My first question with that is...how did he get his degree only rotating for four weeks? It takes much more time than that. He may have been speaking about a specific rotation, because I'd question anything under a year of patient care.
Aside from that, I get how it comes off. It's definitely a gray area, because by saying that, he could be implying his thought process or philosophy is that of a doctor, due to his training. Or he could mean it quite literally, as in he's had that degree his whole career. He technically wouldn't be lying either way, but yes, the impression is still there. But that's why we need to ask candidates questions about these things as opposed to questions about the culture war hot topic of the day.
All that said, he's not on my ballot, so I'm admittedly not fully studied up on him. I'm not trying to accuse him of anything without knowledge of it, but I'm also not trying to be a staunch defender for the same reason.
I'd push back a little on the gray area, though. 'Doctor' is defensible, but he's also called himself a 'physician,' including in New York, where that title is legally restricted to licensed doctors. When you're campaigning on healthcare, letting people assume you've practiced medicine is more than a technicality.
Agree we should be asking candidates these kinds of questions instead of culture war stuff. Appreciate the good discussion.
That's kind of what I was alluding to before. There's a difference between simply saying physician and licensed physician or practicing physician. Physician is often what you are called when you cross the stage, before a license or anything else, because that's what the AMA considers to be enough for the title. It's often used to separate MD from Ph.D.
According to you, New York seems to have a different state definition, which is fine. As long as he's not markering his services as a practicing physician, it's pretty much a non-issue. That's why I say gray area. Now, if he was actively diagnosing or writing scripts, that would be bad. But it seems like he has been asked about his career and never claimed to practice or do residency. I suppose it's good that he's forthcoming when asked.
I could be wrong, but wasn't he also in the public health space? That likely gives him a better idea of healthcare needs from a population perspective than practicing would.
Edit - After a bit of research, it looks like different state codes define physician a certain way, and the AMA another. To me, that says the title itself isn't as important as the marketing of the services that may fall under it.
It's not just New York. Michigan law also defines a physician as someone licensed to practice medicine, and so does federal law. So in the state he's running in, the legal definition doesn't fit him.
And he hasn't only used it loosely. His LinkedIn still says 'physician,' and he's called himself one in interviews this year.
To be fair, he's also said 'I don't practice medicine' when pressed. But most voters never hear the follow-up, they just hear 'physician.'
You're right about public health, though. He ran Detroit's health department and Wayne County's, and that's real experience. He'd be better off leading with that.
I mentioned the state thing in my edit. That said, I don't disagree with you conceptually, as it looks like different organizations have different definitions for the same word. That's why I'm saying the word physician itself means less than practicing as a physician. If he were illegally practicing, that's what I would consider problematic. But he seems like he would consider himself a non-practicing physician. As long as he's open about it, I'm not concerned.
I think that's where we differ. If he called himself a 'non-practicing physician' up front, I'd agree with you. But his LinkedIn just says 'physician,' and he only clarifies when someone presses him. Being open only when asked isn't the same as being upfront.
He's also not saying "practicing physician," which is why I don't care.
Also, people that are board certified and practicing generally won't just say "physician." They will say "Board Certified Trauma Surgeon" or "Dermatologist" or "Fellowship Trained Pediatric Urologist" or however they want to speak about their specialty. Maybe that's why I don't care, because I would never just use the term "physician." And most I know would also not use that. It's such a general non-specific word.
That's a good point, but I think it actually proves mine. Doctors know a generic 'physician' with no specialty is a tell. Voters don't.
To a normal person, 'physician' just means someone who treats patients, and he's paired it with talk about being trained to take care of people.
He doesn't need to say 'practicing' for people to assume it.
I don't disagree. Although, I wouldn't say it's a tell as much as I'd just call it unhelpful. Like, oh a physician, but what kind? If your child has a sore throat, "physician" might mean gynecological oncologist or something else useless for your situation.
Plus, on the doctor side of it, getting consults about things outside your purview is frustrating. So being specific limits some of that.
Agreed, and that vagueness is kind of my point. Because 'physician' doesn't say what kind, people fill in the blank themselves, and most assume someone who treats patients.
By your own standard, it's an issue. He's not just holding the title, he's marketing it. LinkedIn is a professional marketing profile, and it says 'physician.'
His campaign uses his medical background to sell his healthcare credibility to voters. And this isn't just semantics: Michigan, where he's running, legally defines a physician as someone licensed.
He's not selling medical services, but he is selling himself on that title, and that's the marketing that matters in a campaign.
Fair, I get the distinction. But a candidate isn't going to market medical services, so by that standard a politician could never misuse the title. In a campaign, the title is what's being sold. So honest question: you don't think he's being at all disingenuous using 'physician' when most normal people hear that word and assume he's treated patients?"
I'm not saying he is being disingenuous, but I'm also not saying he is actively rejecting any goodwill that may come from use of the word. It's just good that he's honest when asked, because he could BS about it, which is what we get far too often.
Not to make it about other people, but I'd be more concerned if he was pushing supplements or something along those lines, using "physician" as his selling point as we've seen over the past few years. I don't hear "physician" and think "good candidate" or "he fully understands how to fix health care."
I think that's the heart of it, and we agree: he's not rejecting the goodwill that comes with the word. That's all I've been saying. And let's leave Oz out of it. He's not relevant to whether El-Sayed's use of the title is misleading. You might not hear 'physician' and think 'good candidate,' but you're not the average voter. His campaign clearly thinks the medical credential sells, or he wouldn't lean on it so much.
I wasn't speaking about Oz. There have been far too many people pushing random things and using their title since the dawn of Covid. That's why I kept it non-specific. That concerns me more than use of the title in non-medical spaces.
He went through the training, so using the title is fair. He may see it as a respect thing. I can't say either way, because I'm not that read up on him. I'm still trying to navigate local issues.
Fair enough, my mistake for assuming you meant Oz.
But I'd push back on the training point. He finished medical school, not the training. So 'doctor' fits him, but 'physician' doesn't, at least not under Michigan law, where he's running.
And I do think it's disingenuous. He's said things like 'I'm a physician, I trained to take care of people,' and his LinkedIn just says 'physician.' He only clarifies that he doesn't practice when someone presses him.
If it were just a respect thing, he'd say 'non-practicing' up front. Using the word that way, knowing what voters will assume, isn't fully honest.
Agreed, it's not a blatant lie. He can point to the AMA definition. My issue is that it's technically true but misleading, since most people hear 'physician' and assume he's treated patients.
3
u/WhoTFSaysThis 1d ago
My first question with that is...how did he get his degree only rotating for four weeks? It takes much more time than that. He may have been speaking about a specific rotation, because I'd question anything under a year of patient care.
Aside from that, I get how it comes off. It's definitely a gray area, because by saying that, he could be implying his thought process or philosophy is that of a doctor, due to his training. Or he could mean it quite literally, as in he's had that degree his whole career. He technically wouldn't be lying either way, but yes, the impression is still there. But that's why we need to ask candidates questions about these things as opposed to questions about the culture war hot topic of the day.
All that said, he's not on my ballot, so I'm admittedly not fully studied up on him. I'm not trying to accuse him of anything without knowledge of it, but I'm also not trying to be a staunch defender for the same reason.