D.O. degree change

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Please do not turn this into a DO vs MD thing, etc

Yes. I did a search

I am not a medical student but a non-physician medical (lab/diagnostics) professional hoping to start medical school in 2014.

What is the current news on the DO degree change issue? I'm just curious. I am having trouble finding recent "official" information on this matter.

Please just assist me with this, especially if you have some links to share.
No need to oppose the degree change in this thread as there are already threads on that.

Thank you.

----
To set the record state, I would be OK with being MD or DO. My choice of schools will at least be in part due to location.

My professional experience very much leads me to be a pathologist but will keep options open. Most patients think pathologists just work with dead people, so I could care less about being DO or MD. Pathologists hardly talk to patients. In fact, some never do (surgical path, etc).
If I got into Harvard...yeah...I'd probably go there....maybe even Yale Whatever.

I am an MD student.

The DO degree will never be changed to MD. Why? The AACOM is interested in still existing and maintaining control of its member schools. Go back and read a book called "The DOs" by Norman Gevitz. The AMA has repeatedly tried to coopt DO schools, to bring them under the umbrella of the LCME so we can all be MDs.

Yet despite the efforts of the AMA over the years, DOs want their indepedence. They want to still teach OMM and maintain that they are a distinct group from their "allopathic" counterparts.

It is a control issue and a branding issue. It will never happen. And it's too bad IMO.

Originally Posted by cbrons

I am an MD student.

The DO degree will never be changed to MD. Why? The AACOM is interested in still existing and maintaining control of its member schools. Go back and read a book called "The DOs" by Norman Gevitz. The AMA has repeatedly tried to coopt DO schools, to bring them under the umbrella of the LCME so we can all be MDs.

Yet despite the efforts of the AMA over the years, DOs want their indepedence. They want to still teach OMM and maintain that they are a distinct group from their "allopathic" counterparts.

It is a control issue and a branding issue. It will never happen. And it's too bad IMO.

What about DO change to some variant with an M like MD,DO, MDO, etc?

Originally Posted by cephalexinRX

What about DO change to some variant with an M like MD,DO, MDO, etc?

Look, let me end this thread right now so you don't have to waste your time. This topic has been discussed over and over again, I am very surprised you found nothing in your search.

http://www.amazon.com/DOs-Osteopathi.../dp/0801878349

This book will provide you with sufficient history in order to understand the huge and insurmountable barriers to merging of the two "professions."

Originally Posted by cbrons

Look, let me end this thread right now so you don't have to waste your time. This topic has been discussed over and over again, I am very surprised you found nothing in your search.

http://www.amazon.com/DOs-Osteopathi.../dp/0801878349

This book will provide you with sufficient history in order to understand the huge and insurmountable barriers to merging of the two "professions."

Thank you. This looks like the perfect book.

End.

Don't give up so easily,

Unfortunately DO's continue to shoot themselves in the feet on attempts at progress in this area. The reasons for this are primarily due to the boys club structure of the AOA leadership. Its not democratic representation of the DO populations wishes. The AOA is dictated by crusty OMMers and their brain washed spoon fed proteges that lapped up the Kool-Aid.

We are seeing real issues here in terms of DO students being shut out of residencies and ACGME/LCME doing more and more to restrict our access to training and opportunities.

A degree that a designation change is not the ultimate solution but believe that it is a step in the right direction. A step toward more broad recognition of our training and what we actually do vs being represented by a small part of our training.

I have heard a program director state that he wanted to not have as high a number of DO's in the next residency class as to not send a signal of being a weak program.

We are sold the line of "strengthening the DO brand". People, we're not merchandise, we're doctors.

This is not about confidence in ourselves or our training. This is about a designation that recognizes what our training really is. And for those of you impassioned first and second year students being trained in OMM. I know it seems like its really going to be something you use a lot of and that is really significant. I've been hard on OMM, I'll admit for acute musculoskeletal strains I think it has a place in soft tissue work but it's effects and capacities are far overstated and as practicing doctors this one small area of out training should not define our degree designation outright.
I for one have always been in favor of the title MDO as it adds the medical designation but retains the osteopathic portion. I think it is a more accurately representative title.

MD-O. It's all about the hyphen.

I theorize that it's only a matter of time before the AOA changes it's structure/function/appearance. Maybe a couple of decades, but I think it's inevitable that more savvy leadership will rise in the ranks and be able to see a more reasonable outlook on things. There is so much potential within the Osteopathic profession and so many capable graduates that it seems unlikely that our leadership will stay in the stone age forever. Just a theory. Not gonna hang my hat on it.

I think it would be interesting (maybe someone has already done this) if someone or some organization did a survey of soon to graduate 4th year osteopathic medical students and asked them " if you could choose the M.D. degree, M.D.O degree, or the D.O. degree when you graduate which would you choose?"

I don't think a name change is necessary. Imagine the confusion it would cause for the public if we changed the title to MDO, or DOM, or whatever. You would still have to explain to lay people what a "MDO", or "DOM" is or does, as opposed to simply "DO". Now you'd have to explain the whole thing of how we used to be called "DO"s, and now we are MDO, or whatever have you. I think it would actually complicate things more for the profession and not in a good way.

