Talk:Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Updated some info and removed some irrelevant and outdated material.

Is it still correct to tag this article with not containing a worldwide perspective?? Ranjitointernational 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say no. Not every country awards the degree precisely, and those that do are completely covered. Time to erase it, I would say. Grahamdubya 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BMBCh and variants[edit]

Could I suggest that someone create articles for all the various equivalent degree titles (such as BMBCh) and redirect them to this page, please? --88.97.11.54 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwekubo insists that the degree is usually abbreviated as BM BS: I doubt that anyone else would agree. The English language version was devised by the University of London in the 19th century, and is still in use by its medical colleges. The older universities wrote their diplomas in Latin. The University of London used to award degrees to students at University Colleges throughout much of the British Empire. Most Commonwealth countries still follow the London system of naming medical degrees. Within the UK, the output of MB BS graduates from London and Newcastle far outweighs the more recent BM BS graduates from a handful of new medical schools, such as that at Nottingham. NRPanikker 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that "BM BS" is necessarily the most common version of the name in practice, but your edit changed the text so that it no longer made sense, suggesting as it did that "BM BS" is a combination of Latin and English abbreviations, when it is patently a direct abbreviation of the English version alone. I have changed the text slightly in order to remove the confusion. --Kwekubo 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that so many degree abbreviations are in Latin, or in combinations of Latin and English. "Ch" in BCh or ChB may well stand for "chirurgery," which larger English dictionaries show to be an antiquated version of "surgery," rather than "chirurgia." I doubt that the Egyptian medical schools which award the MB BCh, or those in Iraq which give the MB ChB, give Latin diplomas, but stand to be corrected on this. However the Scottish universities still give Latin diplomas, so their MB ChB must be regarded as Latin. In the case of London University, which devised BS for the Bachelor of Surgery, why should the MB twinned with it be regarded as Latin? Degree postnominals do not always follow the usual order of words: think of AB or BA for Bachelor of Arts, and AM or MA for Master of Arts.

While in querulous mood, I would also question the heading "Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery." I have never seen that exact title being used anywhere, though it echoes the nomenclature of the "Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery" (LMS) diploma that used to be awarded by "medical schools" (rather than "medical colleges") in India, the bachelors degrees in veterinary medicine and surgery (BVM&S)awarded by some British universities and the degrees in ayurveda and homoeopathy awarded in India. NRPanikker 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the "Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery" - this page ought to be renamed "Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery" Ceiriog 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

MBBS/MD[edit]

These degrees are not per se equiv, nor does holding an MBBS give someone the right to practice in the US. They can be the same, but they are not always. For an example, when I was in medical school we have several MBBS docs in our classes that wanted to practice in the US but in their case they had to take 3 of our courses that they hadn't had at their home institution, pass our steps 1-3 and apply as a fmg for residencies after which they could apply for license in the state they were practicing. I've seen some from other countries that had to do a whole year, others that just had to take the boards (which generally takes about a year to do), it just depends on their background. Not all MBBS degrees are the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They probably resat some of your courses to help prepare themselves to sit the USMLE exams for their own revision. This does not mean that they were not equivalent medical degrees. If you graduated with a Canadian MD and then 5 years later wanted to sit the USMLE, you too may need to revise some information.

It does not matter what the title of your medical degree is, once you have passed steps 1-3 of USMLE and become ECMFG certified, you are legally equivalent to any US MD graduate and you are licensed equally by every US state board of medicine. You are are also granted the right to use the MD title when advertising your services in private in every US state. Some institutions may post MBBS and some post MD on their website; however, this has nothing to do with equivalency of the degrees. I have provided examples from many, many US states of graduates from India, Ireland, UK, Australia, etc who have obtained the MBBS or MBChB degree in medicine and shows them using the MD title both in private practice and at academic institutions. Please stop deleting and changing information and inserting your unresearched (hearsay opinion) unsourced. If you would spend the time to either contact any US state board of medicine and/or just do a simple google search you would find that any (ECMFG certified) MBBS graduate is allowed to use the "MD" title while practicing in the United States because they are equivalent allopathic medical degrees. FYI: Actually, many MD gradutes from the US when licensed in the UK use the title "MBBS" when signing documents, or if they use the MD title in the UK they usually are required to specify where they have obtained their MD (USA) to demonstrate that they do not hold the higher doctorate MD from an accredited UK institution which is a higher level degree than the US MD degree.

Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats great..some use the MD...some can't (I don't know how many states thats in, only the ones I've worked in). In any case, that doesn't mean that they are per se equivilent, which is what you are trying to say...not only, its not always a matter of just taking the boards as often further classes are required depending on where the MBBS is from. I'm not particularly concerned about how MBBS is used in UK, but in the US its accurate to say that they can be the same, and that some states allow the use of the MD title but not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are only providing your own experience that you have yourself "observed" some MBBS graduates in a couple of your classes. You neither know their situation nor what was involved. What level of evidence is that? I never said that simply taking the boards was the only requirement. Please cite where I've said that. As a matter of fact, I stated, "MBBS graduates who have obtained ECMFG certification were equivalent to US MD graduates". There are no extra classes required of MBBS graduates.. and the only exams you are required to take to become ECMFG certified are the same ones that any US MD graduate would be expected to take Step 1,2,3, clinical skills exam, (maybe the tofel if you graduated from a non-english speaking country) etc.[1]

As a matter of fact the AMA has this to say on the matter: The AMA has policy supporting equivalent treatment of graduates of foreign medical schools with graduates of US medical schools. Policy H-255.983[2]

Medical schools outside of the US and Canada have varying educational standards and curricula, and cannot certify that their graduates meet comparable standards to US graduates. Therefore, the continued use of a standardized clinical skills assessment for graduates of non-US institutions for entry into supervised graduate medical education training in the US is appropriate. The ECFMG and its successor, the CSE, meet this requirement. [3]

This means once you sit steps 1,2,3, clincal skills exam, and (tofle if non english speaking) and obtain ECFMG certification, you are legally equivalent to any LCME accredited US MD graduate in the United States.

PHY-993 Use of the M. D. Title: The Wisconsin Medical Society: 1) defends the use of the M.D. title by physicians who graduated with an M.B.B.S. and are licensed to practice medicine in Wisconsin; and, 2) believes in clarifying Wisconsin statute so that International Medical Graduates licensed to practice as medical doctors can use the title M.D. (HOD,0495)[4]

I have provided some of my sources, so before you go deleting and editing this page again.. please discuss your views (providing valid sources for your information) on this discussion page. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the sources you provided? They aren't law, they are AMA policy briefs and refcom reports. Taking boards entitles no one to licence, that is left to each state board. Additionally, no one "resat" any of my courses, the MBBSs in my courses were required to take them to make up for the lacking in their coursework by the residency program that they were admitted to, and yes completing the residency is also require for practice and in my experience MBBSs sometimes take additional course and clinical work (and yes, particularly ones from India, in fact a good friend of mine just took the entire 4th year as a requirement of his oral surgery program, which he has to complete to get licence). And thank you for making the assumption that I didn't know my own classmates, perhaps you should only comment on what you have knowledge of? I edited to clarify, and removed the references you added that didn't actually say what you wanted them to. If you are unfamiliar with the US system please only edit what you are familiar with (the commonwealth system, I assume).

1. You seem to still forget that I said ECFMG certified doctors, not simply taking boards. Obtaining ECFMG certification means you are a legal equivalent to any LCME accredited MD graduate. You are then provided with the same rights and responsibilities and allow you to be equally licensed by all US state boards of medicine. The only "law" is that these rights are provided by each state medical board... and at the current time, every US state medical board will accept an MBBS graduate with ECFMG cert as a legal equivalent to a US MD graduate. 2. Internship/Residency completion is even expected of US MD grads before they are provided with the same right to list themselves as "MD"s/Doctors. Ie. Even if you graduate from an LCME US MD program, but you never complete an internship/residency. You are not allowed to advertise yourself as a licensed "MD" to the public. 3. Oral and Maxillofacial surgery residency training and licensure is administered and overseen by CODA, ADA, and each state's board of dentistry, not ACGME or the state boards of medicine. So this has nothing to do with a MBBS(ECFMG) vs MD equivalency discussion. 4. I have worked in both the US and Commonwealth nations. So I can say I have experience in both. 5. At least I'm providing sources, you are giving nothing but personal opinion. I challenge you to provide me with information from 1 US state board of medicine that says that an MBBS graduate (with ECFMG certification and who has completed a US internship/residency of course) is not allowed equal status as a US MD graduate while practicing in the United States.

