The International Hearing Society (IHS) wants to make it understood that consumer protection is of paramount importance to IHS and its members. For the reasons stated herein, it is IHS’ position that use of the term audioprosthologist accurately describes the services provided by the individual who has earned the right to use it. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with the proposition that the term audioprosthologist is in any way confusing, or that it “tends to create the impression….that [one] is licensed or certified to practice audiology.”
Definition
The term Audioprosthologist is defined in The Comprehensive Dictionary of Audiology by James H. Delk. The definition is as follows:
“Alternative title for a hearing aid-fitting specialist who has completed a course in audioprosthology.”
The term audioprosthology is defined as follows:
“… to apply to a special course devoted to the study of hearing aid fitting.”
The roots of the term make its definition self-explanatory: audio for hearing, prosthetic for device, and ology for science. “Audio” as used in both “audiology” and “audioprosthology,” is clearly a derivation from the Latin term “audire,” which means “to hear,” and is commonly used in numerous other English words that are related in varying ways to hearing and sound (see MSN Encarta Online Dictionaries). The Latin basis for these and many other English terms is very much in the public domain. It is therefore entirely reasonable that two different professions or practices that deal with hearing and sound would both utilize titles based on the root “audio,” despite the fact that their particular scopes of practice may be entirely different from one another. Although the English-speaking public is likely to conclude that both audiologists and audioprosthologists deal with hearing and sound in some way, the two terms are different enough to apprise the public that the two practices are not the same. Compare this with audiologists who have an advanced academic degree (PhD, ScD or EdD) and are referred to as “Doctor” versus those with the newly minted AuD who refer to themselves specifically as a “Doctors of Audiology.” It could be argued that the term “doctor” in any health-related field could be easily misinterpreted by the public as Medical Doctor.
Consumer Protection
The issue of consumer protection is of major significance. Back in 1992, the Attorney General of the State of Florida issued an opinion regarding use of the term. The Florida Attorney General found that:
“The use of the term “audioprosthologist” by itself, without any representation that services other than those authorized to be performed by a licensed hearing aid specialist are offered, would not appear to indicate that the individual is or holds himself out to be a licensed audiologist.”
More recently, in 2004 the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas issued Opinion No. 2004-031 in response to the question of whether or not the use of the term "Audioprosthologist” violated Arkansas Statute A.C.A. Sec. 17-100-301, which states:
(a) No person shall practice or represent himself or herself as a speech-language pathologist or audiologist in this state unless he or she is licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
The Arkansas Attorney General’s opinion goes on as follows:
“It is my opinion that the use of the title “Audioprosthologist,” in and of itself, is not misleading and does not constitute a violation of the law governing the licensure of speech-language pathologists and audiologists."
Most recently, the Oregon Attorney General has taken a position that is inconsistent with the Attorney General of Florida and the Attorney General of Arkansas. While we respect the Oregon Attorney General’s position, we do not agree. IHS is firm in its position that the term audioprosthologist, when properly utilized, is neither confusing nor misleading to the consumer.
Commercial Free Speech1
No individual or profession owns the word “audio”. It is IHS’ position that the use of the term audioprosthologist, when properly used, is protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Peel v Atty Registration and Disciplinary Committee of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990). See also, Ibanez v Fla. Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., Bd of Accountancy, 512 US 136 (1994).