The definition of what we are would still be the same, we just gave ourselves a newer name, but now we have to explain to our old customers (patients) this change, as well as change the licensure rules in all 50 states to reflect the name change, as it only pertains to "DOs".

I get how we need to cut down on barriers and such in the ACGME world. I think a better way to get recognition and penetrate that market is to allow MD graduates to match into AOA residencies - with the stipulation that they first complete 6 months, or x months of OMM training/theory to get caught up to date with their DO colleagues. I keep hearing the stat that ~half of AOA residencies are left vacant each year.. So why not get some MDs who are interested in the DO philosophy to get trained in AOA residencies? Then you'll actually have MDs with OMM training, and an "osteopathic outlook", which would bode well for the DOs, I would think.

May as well just turn every DO school into an MD school and just offer optional OMM coursework and certification to every medical student.

Originally Posted by mashmetoo

I don't think a name change is necessary. Imagine the confusion it would cause for the public if we changed the title to MDO, or DOM, or whatever. You would still have to explain to lay people what a "MDO", or "DOM" is or does, as opposed to simply "DO". Now you'd have to explain the whole thing of how we used to be called "DO"s, and now we are MDO, or whatever have you. I think it would actually complicate things more for the profession and not in a good way.
.

Uh...no. I can guarantee you that nobody would care about what a degree used to be called..and why on earth would it even come up? If you have gotten that far into a conversation with a patient about it, it is your fault for bringing up the subject and not spending your time working them up. I can't think of a situation in which anyone would be curious about that or why I would bring it up to someone who didn't want to know or would have otherwise been clueless.

As far as other medical professionals..I think it would catch on pretty quickly.

This will never happen anyway though so I guess it's useless to argue about.

Originally Posted by mashmetoo

I get how we need to cut down on barriers and such in the ACGME world. I think a better way to get recognition and penetrate that market is to allow MD graduates to match into AOA residencies - with the stipulation that they first complete 6 months, or x months of OMM training/theory to get caught up to date with their DO colleagues. I keep hearing the stat that ~half of AOA residencies are left vacant each year.. So why not get some MDs who are interested in the DO philosophy to get trained in AOA residencies? Then you'll actually have MDs with OMM training, and an "osteopathic outlook", which would bode well for the DOs, I would think.

Who in their right mind at an MD school would want to fill one of the empty spots of an AOA residency in a rural FM program? Because those are the majority of spots going unfilled (link). Not to mention lot of times there is good reason those spots go unfilled.. These are not the positions MD students would go for. All opening up our residencies would do is bump DO's from being able to sub-specialize. Imagine being an MD student and having less competition for spots in highly sought after specialties that have lower average board scores. It would be a massacre.

Originally Posted by cbrons

I am an MD student.

The DO degree will never be changed to MD. Why? The AACOM is interested in still existing and maintaining control of its member schools. Go back and read a book called "The DOs" by Norman Gevitz. The AMA has repeatedly tried to coopt DO schools, to bring them under the umbrella of the LCME so we can all be MDs.

Yet despite the efforts of the AMA over the years, DOs want their indepedence. They want to still teach OMM and maintain that they are a distinct group from their "allopathic" counterparts.

It is a control issue and a branding issue. It will never happen. And it's too bad IMO.

I'm not really sure I see why it has to be spun as a bad thing...the control thing that is. There are students that genuinely want to learn OMM. If maintaining indepence from the AMA is required to do so, then so be it I guess. Even if I don't use it that often one day, I'm glad to know that my training has been done the way has been and that I can treat acute musculoskeletal complaints when needed. If the title change could occur but I could still get my training in OMM, I'd be fine with that. However, I'm not so sure it would change the stigma out there. People will still continue to argue that my education was inferior because my school let me in with a less than spectacular GPA. Either way, I didn't realize this was being seriously talked about? I know people throw it out there all the time on these boards, but is there documentation out there showing real discussions on all this?

I really don't see what MDO or DOM would accomplish. They don't make me think, "Medical Doctor" than DO does, or, for that matter, DMD, DVM, or DNP.

The best thing the DO profession can do for degree recognition is to keep producing competent, quality physicians, improve accreditation standards for new schools and residencies, and increase the number of quality residencies.

Originally Posted by NurWollen

I really don't see what MDO or DOM would accomplish. They don't make me think, "Medical Doctor" than DO does, or, for that matter, DMD, DVM, or DNP.

The best thing the DO profession can do for degree recognition is to keep producing competent, quality physicians, improve accreditation standards for new schools and residencies, and increase the number of quality residencies.

I agree, the osteopathic profession has been working to gain acknowledgement of DO = MD... changing it now would negate the progress that has been made.

Originally Posted by sylvanthus

May as well just turn every DO school into an MD school and just offer optional OMM coursework and certification to every medical student.

Do this or don't bother making changes IMO.

Originally Posted by IDBasco

Do this or don't bother making changes IMO.

Totally agree...having two sets of boards is ****ing stupid. We all go to different undergraduate universities and take the same pre-reqs with different electives but have the same standardized test. One degree, one set of boards, evvreyboday a'happy.

