Alas, many of those who are so entitled do not - thinking it a bit pretentious, particularly when so many nearby others make no song and dance about their doctorates. Meanwhile, the right of some who call themselves ''doctor'' is open to question.

When Bruce Shepherd ran the Australian Medical Association, and Neal Blewett was Minister for Health, AMA press statements would put inverted commas next to the Dr of Dr Blewett. A note at the bottom would explain that ''Dr'' Blewett was not a medical doctor.

Mr Shepherd was quite right: Blewett was the real doctor. He had a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford. He was far better formally qualified in his discipline than Shepherd, who had bachelor's degrees in dentistry, medicine and surgery, was in his. Shepherd was an excellent orthopaedic surgeon - a trade, rather than a profession, halfway between medicine and carpentry - and has impressive postgraduate letters after his name, issued by professional colleges to which he belongs. But he has never studied at doctoral level. Some doctors, with the postnominals MD, have, of course.

Traditionally, surgeons were not called ''doctor'', though Shepherd often was. Surgery developed from farriery and hairdressing; an early doctor was part scientist, part apothecary, part nurse. Once a good deal of inverted snobbery accompanied that different history, with some surgeons, but not doctors, regarded as gentlemen.

Being called doctor if one is a medical practitioner is a courtesy, not a right, but has a long history. My Shorter Oxford lists medical practitioner as only number six on a list of 10 possible meanings of ''doctor'' as a noun. Each of the earlier ones evoke ''great learning'', usually in philosophy, theology, law or teaching. The sixth does not.

Doctor, meaning ''medical practitioner, usually a general practitioner not a surgeon'' sits in the dictionary only just ahead of meanings such as ''adulterated drink'', the ''tending or treating, not necessarily by a doctor, of the sick'', ''cooking the accounts'' (slang), ''refreshing breezes from the sea'' and ''loaded dice''.

A PhD is a doctor by right, not affectation or courtesy.

''I've worked too hard for this qualification to forgo the one recognition of the work,'' a friend once said.

My guess is that between one in 30 and one in 50 people in Canberra have a PhD. It's hard to say exactly; most forms on qualifications refer only to postgraduate degrees, which can be a Master's degree, itself quite worthy but not getting a pronominal.

The Canberra doctor-rate may be higher in the community, including the public service, than on campus. But probably only about a tenth of those entitled to be called doctor ask for it, although in my experience nearly everyone who has studied economics does.

A public servant with a PhD does not necessarily know, or know much, about the area in which she works, but has an obvious capacity to learn. In my time, we have had a PhD in pure maths running Foreign Affairs and Trade, and another (of grasshopper height) with a PhD in locust behaviour running Defence. A sterling public servant with a higher degree, if not a doctorate, in the sexual behaviour of sheep ran national arts policy for years, and found his background very useful.

PhD economists are as common and dangerous as locusts - and much more likely to demand the title, if only in a sad effort to attract status for their dismal ''discipline'' - if it can be so called.

I do not begrudge to medics the title of doctor, so long as they do not develop airs and think that it is they who own the title, while actual scholars are in some manner frauds, impostors or social climbers, as Shepherd implied.

In his defence, many unwashed bogans (the sort who could never afford his fees) automatically think medico when they hear the word ''doctor''. But, then again, many think ''sex'' if they hear ''breast''.

An advantage for doctors is that most banks automatically give anyone with the pronominal Dr a mortgage discount of about 1.5 per cent.

A mate with a PhD in a field promising a lifetime of poverty unless he went into politics or burglary was given such a discount. Proud but honest, he confessed immediately that he was not a medico, and was quite indigent, but the bank official insisted the discount was policy. [Doctors of any sort not getting one should complain to their bank, or Dr Rod Sims of the ACCC, not me.]

It is, I am afraid, not permissible to style oneself doctor if one has an honorary degree, however much deserved. And those like Marcus Einfeld who claim doctorates from what prove to be mail-order universities invite, and when found out always get, extra universal derision. Likewise adjunct or junk professors, such as Clive Palmer, should not style themselves ''professor.''

The tendency of dentists, veterinarians, veterinary dentists, chiroquactors, osteopaths and other ''natural'' therapists to affect the title of doctor remains that, an affectation. It can be said in favour of fang-snatchers, horse doctors and horse fang doctors (I know one) that they have done training as intensive and difficult as and of an intellectual standard as high as any medico. But, then again, that could be said of any engineer, biochemist or physicist (though not, of course, of any lawyer, cultural studies scholar or graduate in gender studies).

Dentists and vets have been affecting - even demanding from their clients - the title for so long that it has become recognised by usage, even if still infra dig in the best circles. It's probably harmless. In that sense, Greg O'Regan was a bit unfair to attack Chris Bourke, a dentist, in our letters columns this week for referring to himself as doctor: I doubt he uses it to mislead, or that it actually does.

I do, on the other hand, draw the line at doctor for what one might coyly call ''healing practitioners'', whether or not they embrace yoga, iridology, feng sui or the tell-tale use of the word ''holistic''.

The Canberra Times was once sued for saying words to the effect that ''Miss Smith, who likes to be called Dr Smith, because she practises as a chiropractor.'' The plaintiff sued for an alleged imputation that she was some sort of charlatan or quack. I was not sure the imputation was conveyed, but was quite willing to defend it and argue it if it was. Alas, we were sold, with old writs not part of the package, and someone else got the privilege of defending the case. It was, to my fury, settled ''for commercial reasons'' (i.e. being too expensive to fight, given that the plaintiff didn't want much). But, alas, that was in another country, and besides the wench is, I think (or hope) these days beyond doctoring. Or chiroquacting.