Editing Doctor (title) (section)

==Origins==
[[File:Ancient Greek Marble Consecration Relief to a Heroic Doctor, c. 50 BC to 50 AD (28661031841).jpg|thumb|right|An Ancient Greek Marble Consecration Relief to a Heroic Doctor]] 
The doctorate ({{langx|la|doceō|lit=I teach}}) appeared in [[Middle Ages|medieval Europe]] as a license to teach ({{langx|la|licentia docendi|links=no}}) at a [[medieval university]].<ref name="Lexikon des Mittelalters: Doctor, doctoratus">{{cite journal | last=Verger | first=J. | title=Doctor, doctoratus | journal=[[Lexikon des Mittelalters]] | volume=3 | pages=1155–1156 | year=1999}}</ref> Its roots can be traced to the [[early church]], when the term "doctor" referred to the [[Apostles in the New Testament|Apostles]], [[Church Fathers]] and other [[Christianity|Christian]] authorities who taught and interpreted the [[Bible]].<ref name="Lexikon des Mittelalters: Doctor, doctoratus"/> The right to grant a ''licentia docendi'' was originally reserved to the [[Catholic church|church]] which required the applicant to pass a test, take an [[Oath of allegiance]] and pay a fee. The [[Third Council of the Lateran]] of 1179 guaranteed the access — now largely free of charge — of all able applicants, who were, however, still tested for aptitude by the ecclesiastic scholastic.<ref name="Lexikon des Mittelalters: Licentia">{{cite journal | last=Verger | first=J. | title=Licentia | journal=[[Lexikon des Mittelalters]] | volume=5 | pages=1957–1958 | year=1999}}</ref> This right remained a bone of contention between church authorities and the slowly emancipating universities, but was granted by the [[pope]] to the [[University of Paris]] in 1213, when it became a universal license to teach (''licentia ubiquie docendi'').<ref name="Lexikon des Mittelalters: Licentia"/> However, while the licentia continued to hold more prestige than the [[bachelor's degree]] (''Baccalaureus''), it was eventually positioned below the [[Magister degree|magister]] and the [[doctorate]], which became the only titles with which one could teach.<ref name="Lexikon des Mittelalters: Licentia"/>

The earliest doctoral degrees — in theology, law, and medicine — reflected the historical separation of university study into these three fields. Over time, the [[Doctor of Divinity]] has become less common, whereas studies in law and medicine have become more common. These areas were historically referred to as "philosophy" (used as a general term for academic studies, not the specific academic discipline of philosophy), but are now classified as [[humanities]] and [[science]]s, respectively. The historical usage survives in the degree of [[Doctor of Philosophy]]).

The Doctor of Philosophy was originally a [[academic degree|degree]] granted by a [[university]] to learned individuals who had achieved the approval of their peers and who had demonstrated a long and productive career in the field of philosophy (in the broad sense of the term, meaning the pursuit of knowledge). The appellation "Doctor" (from Latin: teacher) was usually awarded only when the individual was in middle age. It indicated a life dedicated to learning, knowledge, and the spread of knowledge. The PhD entered widespread use in the 19th century at [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Friedrich Wilhelm University]] in Berlin as a degree to be granted to someone who had undertaken original research in the sciences or humanities. Prior to the formal degree, the contemporary doctorate (PhD), arguably, arose in Leipzig as a successor to the [[Master's degree]] in 1652 (Dr. habil).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://erhard-weigel-gesellschaft.de.dedi2970.your-server.de/biographie-weigels/ |title=Erhard-Weigel-Gesellschaft: Biographie Weigels |access-date=2016-10-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161114124147/http://erhard-weigel-gesellschaft.de.dedi2970.your-server.de/biographie-weigels/ |archive-date=14 November 2016 |df=dmy-all }}</ref>