I don’t know if you have some personal vendetta against some Indian doctors who you have come into contact with in the past, but providing false information about their education on a public forum is not the way to deal with this issue. It looks as though you are based at Mayo University Hospital from what your talk page states. Even at your very own hospital MBBS graduates (from India, UK, Ireland, Australia, Hong Kong, ad infinitum) are listed as “MD”s on the Mayo website and from many other websites of other institutions based in the state of Minnesota. Maybe you should contact the Mayo University administration, the AMA, and the Minnesota state board of medicine regarding your personal perceived inequalities of your local overseas trained doctors instead of posting false information on wikipedia. Thank you.Jwri7474 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said, or just reposted the same thing you said before...you clearly missed the point. Since you seem to be bent on pushing your agenda I looked at your edit history, you obviously are not a medical practioner and have no experience or knowledge of the US system. Debating with you about medicine in the US is as such a useless exercise, much as it would be for me to try to convince a Londoner that the London Eye is underground. And since you asked, my wife is an Indian doctor, and I know exactly what she went through, so please close your mouth about things you know nothing of. You also clearly don't know what "Mayo" is, or how or who practices here in what way. Perhaps after you move to the US, become educated on the topic or gain some firsthand experience of it, and leave behind your agenda then we can have a real discussion.
And as a side note: every physician in MN, including at the Mayo clinic with a MD behind their name, from India or anywhere else, completed medical education and received a MD. Those that completed education leading to some other degree will have those behind their name, for example, if the education was in the UK it will say MBBS. The same applies to the Cleveland Clinic, at least as of 6 months ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.6 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am a medical practitioner (have obtained my medical degree in Australia) and am licensed to practice in both the United States and Australia. So, honestly.. I do believe I have a right to speak about a process and system with which I have intimate knowledge. Thanks though. You equally however, seem to have an agenda (of suggesting that other countries education systems are less than equal the all American medical programs and this is not true).

You also say that, "every physician in MN, including at the Mayo clinic with a MD behind their name, from India or anywhere else, completed medical education and received a MD...if the education was in the UK it will say MBBS."

Again false information. Examples -> http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/staff/roy_v.cfm http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/Staff/Basu_S.cfm http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/Staff/clain_je.cfm

This makes me think that you may not know the regulations of your very own hospital (as evidence of the above examples). Yes, I am familiar with Mayo Hospital system. Please, again.. refrain from editing this page any further with false unsourced information. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You claim that Mayo Hospital has changed this policy as of 6 months ago. That may be true as far as what the Mayo hospital decides to display on their website. However, this doesn’t really matter... because regardless of what they decide to "display".. be it their MBBS degree or the "MD title"; this still does not negate the fact that they are equivalent degrees as decreed by the AMA and every state board of medicine. I get the impression that maybe your wife had a difficult time moving through the American system after you moved there.. for this I am very sorry. However, for this very reason.. I would expect that you would very much wish to agree with me when I am defending their equivalency instead of suggesting that your wife's medical qualifications are lesser than an (equivalent) American medical qualification. Peace. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become too personalised to be conducted entirely on a rational basis. A number of different points are being argued at the same time.
(1) Whether MBBS (etc) degrees are as good as American MDs. This is hard to demonstrate, as most holders of either kind of degree would remain working in the system they trained in. Those who move abroad may not be typical. Licensing exams held for foreign medical graduates may emphasise points of difference between countries, such as colloquial speech and local laws, which need to be mastered eventually but put the incomer at a disadvantage.
(2) Whether they have equivalent standing in law in the USA. This is not a point of much general interest. It seems to me that once you have a full licence to practice a profession in any jurisduction, it doesn't matter very much how you got there: but coming in with a foreign basic qualification may mean there are more obstacles on the way.
(3) Whether holders of MBBS (etc) can legally use "MD" in the USA. This ought to be a simple point of law, which would vary from state to state. However, there may be confusion with the question of using the title of "doctor" when holding a qualification other than "doctor of medicine." Apart from bachelors and licentiates from the Commonwealth, Europeans may have qualifications translatable as "candidate," "physician" or "state examination in medicine."
(4) A point not raised yet is that American organisations (learned societies, websites, publishers, etc) can take an ethnocentric approach and may insist on forcing foreign members/subscribers into American categories: their databases may not be able to cope with foreign designations, so overseas medical graduates are all credited with MDs.
(5) Historically the MD suffix was appropriated by many people who were trained only by apprenticeship, and had not undergone any sort of examination: e.g. Andrew Taylor Still, who remains revered despite that. NRPanikker (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


