BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Why Does The New York Times Say 'Mr. Carson' But 'Dr. Kocher?'

Following
This article is more than 8 years old.

An alert Twitter user pointed out that the New York Times consistently refers to Presidential candidate Carson as “Mr. Carson,” not “Dr. Carson.”

While some see partisan motivations, it appears this stems from enshrined New York Times style, which according to this 2010 article, dictates:

Dr. should be used in all references for physicians and dentists whose practice is their primary current occupation, or who work in a closely related field, like medical writing, research or pharmaceutical manufacturing: Dr. Alex E. Baranek; Dr. Baranek; the doctor. (Those who practice only incidentally, or not at all, should be called Mr., Ms., Miss or Mrs.)"

(The equally-contentious topic of whether “Ph.D.”=”Dr.” is an important but distinct issue and not the focus of this column.)

The fraught question raised by this policy: when does an M.D. lose the right to be considered a doctor? Is it when you stop seeing patients? When your main job is hospital administration? When your main job is national administrator (e.g., a member of Congress)? When you become a management consultant? An investor?

While the New York Times may insist on calling Carson “Mr.,” it’s fascinating to recognize that if Carson didn’t decide to run for office, and remained instead a retired neurosurgeon, he would almost certainly still be called “Dr.” by the Times.

Even more interesting is the case of Bob Kocher, who stopped practicing medicine and joined McKinsey after his medical residency (as he discussed with Lisa Suennen and me on our Tech Tonics podcast here), then went on to co-author the ACA, and after that, became a VC. Yet he still seems to be referred to as “Dr.” by the Times.

Nevertheless, congressmen and senators who are M.D.s are generally referred to as “Mr.” How is it that management consulting around health policy rates a “Dr.” from the Times, while actually being a policy maker doesn’t? And how does leaving retirement to run for President earn a demotion in title?

The issues around this are not merely superficial, especially for those of us (like me) who have trained as physicians, perhaps (like me) practiced as a physician, feel (like me) that our experience in medicine is a definitional and foundational part of who we are – yet who no longer practice, and are doing something else with our medical knowledge.

I became an M.D. when I graduated medical school, but when did I become a doctor? When I completed my internship? Residency? Fellowship? After I started seeing patients independently? Becoming a doctor feels less like a moment than a continuously evolving process.

Even so, my vote is that once you become an M.D., and begin to merit the right to be called “doctor,” you shouldn’t lose this because you decide to take your talents in a different direction.

While I don’t agree with much of what Carson says – including the squishy perspective on vaccines he offered up in an earlier debate, as Ishani Ganguli writes in this elegant and insightful Times essay – he still deserves to be called Dr. Carson.

I suspect Dr. Evil would agree.

Addendum: Following publication of this commentary, a relevant article from R Street was brought to my attention; it offers a more quantitative  look at the topic, and contrasts the way the Times refers to Carson and to Jill Biden, who has a doctorate in education.