It's unfair for DOs legitimacy to be questioned when they've been offered the opportunity to change it.

Originally Posted by sylvanthus

May as well just turn every DO school into an MD school and just offer optional OMM coursework and certification to every medical student.

Would every DO school meet LCME's accrediting standards as is? RVU certainly would be screwed. Someone mentioned in another thread that LCME has stricter clinical rotation requirements than COCA...not sure if that will affect some DO schools. Is there also research stipulation in LCME's standards, because that will really cause havoc in the conversion process.

Originally Posted by poopyhead

Would every DO school meet LCME's accrediting standards as is? RVU certainly would be screwed. Someone mentioned in another thread that LCME has stricter clinical rotation requirements than COCA...not sure if that will affect some DO schools. Is there also research stipulation in LCME's standards, because that will really cause havoc in the conversion process.

I have a feeling that if DO schools were to be reviewed by the LCME, more than half would close.

Originally Posted by poopyhead

Would every DO school meet LCME's accrediting standards as is? RVU certainly would be screwed. Someone mentioned in another thread that LCME has stricter clinical rotation requirements than COCA...not sure if that will affect some DO schools. Is there also research stipulation in LCME's standards, because that will really cause havoc in the conversion process.

Lol what is up with DO students always bashing RVU. Ive stated in other threads as a member of the board of a very large state public institution that whether a school is for profit or for unions/admins makes little difference.

Originally Posted by Athina

I have a feeling that if DO schools were to be reviewed by the LCME, more than half would close.

Coming from a Canadian Pre-Med (not med student), I question whether or not you've interviewed/been to any DO schools.

Originally Posted by cbrons

Lol what is up with DO students always bashing RVU. Ive stated in other threads as a member of the board of a very large state public institution that whether a school is for profit or for unions/admins makes little difference.

It wasn't a bash of RVU. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't LCME explicitly forbid for-profit schools?

The best thing for DO students would be for them to be taken over by the AAMC, get rid of the OMM, and offer the MD degree. Other than OMM I see very little difference between the two.

"Oh DOs look at the 'whole' person"

"Oh as DOs we're trained with a musculoskeletal focus on disease processes"

^^ what does that rubbish even mean?

Actually I think the best thing for doctors would be for DOs to merge under the AMA umbrella. More strength in numbers, especially when our profession keeps getting the screw.

Originally Posted by cbrons

The best thing for DO students would be for them to be taken over by the AAMC, get rid of the OMM, and offer the MD degree. Other than OMM I see very little difference between the two.

"Oh DOs look at the 'whole' person"

"Oh as DOs we're trained with a musculoskeletal focus on disease processes"

^^ what does that rubbish even mean?

Actually I think the best thing for doctors would be for DOs to merge under the AMA umbrella. More strength in numbers, especially when our profession keeps getting the screw.

D.O. Pathologists. They look at the WHOLE slide under the microscope, unlike M.D.'s

Originally Posted by cephalexinRX

D.O. Pathologists. They look at the WHOLE slide under the microscope, unlike M.D.'s

Originally Posted by cephalexinRX

D.O. Pathologists. They look at the WHOLE slide under the microscope, unlike M.D.'s

I've gotta use that it my personal statement.

I keep saying this, but the solution is not to petition the AOA to change things. They won't change anything due to their desire to maintain power. The solution is to approach the AMA and have them compromise where D.O.'s with ACGME training are allowed to use the letters M.D. After all, in California there was a time that DO's became MD's for a weekend course and a fee. Once there are sufficient DO's jumping ship, the AOA will be forced to listen. The AOA can't stop DO's from going into ACGME training since they don't have enough residency slots for the demand.

Originally Posted by Athina

I have a feeling that if DO schools were to be reviewed by the LCME, more than half would close.

Alright I'm just gonna play the dumb card...am I missing something? What exactly is it that my school, or at some DO school out there, is doing so wrong, causing me to gain an inferior education? People can rant and rave all day long about how there's no difference, that DOs don't get any different training besides OMM....yet there's a large number that would be shut down under allopathic accredidation standards? Someone enlighten me because I honestly have yet to see anything more than the comment above without further explanation. Then again, sometimes I see these controversial threads and just put my head back in the books lol...

Originally Posted by GraceEuphoria

Alright I'm just gonna play the dumb card...am I missing something? What exactly is it that my school, or at some DO school out there, is doing so wrong, causing me to gain an inferior education? People can rant and rave all day long about how there's no difference, that DOs don't get any different training besides OMM....yet there's a large number that would be shut down under allopathic accredidation standards? Someone enlighten me because I honestly have yet to see anything more than the comment above without further explanation. Then again, sometimes I see these controversial threads and just put my head back in the books lol...

This is a response I got.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...1&postcount=61


I think RVU certainly wouldn't meet it due to its for-profit status.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

I keep saying this, but the solution is not to petition the AOA to change things. They won't change anything due to their desire to maintain power. The solution is to approach the AMA and have them compromise where D.O.'s with ACGME training are allowed to use the letters M.D. After all, in California there was a time that DO's became MD's for a weekend course and a fee. Once there are sufficient DO's jumping ship, the AOA will be forced to listen. The AOA can't stop DO's from going into ACGME training since they don't have enough residency slots for the demand.