(1) This varies from school to school. Has absolutly nothing to do with "MBBS or MD" titles. (Medical programs in many countries are 6 years long and accept students out of High school and call their degrees "MD" ex: israel, bosnia, many countries in the middle east).. also not all MBBS programs are for students out of HS either, half of Australian programs are 4 year programs identical to most programs in the states and require a previous bachelors degree for admission yet still grant MBBS degrees. What you call the degree MBBS or MD is irrevalent and varies regardless of what the actual structure or admission scheme each university uses. Some Mexican medical schools grant the degree "Titulo de Medico Cirujano" and some in Switzerland grant the "Dr.Med" degree. Again.. completely arbitrary and depend on the tradition of the university. Once a graduate of ANY allopathic medical school passes US exams and becomes ECFMG certified. They are allowed to use the MD title while in the US.
(2) Agreed. MBBS and MD recieve the exact same level equivalent licensure in every state or country they obtain their license to practice medicine as long as they pass the same requisite regional exams.
(3) Every US Board of Medicine supports the use of MD by equivalent licensed MBBS graduates to help reduce confusion among the US public's eyes. MBBS graduates are allowed to use the term "Dr." in the commonwealth and in north america. Again, this has nothing to do with the degree. It has to do with licesure to practice medicine. Equally if you graduated with a US MD for example in Texas.. if you have not obtained a Texas state medical license.. you are equally barred from marketing yourself to the public as a licensed "Dr." or to even put the MD title behind your name on buisness cards, signs, or legal documentation that infers you are a licensed physician.
Once licensed.. graduates of med school (MBBS, MD, BMed, etc), vet school (BVS, BVSc, VMD, DVM), dental (BDS, BDent, DDS, etc) are all allowed to use the title "Dr." (having nothing to do with the fact if they hold a "doctorate") Technically speaking even the MD, DDS, DVM, are not "doctorates", but instead equivalentfirst professional degrees not equivalent to a PhD (true doctorate).
Jwri7474 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


"::(2) Agreed. MBBS and MD recieve the exact same level equivalent licensure in every state or country they obtain their license to practice medicine as long as they pass the same requisite regional exams. "

Agreed, since you added in the conditions, which you were leaving out of the article. Also, the discussion was not over the use of the term "Dr.", but "MD"; also, you left out the "once licenced" in your arguments, which was what I took issue to. I find it highly unlikely that you are a practicing physician based on what you posted as references and that you don't seem to know the role of professional organizations in the United States. Also, to the last point, I have a MD and a PhD, while you may be able to argue over nuances in the US they are considered equivilent levels of education, though strangley enough the PhD is payed much less...but thats another topic. My last post in this since its not likely that the article will be changed to be accurate (and the changes aren't that big) and there is no point in continuing to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.6 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I did state repetitively they must be ECFMG certified (meaning they are now on equivalent standing in the US and are able to apply for internship/residency equally), same could be said for US MD graduates who then complete the regional exams in the UK and want to apply for postgraduate training and licensure there. I agree with you in regards to the PhD, but as we both know.. unfortunately salary has nothing to do with level of qualifications. Many entrepreneurs make millions without even going to university.  :) Peace. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two bachelor's degrees?[edit]

Some people try to explain the two degrees as reflecting the former separation of the medical and surgical professions: but the separate basic training had ended long before the British universities started to give separate basic degrees. As this phenomenon started in Great Britain before it spread to the Empire and Comonwealth, the causes are likely to be found there.

At the begining of the 19th century, there was little statutory control of the medical profession. The move towards state regulation (as already begun in Europe) was countered by Adam Smith and his laissez-faire supporters. Nevertheless, Parliament and a variety of other central bodies began to insist that ship's surgeons and public employees such as prison doctors and Poor Law medical officers had to be qualified in both medicine and surgery. This came to be interpreted as requiring separate qualifications.

At that time, large numbers of men from England and the colonies went to Ireland and Scotland to study medicine. The output of graduates and licentiates was too much for local needs, so many went to practice in England. These comprised both university graduates with MDs and Licentiates of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons in Edinburgh and Dublin, and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, as well as those who went on to qualify elsewhere or did not acquire any diploma at all.