In some European countries, such as Italy and Portugal, "Doctor" became a title given to all or most degree holders, not just those with doctorates.<ref>{{cite book|title=Using Portuguese: A Guide to Contemporary Usage|author1= Ana Sofia Ganho|author2=Timothy McGovern|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eGCq9t6DQf8C&pg=PA24|page=24|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|date=18 March 2004|isbn= 9781139449380}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.quadrodeititoli.it/Index.aspx?IDL=2|title=Italian Qualification Framework for the Higher Education|access-date=14 December 2016|publisher=Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca|archive-date=19 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119060820/http://www.quadrodeititoli.it/index.aspx?IDL=2|url-status=dead}}</ref>
As a result, the title is now used by many professionals in these countries, including those such as lawyers who are not normally granted the title elsewhere.<ref>Portugal: [http://www.martindale.com/Alves-Pereira-Teixeira-de-Sousa/1996365-law-firm-2982267-people.htm Alves Periera Teixeira de Sousa]. Accessed 16 February 2009;</ref><ref>Italy [http://www.hierosgamos.org/hg/db_lawfirms.asp?action=page&pcomp=35487 Studio Misuraca, Franceschin and Associates] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090804100209/http://www.hierosgamos.org/hg/db_lawfirms.asp?action=page&pcomp=35487 |date=4 August 2009 }}. Accessed 16 February 2009.</ref> The title is also used for lawyers in South America, where they have traditionally earned doctoral degrees,<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AnlHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA571|quote=it is the custom of institutions of higher learning in most of the states of South America to confer the title of doctor upon lawyers as well as upon physicians|title=The American Review of Reviews, Volume 37|date=1908|page=571|last1=Shaw|first1=Albert}}</ref><ref>: [http://www.ehernandez.com.pe/home.html Hernandez & Cia] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331041426/http://www.ehernandez.com.pe/home.html |date=31 March 2009 }}. Accessed 16 February 2009;</ref><ref>Brazil: [http://www.abdo.com.br/site/home.htm Abdo & Diniz] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221173244/http://www.abdo.com.br/site/home.htm |date=21 February 2009 }}. Accessed 16 February 2009 (see Spanish or Portuguese profile pages);</ref><ref>Argentina: [http://www.lmpabogados.com.ar/sitio/site/template.asp?bod=2&lang=en Lareo & Paz] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090804115947/http://www.lmpabogados.com.ar/sitio/site/template.asp?bod=2&lang=en |date=4 August 2009 }}. Accessed 16 February 2009.</ref> as well as in the former Portuguese territories of Goa in India and [[Macau]] in China.<ref>Macau: [http://www.informac.gov.mo/aam/queries/pgetalladv.idc? Macau Lawyers Association]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090309060707/http://www.informac.gov.mo/aam/queries/pgetalladv.idc |date=9 March 2009 }}. Accessed 16 February 2009</ref>

===Development in English-speaking countries===

The primary meaning of ''Doctor'' in English has historically been with reference to the holder of a doctoral degree.<ref name=Johnson1>{{cite web|url=http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=5858|title=Dóctor. n.s. [doctor, Latin.]|work=Johnson's Dictionary Online|date=1755}}</ref> These particularly referred to the ancient faculties of divinity, law and medicine, sometimes with the addition of music, which were the only doctoral degrees offered until the 19th century. During the 19th century, PhDs became increasingly common in Britain, although to obtain the degree it was necessary to travel to continental Europe or (from 1861) to the United States, as the degree was not awarded in the UK until 1917.

However, the title, not being protected by law, was adopted by [[quackery|quacks]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/monthylygazette00mdgoog|title=Prince Hohenlohe|pages=[https://archive.org/details/monthylygazette00mdgoog/page/n376 740]–742|work=Monthly Gazette of Health|date=December 1823|last1=Richard Reece|first1=M.D |author1-link=Richard Reece (physician) }}</ref> As a result, by the mid 19th century, it was normal in the UK to omit the title "Dr" when addressing letters to those holding doctoral degrees, and instead write the abbreviated form of the degree after the name, e.g., "The Reverend Robert Phelps, D.D.", "Thomas Elliotson, Esq. M.D.", or "John Lindsey, Esq. Ph.D.", in order to avoid classing academic doctors "with the village apothecary and the farrier" and various "quacks in literature, science, or art".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dexhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124|title=Court Etiquette|date=1849|pages=124–125|author=Charles Mitchell}}</ref> In the US it similarly became customary to use post-nominals rather than the title of Doctor when addressing letters.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YDdAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA268|pages=268–269|title=A Manual of Composition and Rhetoric: A Text-book for Schools and Colleges|author=John Seely Hart|publisher=Eldredge & Brother|date=1871}}</ref> All those with doctoral degrees continued to use the title professionally and socially.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nqkPAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA170|pages=170–172|title=Hand-Book of Official and Social Etiquette and Public Ceremonials at Washington|author=De Benneville Randolph Keim|date=1889|publisher=Рипол Классик |isbn=9785876615459}}</ref>