This is actually a good idea and sounds like it has a higher chance of working than anything else on this thread.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

I keep saying this, but the solution is not to petition the AOA to change things. They won't change anything due to their desire to maintain power. The solution is to approach the AMA and have them compromise where D.O.'s with ACGME training are allowed to use the letters M.D. After all, in California there was a time that DO's became MD's for a weekend course and a fee. Once there are sufficient DO's jumping ship, the AOA will be forced to listen. The AOA can't stop DO's from going into ACGME training since they don't have enough residency slots for the demand.

Except it is the AAMC that oversees all MD granting institutions and its accrediting body the LCME. ACGME does not possess that power.

And do you really think the AAMC would do that for DO students whose schools did not pay the piper?

Originally Posted by DrBowtie

Except it is the AAMC that oversees all MD granting institutions and its accrediting body the LCME. ACGME does not possess that power.
And do you really think the AAMC would do that for DO students whose schools did not pay the piper?

Whoever grants the MD degree as a courtesy to holders of MBBS, MBChB, etc completing ACGME-approved residencies, they should be able to do the same for holders of the DO degree who complete the same residencies. For them, it might be the best way to undercut the AOA and bring all graduate medical funding into the fold.

Originally Posted by DuxburyPembroke

Whoever grants the MD degree as a courtesy to holders of MBBS, MBChB, etc completing ACGME-approved residencies, they should be able to do the same for holders of the DO degree who complete the same residencies. For them, it might be the best way to undercut the AOA and bring all graduate medical funding into the fold.

See this thread. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=655105

They use the title (questionably), but are never given a degree by an accredited MD granting institution.

Originally Posted by DrBowtie

See this thread. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=655105

They use the title (questionably), but are never given a degree by an accredited MD granting institution.

Ah - that makes sense. And if AGCME-trained DO's used MD, then there would be an even greater stigma against those who still used DO. I see the bad parts of wresting graduate funding from the AOA, too, in the short run. But I would still like to see one match, one accrediting body etc. Perhaps accreditation should be nationalized...

Originally Posted by DrBowtie

Except it is the AAMC that oversees all MD granting institutions and its accrediting body the LCME. ACGME does not possess that power.

And do you really think the AAMC would do that for DO students whose schools did not pay the piper?

Then it should be the AAMC. Whoever it was when they converted DO to MD in California. Any of those problems you propose can be solved through money. It's always just money. They have nothing to lose with DO's with ACGME training joining the ranks. It's not like seats go unfilled in MD colleges because people go Osteopathic.

Originally Posted by DrBowtie

See this thread. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=655105

They use the title (questionably), but are never given a degree by an accredited MD granting institution.

Nobody (DO) would receive an MD. People will just use MD if they want. It's the best way to circle around the AOA.

I think advertisement by the AOA would be a good start to increase degree recognition with the general public. I have seen several commercials put out by the AMA. There has also been a lot of ads put out by the American Society of Anesthesiologists to promote the importance of having board certified physicians provide anesthesia. Why not spend some money on advertising? A lot of people watch T.V.

Originally Posted by fzwarrior

I think advertisement by the AOA would be a good start to increase degree recognition with the general public. I have seen several commercials put out by the AMA. There has also been a lot of ads put out by the American Society of Anesthesiologists to promote the importance of having board certified physicians provide anesthesia. Why not spend some money on advertising? A lot of people watch T.V.

Haha! I can only imagine the kind of awful embarrassing commercial the AOA would come up with...

When the young DOs get into leadership position and the current osteopathic leadership are in nursing homes rambling on about how they cured AIDS with OMM and making sure no fellow resident's sacral motion is out of wack. we might see a merger of MD's and DO. of course by then the PAs will have become doctors, the nurses will all have become doctors, chiropractors will have become [DEA licenced]doctors, and the DO schools will have pumped out so many DOs we might gain parity with MDs.

the problem is this, those that hold firm to the unique identity of osteopathy, and the power of omm end up in leadership positions. the majority forget omm and ignore the politics of the DO world. Once you are out of residency your degree makes almost no difference. patients may be confused but, many patients don't know that the PA, NP, sometime the RN are not doctors, after all they are all just people in scrubs.

the idea of and MDO or MD with masters in OMM or whatever, have been around for awhile. I think overwhelming majority of students wish for the change, I think the majority of DO wouldn't mind the change. but the ones that have the power to make the change like to be at the top of a small pyramid, and not at the middle of a large pyramid. and the fact that like was mentioned previously, many of the DO schools and residencies would get shut down under LCME/ACGME. read OGME and ACGME standards side by side to understand why.

Originally Posted by TwoFists

the problem is this, those that hold firm to the unique identity of osteopathy, and the power of omm end up in leadership positions. the majority forget omm and ignore the politics of the DO world. Once you are out of residency your degree makes almost no difference. patients may be confused but, many patients don't know that the PA, NP, sometime the RN are not doctors, after all they are all just people in scrubs.

