The February 2025 newsletter of the GCC stated that “there has been an increase in the number of complaints received from members of the public who are confused by chiropractors using the title “Doctor”, often being concerned that they are not a medical practitioner. As you will be aware, by law, all complaints received by the GCC must be considered by an Investigating Committee. In order to avoid confusion, and the potential stress of a complaint against you, we would ask all registrants to ensure they are following the guidance on the use of the title. The guidance clearly states that, if you use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’, you must make clear within all public domain text that you are not a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’. Failure to do so may lead to you being the subject of complaints or an investigation by the ASA and/or the GCC. The ASA will act in relation to advertisements implying that chiropractors are medical practitioners.”
________________
The GCC’s guidance on referring to your professional status or qualifications in advertising does indeed state the following:
“31. If you are suspended or removed from the GCC register, it is a criminal offence to say, imply or advertise that you are a chiropractor. In these circumstances, you must ensure that all information in the public domain that refers to you as being a ‘chiropractor’ is immediately withdrawn, until your suspension is lifted, or your name is restored to the register. This includes information published by employers or colleagues.
32. If you have not paid the practising fee for that registration year, any description of you or the services you offer must not refer to you as being a ‘chiropractor’ or imply that you can provide chiropractic care. If you move from practising to non practising status, you must ensure any information in the public domain is withdrawn.
33. If you use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ you must make clear within all public domain text that you are not a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’. Failure to do so may lead to you being the subject of complaints or an investigation by the ASA and/or the GCC. The ASA will act in relation to advertisements implying that chiropractors are medical practitioners.”
______________________
I am not especially clever in searching the Internet, yet in about 2 minutes I could see that the usage of titles of UK Chiros is a total mess. Uncounted UK chiros present themselves as ‘Dr.’ without immediate explanation that they are, in fact, not medical doctors. Here are just some examples that I found within minutes:
- Dr. Mos Chiropractic
- Dr Peter S Westergaard
- Dr Charlene Warnell
- Dr Edmund Tso
- Dr Jack Humphrey
- Dr Eloise Moody
- Dr Morten Westergaard
- Dr Steve Cleary
- Dr Harriet Gillard
- Dr. Michael Baremboym
In most cases, it became clear that they were not real doctors but chiros, once I read or clicked on. Yet, initially advertising yourself as ‘Dr XY’ seems unnecessarily (or willfully?) misleading. Similarly many other chiros use approaches such as ‘ Dr. XY, DC’. If the ‘DC’ is meant to signify ‘doctor of chiropractic’, why the Dr up front? Do they have two doctorates? Others use the term ‘physician’; what is that supposed to mean? I thought in the UK, a physician is person with a medical degree. Am I mistaken?
What I don’t understand is this: most chiros do not much like real doctors or physicians, so why do they pretend to be one? In any case, I am sure the GCC has people who are much smarter than I when it comes to searching the Internet. So, why does the GCC not invest just a few hours to sort out this mess?
8 Responses to UK chiropractors who use the ‘Dr.’ title prompt “an increase in the number of complaints”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I didn’t realise that chiropractors were allowed to use the courtesy title doctor. I thought only physicians were. So I assumed that chiropractors using the title had a postgraduate doctorate (albeit one in quackery). What governs the use of such courtesy titles?
QUOTE Doctor (title), Wikipedia
There are no restrictions on the use of the title “Doctor” in the United Kingdom, except where, in commercial advertising, it might imply that the user holds a general medical qualification.[178]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)#United_Kingdom
Indeed. A person might hold a perfectly legitimate PhD in Medieval History, and be a repected university lecturer and researcher in that subject, and be addressed as Doctor So-and-so.
But if that person sets up an office to offer spinal manipulation, and has a big nameplate with Doctor So-and-so on it, people surely will naturally in that setting think in terms of medical qualifications, not history degrees. And that is misleading.
Consumer protection laws simply don’t seem to be strong enough in the area of SCAM……
NB: the Medical Act 1983, Section 49 specifically addresses pretending.
