AFA's Au.D.

Clark Gailey ceg at internetmci.com
Wed Nov 20 02:02:28 EST 1996


I guess, in reference to the question as to whether or not the Au.D. will 
be termed a "legal designator"  is that I hope that it is.  I hope that 
it will be regarded for the good that it does. It is the right direction 
for the profession to go and it ought to be legal. And in the democracy 
that is the United States of America, I hope that any contest to this 
issue is lobbied by the audiologists who will benefit by this action 
(I feel that is the entire profession). I believe that the Au.D. ought to 
be recognized because of the large number of audiologists that I know 
personally who have dedicated their lives to this profession, some for 
many years.  They have developed increasing skill at great sacrifice as 
new information has become available.  With new technology and equipment, 
audiologists painstakingly obtain the skill to use that equipment to the 
benefit of the patient, with little recognition or compensation for that 
effort.  I believe that the Au.D. ought to be recognized because the 
profession lacks the autonomy it needs in order for us to perfom our jobs 
to the maximum benefit of our patients.  I believe that the Au.D. ought 
to be recognized in order to bring the profession of audiology out of 
obscurity.

In regard to the contention that the AFA is an independent credentialing 
orginization, I refer back to the precedence set by the nation's three 
largest pharmacy practitioner associations, representing well over 
200,000 pharmacy practitioners,  who released a consensus position 
statement supporting the "new" doctor of pharmacy degree and encouraged 
the nation's colleges of pharmacy to develop a degree transfer process 
for B.S. degreed pharmacists.  They further stated that, "for current 
B.S. degree pharmacists whose colleges do not provide degree transfer, 
PHARMACY'S PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS WILL DEVELOP AN INSTITUTE FOR THE 
PUPOSE OF GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PHARM D. EQUIVALENCE." (taken from 
APhA, ASHP and NARD Release "Joint Statement on the e Entry Level Doctor 
of Pharmacy Degree", Press Release 11/91)

As I understand it, the granting of new titles has been utilized in a 
different manner for each profession and was approached in a form that 
was consistent with the needs and the particular circumstances of the 
majority of the profession.   I submit to you that I received my Master's 
degree from a University that does not provide degree transfer and 
therefore (as the legal precedence for transformation previously 
mentioned from the pharmacy's professional association) a professional 
association was developed for the purpose of granting an Au.D. "The 
Audiology Foundation of America (AFA) was formed by audiologists to 
facilitate the transformation of the profession to the doctoral level" 
(taken from the applicant information booklet from the AFA).  "The 
objectives of AFA credentialing are First, to establish that a prescribed 
configuration of training, experience, and practice capability is 
congruent with the set of practice activities of Doctoral Audiology 
Practitioners; Second, to encourage improvement and enhancement of the 
practice of audiology; Third, to enable the public to identify practicing 
audiologists who meet the Au.D. criteria of training, experience, and 
practice capability; and Fourth, to grant the Au.D. credential to 
qualified candidates".

I admit that I am no legal expert and in no way prepared to discuss the 
law.  But I am not aware of any constitutional documentation or any 
federal legal referances that specifically state that earned entitlement 
must be performed only though a University or a State Licensure Board.  I 
would be grateful for any information regarding this matter so that I may 
write to my congresional representative to request it be ammended as 
unfair policy. I have heard rumor that a few states may have such 
statements that are supposed to outlaw the use of Doctor by audiologists 
and I have always believed that they were supported by their state 
hearing aid dispensing examining committee. They too should be lobbied 
against by the collective audiology profession.  I recall a rumor of a 
Ph.D. audiologist in the state of Texas reprimanded by the Texas State 
Hearing Aid Dispensing Examining Commitee for using the title of Doctor. 
This is clearly wrong.  

The time has come for the Au.D.  It is a verifiable title.  I submit that 
is why so many audiologists are requesting applications for Earned 
Entitlement from the AFA and the qualifications of the audiologists are 
the reason for the AFA granting so many Au.D. credentials to the 
candidates. It is the only fair method prescribed to date to bring the 
profession of Audiology to it's rightfull standing.  I commend the AFA 
for their efforts.

Clark E. Gailey, M.S., FAAA, CCC-A
>
>dybala at utdallas.edu wrote in article <56m044$g36 at utdallas.edu>...
>> 
>> I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO NOTE:
>> (ahem)
>> 
>> In all of the cases below the earned entitlement was done
>> through a UNIVERSITY of A STATE LICENSURE BOARD. Hence
>> it it legal to use the designator as Doctor.
>> 
>> THE "aud" FROM AFA IS THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT CREDENTIALLING
>> SOURCE!
>> (ahem)
>> therefore it is illegal to use the designator 
>> because it is impersonating an earned degree from
>> A UNIVERSITY 
>> (ahem)
>> and you cannot call yourself a DOCTOR
>> unless it is from a university or state licensure board.
>> 
>> That is why the optometry, law, and pharmacy models
>> worked because they were done legally!
>> 
>> Unlike the AFA's "aud".
>> 
>> 
>> Please do not make the following comparision made
>> below to the AFA's "aud".  It is totally INACCURATE!
>> 
>> (ahem)
>> My all of this shouting I must be getting nodules!
>> 
>> Paul Dybala

>> > It's interesting to read the materials sent with the Application for 
>> > Au.D. Credentialing regarding the history of Entitlement.
>> 
>> > "In the late 18th and 19th centuries various medical schools changed 
>> > their degree from a Bachelor of Medicine (M.B.) to Doctor of Medicine 
>> > (M.D.).  Harvard University even granted complimentary M.D.'s to
>previous 
>> > M.B. and as recently as 1970, the State of California allowed Doctors
>of 
>> > Osteopathy (D.O.'s) to exchange their degree for a M.D. degree.
>> 
>> > Granding new titles has been utilized by a number of professions as a 
>> > viable means and for a specific purpose, i.e. primarily to transform or
>
>> > transition thier professions to a doctoring profession.  Each
>intitlement 
>> > was not without controversy and usually was approached in a different 
>> > form for each profession that was consistent with the needs and 
>> > particular circumstances of the majority of the profession"
>> 
>> > We learn of similar transistions for the Doctor of Optometry degree, 
>> > Podiatry, Juris Doctor etc.  In 1987, the State of Arkansas Pharmacy 
>> > Licensure Bord enactied legislation allowing all licensed pharmacists
>to 
>> > use the designator P.D. and the title doctor of pharmacy even if they 
>> > have not earned the doctor of pharmacy degree.  There was no opposition
>
>> > in the state legislature to this action.  In 1991, the nation's three 
>> > largest pharmacy practitioner associations, representing well over 
>> > 200,000 pharmacy practitioners, released a consensus position statement
>
>> > supporting the "new" doctor of pharmacy degree and encouraging the 
>> > nation's colleges of pharmacy to develop a degree transfer process for 
>> > B.S. degreed harmacists.  They further stated that, "for current B.S. 
>> > degree pharmacists whose calleges do not provide degree transfer, 
>> > pharmacy's professional associations will develop an institute for the 
>> > purpose of granting a Certificate of PHarm D. Equivalence."
>> 
>> > THE PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET, THE TIME IS RIGHT!!!
>> 
>> > It seems to me that it is high time for the profesional audiologists to
>
>> > wake up to the needs of our times.  We have the potential of becoming
>an 
>> > autonomous profession.  Why would anyone not want that for the
>profession 
>> > that we have dedicated our lives to?
>> 






More information about the Audiolog mailing list