I think the majority of DO wouldn't mind the change. but the ones that have the power to make the change like to be at the top of a small pyramid, and not at the middle of a large pyramid. and the fact that like was mentioned previously, many of the DO schools and residencies would get shut down under LCME/ACGME. read OGME and ACGME standards side by side to understand why.

this is all true. The only DOs who enter the DO leadership are the ones who are nuts about OMM. The rest of us just want to be doctors, who might or might not use OMM to relieve pain now and then and certainly want nothing to do with the AOA, as they just make things worse politically, despite calling themselves the advocates for the DO degree.

If you look at the DO leadership, they are all the same: family docs who did AOA training all the way, often with a fellowship in OMM. Osteopathy is their life blood and the base of their practices, so they're going to advocate for it, not for merging/changing the degree.

I was at the OMED and ACOEP convention in San Francisco in 2010 and the over-arching theme of the keynote speakers address was the direction of the degree and generational challenges. He noted that his generation fought to make the degrees equivalent regarding practice rights, and said that the newer generations challenge would be to maintain independence and make the DO degree its own entity... there's trouble with this though... You can only argue 'separate-but-equal' for so long. This issue will come to a head before long, and I think it's much needed. The medical field isn't so different anymore - Plenty of MD's espouse the values of diet/yoga/acupuncture/ect (traditionally homeopathic type remedies), and very few DO's use the OMM skills they were taught once out in practice. The lines are blurring more than the AOA would like to acknowledge

Originally Posted by TwoFists

When the young DOs get into leadership position and the current osteopathic leadership are in nursing homes rambling on about how they cured AIDS with OMM and making sure no fellow resident's sacral motion is out of wack. we might see a merger of MD's and DO. of course by then the PAs will have become doctors, the nurses will all have become doctors, chiropractors will have become [DEA licenced]doctors, and the DO schools will have pumped out so many DOs we might gain parity with MDs.

the problem is this, those that hold firm to the unique identity of osteopathy, and the power of omm end up in leadership positions. the majority forget omm and ignore the politics of the DO world. Once you are out of residency your degree makes almost no difference. patients may be confused but, many patients don't know that the PA, NP, sometime the RN are not doctors, after all they are all just people in scrubs.

the idea of and MDO or MD with masters in OMM or whatever, have been around for awhile. I think overwhelming majority of students wish for the change, I think the majority of DO wouldn't mind the change. but the ones that have the power to make the change like to be at the top of a small pyramid, and not at the middle of a large pyramid. and the fact that like was mentioned previously, many of the DO schools and residencies would get shut down under LCME/ACGME. read OGME and ACGME standards side by side to understand why.

fact checker stopping by: I've not only read both LCME and COCA standards multiple times, but i've passed state (and soon national) legislative policy that relied on me knowing the standards inside and out. I am *not at all* an expert in residency policy, but as far as school go: only 1 school (RVU) would fail to pass LCME standards. I doubt you'd even have 1 probation among the DO schools (but you may. The probation status could happen if a certain percentage of the training in a given specialty was not performed at hospitals with resident staff. But the threshold is low enough that I doubt many/any school would fall into that hole)

just sayin. Dont make a statement (at least about LCME vs COCA) that is so blatantly off base and expect no one to have previously done the legwork you encouraged us to do. As for the GME stuff: there i gotta admit. Its very likely that some would get shut down . The standards for certain fields differ dramatically between ACGME and AOA.

Originally Posted by bonsaipalmtree

And yes it's true that most DO schools would not meet LCME criteria. Most don't even have enough faculty to make the required faculty:student ratios.

Don't think i forgot about you either. Don't bandwagon.

Originally Posted by TwoFists

When the young DOs get into leadership position and the current osteopathic leadership are in nursing homes rambling on about how they cured AIDS with OMM and making sure no fellow resident's sacral motion is out of wack. we might see a merger of MD's and DO. of course by then the PAs will have become doctors, the nurses will all have become doctors, chiropractors will have become [DEA licenced]doctors, and the DO schools will have pumped out so many DOs we might gain parity with MDs.

the problem is this, those that hold firm to the unique identity of osteopathy, and the power of omm end up in leadership positions. the majority forget omm and ignore the politics of the DO world. Once you are out of residency your degree makes almost no difference. patients may be confused but, many patients don't know that the PA, NP, sometime the RN are not doctors, after all they are all just people in scrubs.

the idea of and MDO or MD with masters in OMM or whatever, have been around for awhile. I think overwhelming majority of students wish for the change, I think the majority of DO wouldn't mind the change. but the ones that have the power to make the change like to be at the top of a small pyramid, and not at the middle of a large pyramid. and the fact that like was mentioned previously, many of the DO schools and residencies would get shut down under LCME/ACGME. read OGME and ACGME standards side by side to understand why.

Why don't you read AOA and ACGME rules! They are exactly the same and some AOA rules are actually more stringent than ACGME ones (I know that's on SDN).

Go look at General Surgery rules for example. They both require the same number of cases/lectures/time/etc. but AOA actually requires specific types of cases for residents. Now I'm NOT saying that AOA surgery is better than all ACGME programs (b/c they are not). But the minimum requirements are the same and there are many AOA programs (in all fields) that are better than some ACGME programs (e.g. community hospitals/FMG factories).

As I said before, if you don't like to be a DO, don't apply to DO schools.