Medical Act 1983 [living document]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/54/contents
Part VI Privileges of Registered Practitioners
49 Penalty for pretending to be registered.
(1) any person who wilfully and falsely pretends to be or takes or uses the name or title of physician, doctor of medicine, licentiate in medicine and surgery, bachelor of medicine, surgeon, general practitioner or apothecary, or any name, title, addition or description implying that he is registered under any provision of this Act, or that he is recognised by law as a physician or surgeon or licentiate in medicine and surgery or a practitioner in medicine or an apothecary, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
…
49A Penalty for pretending to hold a licence to practise
(1)If a person who does not hold a licence to practise—
(a)holds himself out as having such a licence; or
(b)engages in conduct calculated to suggest that he has such a licence,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
Also note that Section 49 was debated here:
UK Parliament
Hansard
Title Of Doctor
Volume 269: debated on Friday 19 January 1996
The penalty for abuse of the term “doctor”—in the sense of someone who passes himself off as qualified to take medical decisions—is severe. Section 49 of the Medical Act 1983 imposes a fine of £5,000 on anyone who is convicted of pretending to be a registered medical practitioner. The Act does not define the term “doctor”, because it is in common usage, but it protects the use of the following titles: physician, doctor of medicine, licentiate in medicine and surgery, bachelor of medicine, surgeon, general practitioner and apothecary. The purpose of that measure is to ensure that no one can hold himself out as one of those professionals, damage the public and feel that he can get away with it.
Surely, if chiropractors were serious and proud of that which they profess, and practise (‘chiropractic’), they would style themselves as that which they are – a Chiropractor.
Thus: ‘Chiropractor Smith’, or ‘Ch Smith.’
Simple, honest and would demonstrate integrity.
Many other professions have titles denoting professional status: Professor, Reverand, Colonel, Judge…
I am but a humble ‘Mister’ in my professional practice, but do use ‘Dr’ when I am booking a restaurant table on the continent!
Or do chiropractors intend passing themselves off as that which they are not?
A policy which is dishonest and lacks integrity.
And I know of no institution which awards the academic degree of a doctorate in ‘chiropractic’ – unless they too are trying to hoodwink putative students.
And to answer Les Rose’s inquiry – there is no law preventing anybody using the title ‘Dr’ should they wish. The only protected tirle is ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ (if registered by the GMC).
Ironically, ‘Chiropractor’ and ‘Osteopath’ are protected in the UK!
And we have had Lord Sutch, Duke Ellington, Prince (actually Prince Nelson’s real name), Dr Dread, Dr Feelgood…
The offence is passing off as being a member of the medical profession. And surely that is what chiropractors intend. What else?
And surely the GCC should simply say that their registrants should act with integrity and NOT use the title Dr unless they have been awarded that degree from a reputable university.
That is what patients need – for their protection.
Condoning misuse of titles renders the GCC unfit for purpose – which is to protect patients.
hear, hear!
Also Count Basie, King Oliver, and the President.
Not to mention Dr Ross (the harmonica boss).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQfU4Gm9npM
Some thoughts about chiropractors were triggered by today’s post.
There have been so many newspaper ads for some “Doctor” so-and-so or other without a mention of the word “chiropractor” or the initials “D.C.” that I’ve lost count. I deem this a deliberate attempt to bamboozle the public into thinking that the “doctor” is actually a doctor. This is an example of the prevalence of lack of ethics in the chiropractic business.
I once attended a lecture that was advertised as a forum for folks with knee problems. Details of the advertisement for the lecture are hazy, but I sensed that it was a chiropractic spiel – which, indeed, was the case. The lecturer introduced himself as “Doctor Smith” and claimed that he had been a practicing physician for 15 years. What he failed to say was that his was a chiropractic physician, not a real one. Of the 30 or more attendees, I think it’s safe to say that I was the only one who hadn’t been duped into believing that he was a fraud.
Years ago I learned that in California D.C.s may call themselves doctors but not physicians. Whether this is still true, I’m not sure. But, if it was intended to help potential patients it couldn’t have made much difference.
It also rankles that those who seek chiropractic treatment are called patients; for me, the proper term for them is “customers.” Genuine healthcare providers have patients; salesmen, which is what chiros actually are, have customers.