DGHS Withdraws Ban on ‘Dr’ Prefix for Physiotherapists
Share
In a new regulation, the Union Health Ministry prohibited physiotherapists from utilizing the “Dr. prefix; however, the action drew much criticism, therefore the It was taken away a few days later by the ministry. Though medical professionals, allied health regulators, and legal specialists continually debate how physiotherapists should practice, the reversal brings the matter up for more consideration. One should answer consideration to avoid public misunderstanding.
In a September 9 letter, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) wrote that physiotherapists are not medical experts and shouldn’t use the prefix “Dr.” Furthermore, the order called for the removal of provisions in the newly established Competency Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy 2025 that permitted physiotherapists to use “Dr.” as their moniker. With “PT” as a suffix and prefix. The DGHS voiced reservations that the name “Dr.” could perplex patients and generate uncertainty when employed by non-medical experts on professional employment and maybe paving the path for charlatanism. Citing earlier court rulings and suggestions as well as legal frameworks like the Indian Medical Degrees Act of 1916, it noted that. But on September 10, the DGHS issued a follow-up announcement undoing the September 9 instruction. According to the letter of withdrawal, more study is needed especially given many requests for reconsideration from interested parties. The prior direction should be regarded as retracted until further notice from the DGHS. The disagreement stems from the revised physiotherapy curriculum published in April by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP). In 2025, physiotherapists were given authorization to include the prefix “Dr.” and the suffix “PT” in their names. That action, which was intended to recognize and honor physiotherapy graduates and postgraduates, was opposed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and other associations. They asserted that Using the title “Dr.” could mislead the public and muddy the boundaries between occupations in the healthcare sector since physiotherapists are not educated as doctors.
Originally, the DGHS required the prefix “Dr.” solely for licensed medical practitioners covered by law recognizing contemporary medicine, Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, and Unani. Moreover, the government quoted legal precedent: the Patna High Court in 2003 found that physiotherapists not included on the State Medical Register were Not authorized to use the title. Non-medical employees (paramedics, technicians) are also forbidden from using the title “Dr.,” according to rules and suggestions from several state medical boards. The order cancelled has brought the situation back to one of instability. For now, the DGHS has indicated it would not enact the ban pending more conversations. Stakeholders could take part in legal, regulatory, or legislative processes to determine whether physiotherapists should be awarded theprefix indefinitely. Physiotherapists who had embraced the earlier inclusion of “Dr.,” meanwhile, will probably welcome this break, while medical organizations may keep pushing for clarification and clear definitions of what professional titles imply.
For physiotherapists as well as for patients’ perspectives of credentials, medical law, and healthcare ethics, the development of the topic might have implications. The ongoing discussion emphasizes the tension between established medical definitions based on legislation and evolving professional identities in affiliated health fields. Physiotherapists will keep employing their present titles for now; the DGHS is still mulling on whether to permit the use of “Dr.” in their name.
