gulag, glasnost, gargoyle.

The field of audiology has been shifting from a Master's level to a doctorate level for a couple of decades now. I was caught in the middle and ended up with an M.S. for a profession that now requires a more advanced degree, at least for newer graduates. The geezers will be grandfathered in, but since I was just starting my odyssey in audiology, and my belly dancing career never took off, I went ahead and obtained the Au.D. via distance. So now I have the damn thing and that's that. I went to an optometry school, actually. Those of us who have done so now introduce ourselves as "doctor" to the patients, although it's a little hard for the receptionists to get used to. It's rather incongruous when I hear them say, "Jannette will be with you in a moment," and then I introduce myself as "Dr. Palermo" five minutes later. I've never liked patients calling me "Jannette." It's a little bit too personal and friendly for my taste. I'm a very private person with just a few close friends, and not even that many acquaintances. I don't mind if the patient is very nice, and I've seen him or her several times. But otherwise I think that barrier really needs to be there. Until the Au.D., though, it also seemed weird to be "Ms. Dayton" or more recently, "Ms. Palermo." That would just make me feel like a 3rd grade teacher.

The audiologists who still only have a Master's for whatever personal decision tend to be a little resentful. We're not allowed to put "Doctor of Audiology" on our business cards, even though that degree has been legally conferred upon me, because as I was told: Patients might feel they are receiving a different level of service. It's not out of some sense of superiority, or arrogance, that myself and others want to call ourselves "Doctor," (and we do). The purpose of the change is to elevate the field to a doctoring profession, as what we do is very similar to optometry or podiatry, both of which are limited license practitioners and can bill Medi-care. It's also to distinguish ourselves from slimy hearing aid salesmen. To deny Au.D. recipients the ability to use their title shortchanges the profession, not the person. I also don't think patients are that stupid. A brief explanation would satisfy most. Even if a patient wanted to switch providers, this happens all the time based on some perceived insult or notion. I did this myself when our ultrasound on our baby was questionable. I requested an M.D. rather than a tech. This happens and no one was insulted. It is what it is.

I write this now because tomorrow we are having a meeting about the debate. Fortunately the "boss" is now sympathetic, and moreover, there is no legal basis to deny one use one's own title. We don't misrepresent, patients know we are doctors of audiology, not medical doctors. Anyway, I'm sure one very conservative audiologist in particular is going to squall and loudly protest. If the economy hadn't downturned, she'd probably be retired by now....

It's for the best. Who wants to be on first name terms with, say, their gynocologist? I'd be appalled to hear him/her say, "hi, I'm Bob," then dig in my crotch. I don't want to call the doctor "bob," or "Natalie," or whatever. They are not my friend, just provider. Not even my husband says my name very often. Usually he says, "Sweetie," or "honey," or whatever.

It's 9:22, and my day has scarcely begun. I have done absolutely no work whatsoever.