Despite being historically associated with doctorates in law, the title of ''doctor'' for lawyers has not customarily been used in English-speaking countries, where lawyers were traditionally not required to have a university degree and were trained by other lawyers by apprenticeship or in the Inns of Court.<ref>Stein, R. (1981). [http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/228/ The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction], Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429, pp. 430, 432, 434, 436</ref> The exception being those areas where, up to the 19th century, civil law rather than common law was the governing tradition, including [[admiralty law]], probate and ecclesiastical law: such cases were heard in the [[Doctor's Commons]], and argued by advocates who held degrees either of doctor of civil law at Oxford or doctor of law at Cambridge. As such, lawyers practicing common law in England were not doctoral candidates and had not earned a doctorate. When university degrees became more common for those wanting to qualify as a lawyer in England, the degree awarded was the [[Bachelor of Laws]] (LLB). Similarly in the US, even though degrees became standard for lawyers much earlier, the degree was again the LLB, only becoming the [[Juris Doctor]] (JD) generally in the latter half of the 20th century.

In many English-speaking countries, it is common to refer to physicians by the title of doctor, even when they do not hold a doctoral level qualification. The word ''Doctor'' has long had a secondary meaning in English of [[physician]], e.g., in [[Johnson's Dictionary]], which quotes its use with this meaning by [[Shakespeare]].<ref name=Johnson1/> In the US, the medical societies established the proprietary medical colleges in the 19th century to award their own MDs,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001936.htm|title=Doctor of medicine profession|work=US National Library of Medicine|access-date=26 November 2016}}</ref> but in the UK and the British Empire, where degree granting was strictly controlled, this was not an option. The usage of the title to refer to medical practitioners, even when they did not hold doctoral degrees, was common by the mid 18th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.historyextra.com/qa/doctor-doctor|title= When did medical practitioners start to be called 'doctor'?|author= William Byrnum|publisher=[[Immediate Media Company]]|website=History Extra|date=28 June 2013|access-date=19 December 2016}}</ref> However, the first official recognition of Doctor being applied as a title to medical practitioners regardless of whether they held a doctoral degree was in 1838, when the [[Royal College of Physicians]] resolved that it would "regard in the same light, and address by the same appellation, all who have obtained its diploma, whether they have graduated elsewhere or not."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IBECAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA958|title=Royal College of Physicians of London|date=22 December 1838|author=Francis Hawkins|work=London Medical Gazette|page=958|author-link=Francis Bisset Hawkins}}</ref><ref name=RCPHistory>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OQEpAQAAMAAJ&q=%22and+address+by+%22|title=A History of the Royal College of Physicians of London|page=962|volume=3|publisher=[[Clarendon Press]]|author1=Sir George Norman Clark|author2=A. M. Cooke|date=1964|isbn=9788291016375|quote=In December 1838 a resolution had been passed that 'The College is prepared to regard in the same light, and address by the same appellation, all who have obtained its Diploma, whether they have graduated elsewhere or not', in other words, that all in the College without degrees were to be given the courtesy title of "Doctor". In 1859 the College changed its mind and resolved 'That the title of Doctor shall not be given in any official document issued from this College to any person who is not possessed of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine"}}</ref>