It is ridiculous that people apply to a school knowing well the type of degree they will get and then complain about it. Nobody is forcing you to be a DO!

Originally Posted by bonsaipalmtree

this is all true. The only DOs who enter the DO leadership are the ones who are nuts about OMM. The rest of us just want to be doctors, who might or might not use OMM to relieve pain now and then and certainly want nothing to do with the AOA, as they just make things worse politically, despite calling themselves the advocates for the DO degree.

If you look at the DO leadership, they are all the same: family docs who did AOA training all the way, often with a fellowship in OMM. Osteopathy is their life blood and the base of their practices, so they're going to advocate for it, not for merging/changing the degree.

And yes it's true that most DO schools would not meet LCME criteria. Most don't even have enough faculty to make the required faculty:student ratios.

First of all, regardless of what you think of AOA's individual policies, overall you have to admit that over the past 100 years they have done amazingly good things for the profession. There is not a single other organization which has been able to secure full unrestricted practice rights for its constituents in all 50 states and many countries around the world in competition with the "establishment" (i.e. MDs). They also do a fairly good job advocating for DOs (admittedly more for primary care than specialties). But if you are ever in trouble as a DO (e.g. licensing/discrimination) AOA is the only organization that will gladly stand up for you and defend your rights even in court if needed.

Your statement regarding LCME standards is just ridiculous. LCME and COCA standards are very similar (only minor differences). They have to be similar because if they differed greatly, LCME would've lobbied the government (and actually get somewhere) to shut DO schools down. The only school that would be in trouble is RVU (not academically, just based on tax status).

Also, The faculty:student ratio that LCME schools use is totally BS. They list any and all physicians who at any point in the history of the school had anything to do with teaching a medical student at their school. They list all of the physicians in their affiliated hospitals as their "faculty" even though a given faculty may have not even seen a medical student in decades. AOA schools can also list everyone who shows up for a lecture or two and all the physicians we work with through 3rd and 4th year as "faculty" and the ratio would be the same.

The problem is that on SDN, when you say LCME or ACGME, everyone thinks of Harvard and MGH. Yes Harvard and other Harvard-like schools (top 20-30) are better than any DO school. However, there are 100+ other LCME schools out there and they are not necessarily superior to all DO schools. Same philosophy applies to ACGME programs.

http://www.eyedrd.org/2010/12/resolu...or-degree.html

What happened to that official vote the AOA was supposed to administer?

Originally Posted by bhavik

http://www.eyedrd.org/2010/12/resolu...or-degree.html

What happened to that official vote the AOA was supposed to administer?

That link is to a defeat proposition. Resoundingly voted down, I believe.

Originally Posted by irJanus

The medical field isn't so different anymore - Plenty of MD's espouse the values of diet/yoga/acupuncture/ect (traditionally homeopathic type remedies),

Please don't lump evidence-supported lifestyle habits like exercise and a healthy diet in with bogus fields like acupuncture and homeopathy. That's a common trick quacks use to try to give their field legitimacy.

Originally Posted by poopyhead

This is a response I got.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...1&postcount=61


I think RVU certainly wouldn't meet it due to its for-profit status.

Thanks for sharing. I guess I just have to agree to disagree with the person in that being in a GME hospital necessarily means my education will be better. I understand there are certain standards of education, etc that go into having education programs in your hospital. However, by making the assertion that a non-academic setting is inferior, it makes it sound like physicians in non-academic hospitals are less competent, less prepared and/or less willing to teach students. I highly doubt every physician in an academic setting enjoys teaching....but it's part of the deal with working in that academic hospital (which as we know, are usually the big name hospitals). I've heard out of rotation site coordinator's mouths that for our sites at least, they try to only set us up with the physicians who genuinely want to teach.

If it's a question of seeing tons of things, you can still rotate at hospitals where you see a lot without being at an academic hospital. In fact, community hospitals are where you'll see some of the most interesting things because of lack of patient compliance and personal care. Plus, only 11 of our 20 rotations are dictated to be in certain locations, so the other 9 I'll have plenty of opportunities to rotate at academic hospitals, where I'm sure I'll get to do plenty of standing around while the interns and residents get to do all the fun stuff

Originally Posted by DocEspana

fact checker stopping by: I've not only read both LCME and COCA standards multiple times, but i've passed state (and soon national) legislative policy that relied on me knowing the standards inside and out. I am *not at all* an expert in residency policy, but as far as school go: only 1 school (RVU) would fail to pass LCME standards. I doubt you'd even have 1 probation among the DO schools (but you may. The probation status could happen if a certain percentage of the training in a given specialty was not performed at hospitals with resident staff. But the threshold is low enough that I doubt many/any school would fall into that hole)

just sayin. Dont make a statement (at least about LCME vs COCA) that is so blatantly off base and expect no one to have previously done the legwork you encouraged us to do. As for the GME stuff: there i gotta admit. Its very likely that some would get shut down . The standards for certain fields differ dramatically between ACGME and AOA.



Don't think i forgot about you either. Don't bandwagon.

Originally Posted by poopyhead

This is a response I got.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/show...1&postcount=61


I think RVU certainly wouldn't meet it due to its for-profit status.