In England, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were at a low ebb. Pre-clinical teaching was not functioning until the middle of the century, and their clinical schools did not take off until after some London medical schools were evacuated there during the second world war. Students (who might have been apprenticed to surgeons or apothecaries) at the London teaching hospitals at the start of the 19th century would qualify with the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of London and the Licence of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries: it became customary to take both. Very few would have studied before at Oxford or Cambridge and been eligible to take their examinations for the Bachelor of Medicine degree. However, they were well placed to take up the new public appointments.

The Scottish universities claimed that their MD curricula and examinations encompassed both medicine and surgery, and were able to convince the Army Board, but not all of the London-based organisations agreed to accept a single qualification. There was already a precedent for a surgical degree in the CM (Chirurgiae Magister) introduced by the University of Glasgow in 1816 as a shorter and more focussed alternative to the MD.

The Scottish Universities brought in the MB CM (Bachelor of Medicine, Master of Surgery) degrees at some point in the 19th century and towards the end of that century changed the degrees to MB ChB, at which point MD and ChM became higher qualifications. In Scotland commissioners overseeing the universities there were able to harmonise such changes. I don't know at what stage Oxford and Cambridge added BCh and BChir to their BM and MB, or what the arrangements were in Ireland. In London I think the new university (which used English instead of Latin for its degrees) started off with MB and BS degrees, which at first were available separately. The English provincial medical schools had prepared their students to take the exams of the London corporations. Some of them became "University Colleges" teaching for London university degrees before joining the new local Redbrick universities. At Oxbridge the medical and surgical degrees were sometimes obtained consecutively, rather than simultaneously: this remained possible until recent years.

When registration with the forerunner of the General Medical Council became compulsory for medical practitioners in 1858, all registered qualifications became equal as far as eligibility for public appointments was concerned. At the same time the medical and surgical corporations were encouraged to pair up so as to encompass the whole of medicine in their examinations. In London the Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians was paired with the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons. Although two separate qualifications were no longer required, the public were more impressed by a long string of postnominal letters such as "MRCS, LRCP."

Later, when Midwifery became a mandatory part of the final exam, the Irish medical schools introduced a third degree (BAO) in Obstetrics and the Irish corporations brought in an extra Licence in Midwifery (LM) to give with their pair of licentiate diplomas.

This does not explain the change from doctor to bachelor of medicine. Given how medical controversies were handled in the early 19th century, it may be that writings from that time might throw more heat than light on the subject. NRPanikker (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008

The UK Medical degrees vs European countries and Bologna Process[edit]

The UK medical education should adapt the bologna process as the Australian one did. It means that the medical curriculum should be at masters' level due to the ETCS (European Credit Transfer System) which normally takes at least 240 ETCS credits not just only 120- 180 ETCS as normal bachelors' degree. The British universities are trying to lobby their students by giving multiple degree at the same time of graduation such BSc/MBBS (bachelor of Sciences/ Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) so on and so far. However, it seems nonsense and useless to do so. It is supposed to follow the criteria of Bologna process and to give MD (Doctor of Medicine) degree to their graduates as most of European countries do. Logically, degree in medicine is considered strongly to be a professional degree which means that the degree identify their job as a skillful-designed person in the field. The UK system (MBBS or MBChB= bachelors' degree) tried to illuminate their graduates by giving courtesy title of "Dr." (seem to be more criticized by many other academic scholars in other majors that they should not be called Dr. if they have no word "doctor" in their degrees) to them in to make not to feel inferior than other who get MD degree (such most other European and the US graduates). To get a PhD in medicine does mean that those people are very outstanding in the field because it is just a philosophy not a real professional one, It is the specialist training or specialist registrar who will give them this achievement. If the adapttion is done, it is not so complicated to covert the name of their current MD degree (higher or first doctorate) to a Doctor of Medical Sciences (DMedSc or MedScD) in order to distinguish the professional and research doctorate. 203.144.65.118 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are Bachelors of Medicine addressed as "Doctor"?[edit]

How the title of "doctor" was retained when the doctoral degree was abandoned is unclear, Outside medicine, academic disputations and examinations had gone out of vogue over the 18th century. The Bar examinations of the Inns of Court were not re-established until late in the 19th century, and at first they were optional. At Oxbridge ordinary BAs could be obtained without examination, and both residence and examination had been abolished for the MA. The other doctorates (DD and LLD) were normally awarded without examination to academics or professionals in mid or late career. At medical schools, many took no degree, or went elsewhere to qualify. Medicine outside the English cities was largely practiced by non-graduates, who might be addressed as "doctor" like their rivals the Scottish MDs. There were also many unqualified assistants. Some who claimed to be MDs had taken no examination and submitted no thesis.