The [[Medical Act 1858]] made it illegal for anyone not qualified in medicine to use a title that implied they were. This led to prosecutions of people making unauthorised use of the title "Dr".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=axgCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA274|title=Conviction under the New Medical Act|date=10 September 1869|work=The Medical Times and Gazette|volume=19|page=274}}</ref> However, it also called into question the use of the title by licentiates of the Colleges of Physicians – all of whom were, under the new act, allowed to practice throughout the UK. In 1859, the London College reversed its earlier decision, resolving "That the title of Doctor shall not be given in any official document issued from this College to any person who is not possessed of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine".<ref name=RCPHistory/> This was followed up in 1860 by new bylaws that stated "No Fellow, Member, or Licentiate of the College shall assume the title of Doctor of Medicine, or use any other name, title, designation or distinction implying that he is a Graduate in Medicine of an University, unless he be a Graduate in Medicine of an University".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zZkEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA640|page=640|date=29 December 1860|work=Medical Times and Gazette|title=The Royal College of Physicians of London}}</ref> In Ireland, the question of whether the license of the [[Royal College of Physicians of Ireland]] granted the title of Doctor of Medicine led to a court case in 1861, with the conclusion that it did not.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WzJbAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA642|work=Medical Times and Gazette|page=642|title=The Queen v. The Medical Council in Ireland|date=5 June 1861}}</ref> The ''[[British Medical Journal]]'' (''BMJ'') observed, however, that anyone wanting the right to the title of "Doctor" could gain it "with a five-shilling degree of Doctor of Philosophy" from abroad, or could simply assume the title, as only "Doctor of Medicine" was actually protected.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25199076|journal=BMJ|pages=259–260|date=6 September 1862|title=The Title of Doctor|volume=2|issue=88|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.88.258|s2cid=220168703}}</ref> Debate continued as to the use of "Doctor" as a courtesy title by those who did not use it by right as holders of doctoral degrees, with the ''BMJ'' noting in 1876 that "We have again a sort of flood of letters for and against the use of the title of Doctor by physicians" and in 1882 that "There is not any other subject which appears to excite so wide spread an interest as this".<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25242782|journal=BMJ|date=12 February 1876|title=The Title of Doctor|volume=1|issue=789|pages=200–202|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.789.201|s2cid=220228347}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25260188|journal=BMJ|date=22 July 1882|title=The Title of Doctor|volume=2|issue=1125|pages=158–160|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.1125.158|s2cid=220190165}}</ref> In February 1876, a report recommended that the Royal College of Physicians should use the courtesy title of Doctor for all fellows and members, but this was rejected.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25242757|journal=BMJ|date=5 February 1876|title=The Title of Doctor and the London College of Physicians|volume=1|issue=788|pages=177|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.788.171|s2cid=220238134}}</ref> Then in April of the same year, the college amended its bylaws to forbid any fellow, member, extra-licentiate or licentiate from using the title of Doctor unless they had a doctorate in medicine from a recognised university – closing the loophole the ''BMJ'' had identified.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25236946|journal=BMJ|date=15 April 1876|title=Royal College of Physicians of London|volume=1|issue=798|pages=485|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.798.480|s2cid=220140308}}</ref> It was not until the early 20th century that this was reversed. In 1905 the [[Royal College of Surgeons]] passed a motion instructing their council "to take the necessary steps in conjunction with the Royal College of Physicians to ensure that all persons who pass the Conjoint examination shall be legally entitled to call themselves Doctors". The council of the surgeons' College felt it to be impractical to secure the legal right to the title as this would mean gaining the right to award MDs, but noted that the title had been used by the public to refer to medics for generations and was used without any legal right by Bachelors of Medicine – the only obstacle to licentiates of both colleges doing the same was the prohibition in the physicians' bylaws. On this occasion the College of Physicians refused to act, but they did finally relent in 1912, removing the clause forbidding the assumption of the title of Doctor.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=20287378|journal=BMJ|pages=1320–1321|date=11 November 1905|title=Universities and Colleges|volume=2|issue=2341|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.2341.1320|last1=Rhodes|first1=Jno. M.|pmc=2322613}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|jstor=25299835|journal=BMJ|date=21 December 1912|title=Universities and Colleges|volume=2|issue=2712|pages=1734|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.2712.1733|s2cid=220186521}}</ref> This was described in the American press as "the British apostles of red-tape have been forced to bow to the popular will".<ref>{{cite news|work=The Sentinel|title= More British Doctors.|url=http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn93063544/1913-07-03/ed-1/seq-4.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127154100/http://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn93063544/1913-07-03/ed-1/seq-4.pdf |archive-date=2016-11-27 |url-status=live|date=3 July 1913}}</ref>

