Letter to the Editor I was amazed and dismayed at Humes and Diefendorf’s suggestion that “technicians” be used for audiologists. Their parallel to dentistry and optometry simply does not apply in this case, since neither physicians (and their employed individuals) nor hearing aid dealers are covered by audiology licensure. With such exemptions, and because ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   March 01, 1994
Letter to the Editor
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kenneth E. Smith
    Hearing Associates Shawnee Mission, KS
Article Information
Professional Issues & Training / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   March 01, 1994
Letter to the Editor
American Journal of Audiology, March 1994, Vol. 3, 88. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0301.88a
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 1994, Vol. 3, 88. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0301.88a
I was amazed and dismayed at Humes and Diefendorf’s suggestion that “technicians” be used for audiologists. Their parallel to dentistry and optometry simply does not apply in this case, since neither physicians (and their employed individuals) nor hearing aid dealers are covered by audiology licensure.
With such exemptions, and because of the current status of our profession, we are not in a position to mandate supervision of such technicians by licensed audiologists. This is really an issue of professional autonomy that can and will be solved by the AuD degree.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access