountability for the outcome.

Yet, only one carries the “Dr.” prefix by default. Not because of deeper knowledge or higher education — but because of historical precedence.

If Medicine Could Borrow, Why Can’t It Share?

If the title “Dr.” could be adopted by physicians from academia, then logic and fairness suggest it can be extended to other qualified healthcare professionals.

The premise should not be “who was first,” but who meets the same ethical, educational, and professional standards:

• Advanced professional education (Master’s or higher)

• Regulatory licensure

• Independent diagnostic and therapeutic authority

• Accountability for patient outcomes

Speech-language pathologists, physiotherapists, audiologists, optometrists, and others already meet these standards. Their work is not subordinate — it is complementary and essential.

What Inclusivity Could Look Like

Inclusivity doesn’t mean blurring boundaries or confusing the public. It means transparent recognition:

“Dr. ABC, Speech-Language Pathologist”“Dr. XYZ, Audiologist”

Such usage clarifies expertise while acknowledging equality among health professions.

If councils like the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) or the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) were to officially authorize this usage, it would simply align with global practice — not challenge medicine, but balance the ecosystem.

The Way Forward: Recognition Over Rivalry

The argument for inclusivity is not about diminishing medicine. It is about acknowledging shared responsibility for human health.

The title “Doctor” should represent trust, qualification, and ethical responsibility, not monopoly. Healing has never belonged to one profession — it belongs to all who dedicate their expertise to it.

Perhaps it’s time we stopped asking, “Who owns the title?” and started asking,

“Who has earned the right to share it?”

✍️ Final Thought

If “Dr.” could travel from the lecture halls of medieval scholars to the clinics of modern medicine, it could certainly find its way to the therapy rooms, rehabilitation centers, and swallowing clinics where care, science, and humanity meet every day. Because in the end, titles should follow contribution — not control.

Prasanna Hegde