Can homeopaths call themselves 'doctors'? Modern vs alternative medicine

India is in the middle of a growing debate over the legitimacy and regulation of traditional medicine practitioners using the title “doctor.”

With the Centre promoting integrated healthcare models and bridge courses for Ayush graduates, many allopathic doctors are raising red flags. In this interview with The Federal, Dr Dhruv Chauhan, National Spokesperson for the Indian Medical Association (IMA), lays out the risks of mixopathy, the dilution of medical standards, and what’s at stake for public health.

What is your stance on Ayush practitioners using the title 'doctor'?

First, I want to clarify that no modern medicine practitioner is against alternate medicine systems like Ayurveda or homeopathy. We're not opposing these paths. What we oppose is quackery and mixopathy. It's important to distinguish between practicing a traditional system properly and mixing it with modern medicine without adequate training.

A person can use the "doctor" prefix if they hold a PhD or have a legal medical degree like MBBS. In India, the government also permits Ayush practitioners to use the "doctor" title as long as they are qualified in their respective systems. Our issue is with those who practice modern medicine without the proper training, especially after completing short-term courses like the six-month bridge course recently allowed by the Maharashtra government.

These short courses cannot replace the years of training we undergo. If an Ayurvedic or homeopathic practitioner starts prescribing allopathic drugs without formal education in modern medicine, it's not only unethical—it’s dangerous. This form of mixopathy endangers patients and misleads the public. It’s similar to calling a YouTuber a journalist just because they conduct interviews—it’s simply not the same.

How does this pose a risk to public safety and trust in medical care?

This situation is definitely a public health risk. We study modern medicine for 5.5 years, followed by 3 years of residency. Someone doing a six-month course cannot claim equivalent competence. Lack of knowledge and experience leads to unsafe practices.

Many of these untrained practitioners prescribe antibiotics and steroids excessively. This leads to antibiotic resistance—a crisis more dangerous than COVID-19. Patients are often misled into thinking they are getting proper treatment, but in reality, they are being harmed. If you truly believe in your system of medicine, then you should not mix it with others. Doing so only dilutes your own practice and puts patients at risk.

How is the training for MBBS different from other traditional systems like Ayurveda or Homeopathy?

If someone wants to practice modern medicine, they should take the NEET UG exam and pursue an MBBS degree. Similarly, if one is in Ayurveda or homeopathy, they should focus on their own curriculum—BHMS or BAMS respectively. Each system has its own drugs, methodology, and philosophy.

There is no overlap in the medicines we use. Homeopathy, for instance, now even has super-speciality degrees. So, why not master your own branch? Mixing systems results in poor knowledge of both and puts the patient at risk. It’s like trying to cook two different cuisines in the same pot—you end up with a mess.

The long-term use of steroids by unqualified practitioners suppresses bone marrow, weakens the immune system, and can cause irreversible organ damage. When these patients finally come to us, their conditions have often worsened beyond repair. They may have antibiotic resistance or heavy metal toxicity from unregulated Ayurvedic drugs. That’s when our options become limited. It’s tragic and entirely avoidable.

There is confusion among the public over who is a 'real' doctor. How can this be addressed?

In rural areas, people often don’t know the difference between MBBS, BAMS, BHMS, or even a pharmacist. If someone has a "Dr." prefix or writes "Physician" outside their clinic, the public assumes they are a modern medicine doctor. Even pharmacists and nurses have been found treating patients, which is deeply problematic.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) needs to regulate this more strictly. Right now, there’s a regulatory vacuum. If the NMC were more vigilant, we could prevent many of these cases of malpractice. I once saw a 1.5-year-old child being unnecessarily given steroids and antibiotics for 15–20 days. No genuine doctor would ever do that. That’s not medicine—it’s quackery.

The government needs to clearly define who is allowed to use the “doctor” title and under what circumstances. If someone claims they can cure headaches and wants the title just for that, does that qualify? Even a salon masseur could claim the same logic. That doesn’t mean they get to be called a doctor.

What are your thoughts on the government’s move to integrate Ayush into mainstream healthcare through policy?

The government's move to integrate Ayush through the NMC Act and other policy tools has intensified the debate. We saw the controversy unfold on social media between liver specialist Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips and Gujarati Ayush practitioners. One side was calling out unqualified use of the doctor title, while the other took offense.

I’ve seen posts where someone with a diploma in cosmetology is being referred to as a doctor. That’s completely wrong—legally, ethically, and morally. There’s no such thing as an “Ayurvedic Migraine Specialist” unless one has done a legal fellowship in that specific area. Otherwise, it's misleading.

Public sentiment should not dictate titles. If someone performs two robotic surgeries, they can’t start calling themselves a robotic surgeon without the proper credentials. Titles must reflect training, not popularity or social media trends.

While I agree that the government has legally allowed certain practitioners to use the doctor title, the criteria must be clear and consistently applied. Other countries like China have traditional medicine doctors, but they follow a strict framework. We need the same here.

Would reviving traditional titles like 'Vaidya' or 'Hakim' help clarify professional identities?

Ideally, yes. But many Ayush practitioners don’t want to use those titles. They feel the title "doctor" gives them more weight and respect. But if you’re truly proud of your roots, you should not feel offended being called a Vaidya or Hakim.

Unfortunately, there's a tendency to reject these traditional labels, which adds to the confusion. This desire to blend into the modern medicine ecosystem without the same training is the root of the issue. If you are confident in your own system, then own it—don’t try to hide or dilute it.

What do we need going forward to fix this systematic issue?

We need stricter regulations, better public awareness, and clarity in how medical titles are granted and used. The NMC must take the lead and work closely with the IMA to draft policies that preserve the integrity of each medical system without compromising patient safety.

Right now, the burden is falling on the healthcare system, and ultimately, the government. When untrained practitioners cause complications, those patients land up in public hospitals, increasing costs and straining infrastructure. This is not sustainable.

Let everyone practice their medicine, but let them do it within the boundaries of their training. The moment we mix systems without expertise, we compromise the very foundation of healthcare.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.