Dr. George Arthur’s open response to GTEC on title “Dr.”

A call for clarity and fairness

Dear GTEC,

I write in reference to your public notice dated August 8, 2025 concerning the use of the title “Dr.” by various professionals. The notice, intended to clarify who qualifies to use the “Dr.” prefix, has unfortunately raised more questions than it answered. This response seeks to highlight areas of concern, inconsistency, and perceived exclusion, especially regarding health science professionals who hold undergraduate professional doctorate degrees.

1. Selective recognition: A case of professional inclusion and exclusion

Your statement implies that some professions qualify for the “Dr.” prefix while others do not. However, the number of professional fields is not endless, and your deliberate choice to include or exclude certain degrees seems intentional. Why were some professions listed while others were omitted? This selective acknowledgment creates confusion and possibly unfair categorization.

2. Academic vs. Professional qualifications – A misrepresentation of the PhD

Your use of the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt” was intended to clarify distinctions between professional doctorates and the PhD. However, it instead came across as an attempt to elevate PhD holders by labeling theirs as “academic” and suggesting professional doctorates are of lesser value. This perspective distorts the purpose of your notice and could be seen as dismissive of equally rigorous professional programmes.

3. An incomplete list – Omission of recognized Health Science Doctorates

You stated that the Commission currently approves the use of the “Dr.” title for DM, DD, and DVM holders. But why were PharmD, OD, and MLS.D left out? These are undergraduate professional doctorate programmes with well-established global and local relevance. Was this list exhaustive or merely illustrative? Your omission raises legitimate concerns about recognition and parity.

4. The March 13 Letter – Unresolved questions on “Doctor of…” Degrees

Your earlier letter from March 13, 2025, sought to address “combined” Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees styled as doctoral programmes. Yet, it failed to explain what GTEC actually disapproves of:

• The use of the term “Doctor”?
• The programme content?
• Or the eligibility to use the “Dr.” title?

Academic programmes go through rigorous approval processes, often with subject-matter experts and professional institutions involved. The lack of clarity here makes your position appear vague and inconsistent.

5. Struggling with Recognition – MLS.D and the others deserve better

There is a growing perception that GTEC is undecided or hesitant about the proper place of the PharmD, OD, and MLS.D within the national qualifications framework. This is particularly disheartening considering that your predecessor, the National Accreditation Board (NAB), affirmed the parity of these degrees in a 2016 public notice. It is strange and unfair that only the MLS.D continues to face strong resistance, even after national accreditation.

6. Equity and fairness in regulatory decisions

If Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) is accepted, then other equivalent programmes like PharmD, OD, and MLS.D should logically follow suit. In applying regulatory power, GTEC must remain fair, candid, and impartial. Refusing to acknowledge legitimate professional doctorates risks making GTEC appear like a bureaucratic relic resistant to necessary evolution in higher education.

7. Modifications of the ‘Dr.’ title – What exactly do you disapprove?

Your assertion that GTEC has not approved any modification or combination of the “Dr.” title adds another layer of confusion. What exactly constitutes a modification? Is “Dr.(Med)” disapproved? If someone holds both a professional doctorate and a PhD, is it wrong to use “Dr. Dr.”? What rule do such individuals break? Your lack of specificity leaves the public unsure of what is or isn’t acceptable.

8. A plea for deliberate and inclusive public communication

Your public statements, while well-intentioned, have left out significant voices and fostered uncertainty in the academic and professional communities. The public deserves a comprehensive and consistent explanation of your policies, especially as it relates to title usage and programme recognition.

An appeal for dialogue and clarity

I humbly urge GTEC to reconsider its position and provide further clarity on the status of all legitimate undergraduate professional doctorates, including PharmD, OD, and MLS.D. In doing so, GTEC will fulfill its mandate of promoting equitable, inclusive, and standardized higher education in Ghana.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Dr. George Arthur
(M.RPP, MBA, MLS.D, BSc)
📧 Email: aartgeorge@yahoo.co.uk
📞 Tel: 0242732698
📅 Dated: August 17, 2025

OPEN RESPONSE TO GTEC (1)