Regulation of the medical profession also took place in the United States in the latter half of the 19th century, preventing quacks from using the title of Doctor.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=[[American Journal of Nursing]]|author=A. T. Bristol|title=What Registration Has Done for the Medical Profession|date= December 1903|pages=61–67|volume=4|issue=3|doi=10.2307/3401721|edition=3|jstor=3401721|quote=Of what value was the title of doctor if we were to share it with chiropodists, traveling fakirs and Indian medicine men? … The present medical act … prevents the fraudulent use off the title of doctor}}</ref> However, medical usage of the title was far from exclusive, with it being acknowledged that other doctorate holders could use the title and that dentists and veterinarians frequently did.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dx44AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA221|work=Medical Record|page=221|title="Dr." or "M.D."?|date=20 February 1886|last1=Shrady|first1=George Frederick|last2=Stedman|first2=Thomas Lathrop}}</ref> ''The Etiquette of To-day'', published in 1913, recommended addressing letters to physicians "(full name), M.D." and those to other people holding doctorates "Dr. (full name)", although both were "Dr." in the salutation and only physicians were explicitly said to include their title on their [[visiting card]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/etiquetteoftoday00ordw|title=The Etiquette of To-day|author=Edith Ordway|date=1913|pages=[https://archive.org/details/etiquetteoftoday00ordw/page/62 62], 101|publisher=Sully and Kleinteich, New York}}</ref> By the 1920s there were a great variety of doctorates in the US, many of them taking entrants directly from high school, and ranging from the Doctor of Chiropractic (DC), which (at the time) required only two or three years of college-level education,{{NoteTag|The requirements for the DC are higher in the modern era, typically needing four years of bachelor's-level pre-medical training for entry followed by a four to five year professional course<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.acatoday.org/Patients/Why-Choose-Chiropractic/Chiropractic-Qualifications |title = Chiropractic Qualifications |publisher = American Chiropractic Association |access-date = 22 March 2017 |archive-date = 23 March 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170323143038/https://www.acatoday.org/Patients/Why-Choose-Chiropractic/Chiropractic-Qualifications |url-status = dead }}</ref>}} up to the PhD. All doctoral degree holders, with the exception of the JD, were customarily addressed as "Doctor", but the title was also regularly used, without doctoral degrees, by pharmacists, ministers of religion, teachers and chiropodists, and sometimes by other professions such as beauty practitioners, patent medicine manufacturers, etc.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=1487677|title=Who Is a Doctor?|author=A. L. Crabbe|journal=Peabody Journal of Education|volume=2|issue=5|date=March 1925|pages=268–273|doi=10.1080/01619562509534672}}</ref>

By the 1940s, the widespread usage of the title in the US was under threat. A 1944 article claimed that "the Ph.D. has immediate and far-reaching value of social as well as economic nature" due to America's "national fondness for the tinsel of titles", but went on to note that some universities were moving away from using the title, concluding that "it is ungracious in most environments not to render unto the Doctor of Philosophy his 'Doctor' title".<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=40220511 |title=Thoughts on the Doctorate |author=A. M. Withers |journal=Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors |volume=30 |issue= 1 |date=February 1944 |pages = 92–96 |doi=10.2307/40220511 }}</ref> The same writer noted in a letter to the ''[[Journal of Higher Education]]'' in 1948 that [[Alfred University]] had banned the use of the title for faculty (while retaining it for the president and deans) "in a strange move professedly designed to uphold and promote 'democracy' and 'Americanism{{' "}}.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=1976326 |title=Doctorphobia at Alfred University |author=A. M. Withers |journal= Journal of Higher Education |volume= 19 |issue= 6 |date=June 1948 |pages = 320–330 |doi=10.1080/00221546.1948.11775755}}</ref> However, it was noted in 1959 that professors with PhDs were now generally addressed as "Doctor", with the title of "Professor" sometimes being substituted for those without doctorates, leading to a decline in the perceived value of that title.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=1978012 |title=Pursuit of The Word "Professor": an Exploration of the Uses and Associations of the Title |author=Robert L. Coard
|volume= 30 |issue= 5 |date=May 1959 |pages = 237–245 |journal = Journal of Higher Education |doi=10.2307/1978012 }}</ref>
In the 1960s the inconsistent usage at American universities and colleges was mentioned in the ''New York Times Book Review'' and the editor of ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' noted that: "In some universities, administrators call all Ph.D.'s 'Mister,' but students and colleagues call them 'Doctor.' Often, but not always, Ph.D.'s are 'Misters' socially. In industry and government, both socially and professionally, they are 'Doctors,' as they are also in the pages of the ''New Yorker'', ''Time'', the ''Saturday Review'', and the New York ''Times''."<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=1706994 |journal=Science |date=17 February 1961 |author= Graham duShane |title= A Question of Degrees |volume= 133 |issue= 3451 |pages=441 |doi=10.1126/science.133.3451.441|pmid=17754428 |bibcode=1961Sci...133..441D |doi-access=free }}</ref> In 1965, the [[League of Women Voters]] designated MDs "Dr." and PhDs "Mr." at a hustings in Princeton, leading to a letter of protest in ''Science''; it was reported that the League believed PhDs would be embarrassed by the title, and that etiquette writers differed in whether PhDs used the title.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=1716228|journal=Science|date=30 July 1965|author=M. A. Benarde|title=Rank Discrimination|volume=149|issue= 3683 |pages=499|doi=10.1126/science.149.3683.499|pmid=17843184|bibcode=1965Sci...149..499B|s2cid=206565256 }}</ref> In 1970, reverse snobbism in the face of the rising number of "discount doctorates" was linked to professors at prestigious universities wanting to be called "mister".<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=1978903|title=On Being Called Doctor
|author=George E. Berkley
|journal=The Journal of Higher Education
|volume= 41|issue=7 |date=October 1970|pages=556–561|doi=10.2307/1978903
}}</ref>