I know of many MD schools that some or most of their clinical training is done in settings with no residents/GME. So I don't know how strictly LCME applies that standard to its schools.

Originally Posted by GraceEuphoria

Thanks for sharing. I guess I just have to agree to disagree with the person in that being in a GME hospital necessarily means my education will be better. I understand there are certain standards of education, etc that go into having education programs in your hospital. However, by making the assertion that a non-academic setting is inferior, it makes it sound like physicians in non-academic hospitals are less competent, less prepared and/or less willing to teach students. I highly doubt every physician in an academic setting enjoys teaching....but it's part of the deal with working in that academic hospital (which as we know, are usually the big name hospitals). I've heard out of rotation site coordinator's mouths that for our sites at least, they try to only set us up with the physicians who genuinely want to teach.

If it's a question of seeing tons of things, you can still rotate at hospitals where you see a lot without being at an academic hospital. In fact, community hospitals are where you'll see some of the most interesting things because of lack of patient compliance and personal care. Plus, only 11 of our 20 rotations are dictated to be in certain locations, so the other 9 I'll have plenty of opportunities to rotate at academic hospitals, where I'm sure I'll get to do plenty of standing around while the interns and residents get to do all the fun stuff

Having said that, IMO it makes a huge difference and I believe medical student training is much, much, much better in a place with residents. It is not about community vs academic as there are many community hospitals which have residents. It is also not about attendings "wanting" to teach. Attendings don't have time because the time they have to spend teaching you they could be making extra $$$ vs. a resident whose pay is not affected. Also attendings are so far removed from medical school/students that can't/forget to teach you the basics. You will learn a lot more from a resident/fellow than you will from any attending because they are closer to your level and know what you don't know or need to know.

With regards to getting to do procedures, obviously if there are no residents, medical students would have a higher priority; but there is plenty of time to learn procedures. Nobody is impressed if you've done 2 or 10 extra central lines or any other procedure. But if you can't present a patient, or write up a concise/appropriate progress note/H&P then everyone will think you are an idiot and can care less about your procedures. My experience has been that people coming out of places with no residents lack the very basic skills expected of a 4th year medical student.

I'm posting this not to argue with anyone but to let current OMS-Is or IIs know what makes a good rotation so that if they have the choice, to choose places with residents (it's a no-brainer)! We heard the same stuff echoed in the above post at our school and people (like me) who chose the rotations with residents, turned out much happier and more educated than the other group.

Now, 2-3 rotations with no residents makes no difference but if most of your third year is at a place with no residents you will be light years behind your colleagues as a fourth year.

Full Disclosure: 90% of my rotations were at places with residents. 50%/50% at Community/Academic hospitals. (so obviously I'm biased)!

Follow the Benjamins. MD and DO, Most US states have separate licensing boards, certifying boards, examinations and all the other items involved with having two distinct yet intertwined fields. Why?

Instead of one test for one field, human medicine and it's areas of specialization there are two. Why? Think about how many employees are kept fed, clothed, insured, and in positions behind desks somewhere because they work for a speciality board, an exam company, an exam review course company, have written textbooks, CME courses, tutoring classes and on and on?

Having two tangential sets of endeavors, obstacles and tasks to achieve the same or similar goal exists for reasons. I am not sure yet what they are in these times. In the past it was clearer, but the times have changed, Are the respective tests redundant? Is having separate but equal not so much a metric as to who is brighter or who has the best or better or more mediocre capabilities as it is perpetuating the differences psychologically to students so that they buy into the concept of an other sort of medicine other than MD important? If so, to whom?

An osteopathic dermatologist, or an osteopathic orthopedist and so on. Add the osteopathic vs. allopathic certifying and recertifying boards and ask just how different in skill is a board certified osteopathic thoracic surgeon than an allopathic thoracic surgeon? What REALLY is the difference?

Yes there are limitations and restrictions that are, I believe, built into this silly system to set some intellectual image of difference, an otherness of a kind, that a DO is different in some way than an MD and therefore sit for separate examinations and do separate yet essentially the same residencies. WHY?

Simply because it is a system that has been in place for decades and that there are too many organizations that exist to keep funds rolling in to maintain the otherness.

Yes indeed, if you are licensed to practice internal medicine as an MD there's really a whopping difference in that scope of practice for someone licensed as a DO. Sure. The difference is, as I see it, something perpetuated to keep a mindset that is largely outdated that MD is in some way better yet an MD from an Island school isn't. But a DO is less than equal and the tests are different. Now enter the MBBS or the Dr. Med., Medico Cirujano or other degrees and the confusion mounts. Who or what entity is behind all the disparity between licensing examinations certifying boards other than those who stand the most to profit by perpetuating the otherness? That should not answer any questions rather provoke you to ask a few. Sure you can take Osteopthic manipulation courses, but you would have to pay. We have been psychologically imprinted with the letters M D as the bar none sine qua non of medicine in the US, yet this reality does not exist abroad. Go figure-just pay your dues.