In earlier times, fully qualified surgeons had been addressed as "master" or "maister:" possibly the title used by senior members of a craft guild in the middle ages, but laid down by the original royal charters of the bodies that became the Royal Colleges of Surgeons in London and Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. This term died out, but may have contributed to the use of "Mister" by British surgeons.

The Royal College of Physicians of London had in the past claimed that its Fellows had the status of MDs: perhaps by analogy with similar bodies in pre-Napoleonic Europe, which examined candidates for doctorates. The similar body in Edinburgh had examined MD candidates before the university there had a medical faculty, but it was the university that awarded the degrees. The RCPL allowed its licentiates (who were up to the mid-19th century probably Oxbridge Bachelors of Medicine) to be called "doctor." The first registrar of the new General Medical Council had previously been registrar of the RCPL: when he acknowledged the applications of Licentiates of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh he addressed them likewise as "doctor" on the receipt for the fee. This was taken as sufficient authority for LRCPEs to begin using the title. The RCPE had attracted some opprobrium for holding a "year of grace" in which experienced medical men with another qualification, or none, could acquire their licence on the basis of testimonials. The RCPL had acted similarly.

Even after university degrees became available in London, students at the teaching hospitals there commonly took the examinations of the Royal Colleges as insurance in case of failure: but there was no feeling that these diplomas were required to become a "doctor." It may be that since what were still regarded as lesser qualifications were enough to confer the title of "doctor," there was little question of the eligibility of bachelors of medicine: by argumentum a fortiori.

The accounts given above lack important details. I have not seen a full explanation, in official histories of the medical corporations, of the reason for changing the degrees or keeping the title, probably because much of this does not reflect credit on the persons and bodies involved. NRPanikker (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MB in North America[edit]

At present Columbia University's predecessor, King's College in New York, is listed among the North American institutions that originally gave Bachelor of Medicine degrees. However the reference given, to the university's own website, is silent about the MB and states only that in 1767 its medical school was the first to award the MD degree in North America. Can the earlier award of the MB be referenced? NRPanikker (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MB Columbia reference[5]Jwri7474 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The article Ch.B. is a pointless stub about one of the many abbreviations for one of the two degrees. There really is no need for it. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Now merged. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge[edit]

"At the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the preclinical course leads to an additional Bachelor of Arts (BA), degree (upgradable after three or four years to Master of Arts), after which most students used to go elsewhere (but usually to one of the London teaching hospitals) to complete clinical training. They could then take the degrees of their new university: they used to have the options of returning to their old university to take the clinical examinations, or taking one of the old non-university qualifying examinations."

This is incorrect. After being awarded a BA in medical science or a related discipline, at the conclusion of the pre-clinical course, in oxford at least around 80% each year stay on to do their clinical training in Oxford itself. In Cambridge, though a larger number go to the London teaching hospitals, around 50% stay on (I'm less sure on this number). A small number of people also transfer between the two after completing their pre-clinical training. The latter sentence also seems to be confusing and, at least to me.

I suggest: At the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge completion of the three year preclinical course leads to the award of a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree. Students may then apply to continue clinical training at their own university, to transfer between the two, or to transfer to one of the London teaching hospitals. The BM. BCh. Degree, or equivalent, is awarded by the clinical school they attend on successful completion of another three years of study. The application to clinical school application is competitive. Around 80% of Oxford students and 50% of Cambridge students stay at their original university for clinical training.

I will try to find some references for the above. Any comments appreciated. Foxgrey (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Group Northern Ireland and England?[edit]

I don't see the point in grouping Northern Ireland and England in this article - especially considering Wales and Scotland are separate and Northern Ireland is mentioned again with Ireland. It either makes sense to group Northern Ireland under Ireland and keep the current entry, removing the one with England. Or it could be made with Northern Ireland separate like Wales and Scotland. It just seems random to group England in Northern Ireland if you don't group the rest of the UK with England. 78.109.180.14 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I consider it a personal offence that Edinburgh is mentioned in the section about "England". Either change the heading to "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or split it into separate sections as suggested above.213.123.217.11 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)