In the late 1960s the rising number of American law schools awarding [[Juris Doctor]] (JD) degrees led to debate over whether lawyers could ethically use the title "Doctor". Initial informal ethics opinions, based on the Canons of Professional Ethics then in force, came down against this.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724462|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=July 1968|title= Summaries of Informal Opinions of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics |volume= 54|issue= 7|pages=657|quote = 1001. A lawyer holding a J.D. degree may not ethically use, either orally or in print, the title "Doctor" professionally or socially.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724818|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=June 1969|title= Summaries of Informal Opinions of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics |volume= 55|issue= 6|pages=564–589}}</ref> These were then reinforced with a full ethics opinion that maintained the ban on using the title in legal practice as a form of self-laudation (except when dealing with countries where the use of "Doctor" by lawyers was standard practice), but allowed the use of the title in academia "if the school of graduation thinks of the J.D. degree as a doctor's degree".<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724785|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=May 1969|title= Opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics |volume= 55|issue= 5|pages= 451–453|last1=Boodell|first1=Thomas J.|last2=Carson|first2=C. A.|last3=Gates|first3=Benton E.|last4=Joiner|first4=Charles W.|last5=McAlpin|first5=Kirk M.|last6=Myers|first6=Samuel P.|last7=Sperry|first7=Floyd B.|last8=Armstrong|first8=Walter P.}}</ref> These opinions led to further debate.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724845|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=July 1969|title= The Juris "Doctor"—A Question of Ethics?|volume= 55|issue= 7|author=David Hittner|pages=663–665}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724927|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=October 1969|title= Don't Call Me Doctor|volume= 55|issue= 10|author=William H. Shields|pages= 960–963}}</ref> The introduction of the new Code of Professional Responsibility in 1969 seemed to settle the question – in states where this was adopted – in favour of allowing the use of the title.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25724947|journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=November 1969|title= Views of our Readers – Editor's Note|volume= 55 |issue= 11 |pages=1006–1026 |last1=Hillsberg |first1=Richard W. |last2=McGiffert |first2=David E. |last3=Herbert |first3=Williard A. |last4=Lansdowne |first4=Robert J. |last5=Hyatt |first5=Hudson |last6=Chandler |first6=Kent |last7=Pederson |first7=Virgil L. |last8=Bodkin |first8=Henry G. |last9=Marks |first9=Edward |last10=Wasby |first10=Stephen L. |last11=Kandt |first11=William C. |last12=Taylor |first12=Herman E. |last13=Berall |first13=Frank S. |last14=Collins |first14=Hugh B. |last15=Barr |first15=J. E. |last16=Mellor |first16=Phillip |last17=Hittner |first17=David |last18=Turnbull |first18=Frederick W. |last19=Adams |first19=Paul |last20=Widman |first20=Joel L. |last21=Tollett |first21=Kenneth S. }}</ref> There was some dispute over whether only the PhD-level [[Doctor of Juridical Science]] should properly be seen as granting the title,<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25725564 |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=August 1971 |title= Revisiting the "Doctor" Debate |author=S. C. Yuter |volume= 57 |issue= 8 |pages = 790–892 }}</ref> but ethics opinions made it clear that the new Code allowed JD-holders to be called "Doctor", while reaffirming that the older Canons did not.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=25725213|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=August 1970|title= Summaries of Informal Opinions of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics |volume= 56|issue= 8|pages=750}}</ref> As not all state bars adopted the new Code, and some omitted the clause permitting the use of the title, confusion over whether lawyers could ethically use the title "Doctor" continued.<ref>{{cite journal |jstor=27846360|journal=American Bar Association Journal|date=November 2006|title= LAWYERS ARE DOCTORS, TOO: But There is No Clear Ethics Rule on Whether They May Say So|volume= 92|issue= 11|pages=24|author=Kathleen Maher}}</ref> The introduction of further [[professional doctorate]]s in the US at [[ISCED]] level 7, the same as the MD and JD, has led to continuing debate about the use of the title by holders of such degrees, particularly in medical contexts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bartonassociates.com/blog/are-nurse-practitioner-doctors-real-doctors/?p=2016/04/28/are-nurse-practitioner-doctors-real-doctors/|title=Are Nurse Practitioner Doctors Real Doctors?|author=Melissa Decapua|date=28 April 2016|publisher=Barton Associates|access-date=5 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180806090912/https://www.bartonassociates.com/blog/are-nurse-practitioner-doctors-real-doctors/?p=2016%2F04%2F28%2Fare-nurse-practitioner-doctors-real-doctors%2F|archive-date=6 August 2018|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/health/policy/02docs.html|title=When the Nurse Wants to Be Called Doctor|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=1 October 2011|author=Gardiner Harris|access-date=5 August 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/isced_2011_mapping_en_usa_1.xlsx|publisher=[[UNESCO]]|title=ISCED 2011 mapping for the US|access-date=5 August 2011}}</ref>

