Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Advertisers wanting to refer to themselves as “Dr”, “a doctor” (or any other similar term) should take care not to imply that they hold a general medical qualification if they do not. In general, CAP advises that if they do not possess a general medical qualification advertisers should not call themselves “Dr”.
Advertisers who are not medical practitioners but who hold the courtesy title “Dr” (for example, a chiropractor or a dentist) may refer to themselves as “Dr” as long as the similarities and differences between the practitioner’s qualifications and medical qualifications are explained in detail in the advertisement (Midland Chiropractic Group, 28 February 2001). Such explanation should go substantially further than, for example, simply stating “Dr is a courtesy title” in a footnote. The latter is likely to contradict the initial impression, given by the use of the title “Dr”, that the practitioner is medically qualified.
CAP believes that it is likely to be acceptable for advertisers who possess a relevant PhD or relevant doctorate (of sufficient length and intensity) to call themselves “Dr” although marketers should note that that position has not been tested by the ASA. Marketers should use the suffix “PhD” to clarify that that is the type of qualification they are referring to. For example, we believe that it would be acceptable for a hypnotherapist with a PhD in Psychology to call himself “Dr John Smith PhD … Hypnotherapist”, because the PhD is relevant to the practice of hypnotherapy. It is likely to be acceptable for advertisers who hold a PhD in a non-relevant subject to use the “PhD” suffix if they do not use the prefix “Dr”.
In 2000, the ASA upheld complaints against two dentists who advertised themselves as “Dr”. It concluded that “as used in the advertisement, the title ‘Dr’ implied that the dental surgeon held a general medical qualification” (Eric Gankerseer, 9 February 2000, and John Stowell, 9 February 2000). Those dentists were not medical practitioners and did not have a doctorate or a PhD. A 2007 magazine ad for Sensodyne Total Care Extra Fresh toothpaste showed a photograph of a dentist that was labelled "Dr. Stemmer B.D.S. UK". The ASA investigated a complaint about the ad and, although it acknowledged that Dr Stemmer was a qualified dentist, considered that the reference to “Dr” in the ad misleadingly implied Dr Stemmer held a general medical qualification (GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, 14 March 2007).
Similarly, the ASA has upheld complaints against ads for chiropractors that have misleadingly implied that the advertiser is a medical practitioner; advertisers should note that references in the ad to “DC” or “doctor of chiropractic” are unlikely to dispel that misleading impression (BritChiro Clinics Ltd, 28 May 2008, and Dr Garland Glenn, 30 October 2002).
Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine or other alternative therapies should not call themselves “Dr” unless they possess a general medical qualification (Great Chinese Herbal Medicine Ltd, 2005).
Ads that refer to a non-medical qualification that happens to include the word “doctor” might be acceptable, if the practitioner does not state “Dr” or “Doctor” as a title. In October 2008, the ASA ruled that an ad of that type did not breach the BCAP Radio Code (BritChiro Clinics Ltd, 15 October 2008). Although the ASA has not adjudicated on it under the CAP Code, we believe that such references would be unlikely to breach the CAP Code. So, a chiropractor should not use the claim “Dr Smith (Doctor of Chiropractic)” but could claim “Mike Smith, who is a doctor of chiropractic” or similar.
Last modified : 14 October 2010