The public domain dictates what's palatable for consumers and the letters after a doctor's name more than not are M D. How many times have the letters D O followed a character's name in a movie, a TV show or magazine article? Would Dr. Oz be as Ozzie if he was a DO? Would Sanjay Gupta MD, be as popular? Would Andrew Weil MD be as hip and knowing, or Deepak Chopra, or Michael Crichton? Probably not. The reason is that for the better part of the last century the letters M D have come to be known as the doctor of America, not simply because they usually are, but their conspicuous absence from media describing doctors alters the paradigm. For instance the phrase: "I'm going to see my MD to have things checked out," is common.

Did the old rock group, The Loving Spoonful's song Good Lovin' ask if you should see Mr. MD or go to a DO?

Is Dr. House, or anyone on his team a DO? How about on Gray's Anatomy or looking back to St. Elsewhere on to ER. How many DOs were mentioned other than in the closing credits.

Keeping DO out of the public domain exists because the branding of Osteopathy has been limited. Name the most famous DO in American HIstory? My guess is that Sam Shephard the man accused of murder and the subsequent TV series and movie The Fugitive...AND THEY CHANGED THE DEGREE!

What's missing on these threads is the fact that public perception rather than public safety issues becomes more important than the education, training and experience of the individual. What this does is maintain urban myths about DO schools and offshore medical schools to increase the US applicant pools, franchise tutoring test prep courses and keep the non MD people down. So please, tell me I'm wrong, and that House was really a DO?

Originally Posted by lewstools

The public domain dictates what's palatable for consumers and the letters after a doctor's name more than not are M D. How many times have the letters D O followed a character's name in a movie, a TV show or magazine article? Would Dr. Oz be as Ozzie if he was a DO? Would Sanjay Gupta MD, be as popular? Would Andrew Weil MD be as hip and knowing, or Deepak Chopra, or Michael Crichton? Probably not. The reason is that for the better part of the last century the letters M D have come to be known as the doctor of America, not simply because they usually are, but their conspicuous absence from media describing doctors alters the paradigm. For instance the phrase: "I'm going to see my MD to have things checked out," is common.

Did the old rock group, The Loving Spoonful's song Good Lovin' ask if you should see Mr. MD or go to a DO?

Is Dr. House, or anyone on his team a DO? How about on Gray's Anatomy or looking back to St. Elsewhere on to ER. How many DOs were mentioned other than in the closing credits.

Keeping DO out of the public domain exists because the branding of Osteopathy has been limited. Name the most famous DO in American HIstory? My guess is that Sam Shephard the man accused of murder and the subsequent TV series and movie The Fugitive...AND THEY CHANGED THE DEGREE!

What's missing on these threads is the fact that public perception rather than public safety issues becomes more important than the education, training and experience of the individual. What this does is maintain urban myths about DO schools and offshore medical schools to increase the US applicant pools, franchise tutoring test prep courses and keep the non MD people down. So please, tell me I'm wrong, and that House was really a DO?

Here is your DO in the movie business!!



And I love this clip because it sort of plays into what you said to. And because it makes me

Originally Posted by lewstools

The public domain dictates what's palatable for consumers and the letters after a doctor's name more than not are M D. How many times have the letters D O followed a character's name in a movie, a TV show or magazine article? Would Dr. Oz be as Ozzie if he was a DO? Would Sanjay Gupta MD, be as popular? Would Andrew Weil MD be as hip and knowing, or Deepak Chopra, or Michael Crichton? Probably not. The reason is that for the better part of the last century the letters M D have come to be known as the doctor of America, not simply because they usually are, but their conspicuous absence from media describing doctors alters the paradigm. For instance the phrase: "I'm going to see my MD to have things checked out," is common.

Did the old rock group, The Loving Spoonful's song Good Lovin' ask if you should see Mr. MD or go to a DO?

Is Dr. House, or anyone on his team a DO? How about on Gray's Anatomy or looking back to St. Elsewhere on to ER. How many DOs were mentioned other than in the closing credits.

Keeping DO out of the public domain exists because the branding of Osteopathy has been limited. Name the most famous DO in American HIstory? My guess is that Sam Shephard the man accused of murder and the subsequent TV series and movie The Fugitive...AND THEY CHANGED THE DEGREE!

What's missing on these threads is the fact that public perception rather than public safety issues becomes more important than the education, training and experience of the individual. What this does is maintain urban myths about DO schools and offshore medical schools to increase the US applicant pools, franchise tutoring test prep courses and keep the non MD people down. So please, tell me I'm wrong, and that House was really a DO?

First of all, one of the doctors on Dr. 90210 was a DO.

Secondly, who cares!

Thirdly, the point you are missing is that the general public can care less. Do you think they know the difference between DDS and DMD or DVM and VMD? Your argument only exists on SDN and among a subclass of DO students/residents who are insecure about themselves or blame their "shortcomings" on the profession.

The vast majority of people, when they are sick (or need warm food), go to the hospital and the first person who is wearing a stethoscope is a doctor to them. If you've ever worked in the ED, you know that all PAs and NPs are called "doctors" by the patients. The vast, vast vast majority of people don't look at your degree when choosing/seeing a doctor and choose doctors by word of mouth.

If one follows your logic, all DOs should be out there without patients but as you and I know, most DOs are doing very well with no patient shortages.

Last but not least what is your point?