In 2018, a decision by ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' newspaper in Canada to update its style guide so as to restrict the use of the title Doctor to medics led to a backlash on [[Twitter]], particularly by women with PhDs, using the #ImmodestWomen [[hashtag]]. This was widely reported on internationally and led to ''The Globe and Mail'' reverting to its earlier style of using Doctor for both physicians and PhD holders.<ref>{{cite web|title=''The Globe and Mail''|url=https://www.twitter.com/picardonhealth/status/1017898231072788480|author=André Picard, health columnist at The Globe and Mail|access-date=5 August 2018|quote=The @globeandmail has reversed its earlier Style guide decision on honorifics and will now refer to PhD holders as 'Dr.' #journalism}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.marieclaire.fr/sur-twitter-les-femmes-revendiquent-leurs-diplomes-et-leurs-capacites,1269502.asp |work=[[Marie Claire]] |language=fr |title= Sur Twitter, les femmes revendiquent leurs diplômes et leurs capacités |author= Juliette Hochberg |date= 21 June 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/opinion/women-dont-back-down-online.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/opinion/women-dont-back-down-online.html |archive-date=2022-01-01 |url-access=limited |title= Women, Own Your 'Dr.' Titles |author=Julia Baird |date=28 June 2018 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/18/should-female-doctors-hide-their-title-why-immodestwomen-say-no |title= Should female doctors hide their title? Why #immodestwomen say no|author= Frances Ryan |date=18 June 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> The Canadian [[University of Calgary]] also announced that it would adopt the use of Doctor for those with doctoral degrees, breaking with the style recommended by the [[Canadian Press]].<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2018-06-22/ucalgary-widens-use-dr-title-external-communications-0 |title= UCalgary widens use of 'Dr.' title in external communications |date= 22 June 2018 |publisher= Univ. of Calgary |access-date= 5 August 2018 |archive-date= 27 June 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180627172903/http://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2018-06-22/ucalgary-widens-use-dr-title-external-communications-0 |url-status= dead }}</ref>