DO title voting page.

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

Originally Posted by bala565

The difference here is that you want to use the initials/title "MD" for licensure purposes which is already taken/reserved by the allopathic licensing boards. Therefore, if you want to use their initials, you have go under their jurisdiction, which effectively abolishes Osteopathic Medicine as a separate entity which is in violation of the oath every DO takes.

The example you used, was the AOA changing their internal policy/definition. It didn't require loss of autonomy or approval from anyone else as it will be with this proposal.

The problem is that most people arguing on this thread fail to understand/appreciate the difference between DEGREE and LICENSE. You can name the DEGREE whatever you want. But to get LICENSED (irrespective of your degree) and advertise yourself as whatever, you need state licensing board's blessing which equals submitting to their jurisdiction.

BTW, that's a cool picture you posted!

not to be inflammatory, intentionally at least, but is there even a difference between an MD and a DO anymore that we 'need' separate entities to govern us? This is where it gets dicey because we as D.O.s try so hard to establish ourselves as equals to our M.D. counterparts, that it's counter-intuitive when we try and rationalize why we're different, a catch 22 of sorts. Like I said in a previous post, modern medicine has evolved to the point where you will see M.D.s treat the patient "as a whole" and not "prescribe harmful medications," and that you will see D.O.s infiltrate into virtually every specialty out there, ACGME world included. We're not different anymore.

Sparing me the history lessons, if this time tomorrow the AOA and AMA decided to merge and be unified under one collective M.D. degree (effective retroactively as well,) are there any practical reasons why you feel this wouldn't be a good idea for us as physicians? Outside of OMM (which I'm not sure how many grads even practice nowadays, no exact figures but if it's anything like what I anticipate, it can't be good,) what makes us "us" today is that we are clinging onto our history, which to me is not a good enough reason to lose sight of what we do in the bigger picture -- we are physicians.

This is not an issue I care about enough to whine for a degree change. It would be nice and convenient, though it will never happen. I couldn't get into a M.D. school and I just wanted to be a physician. Looking back at the alternatives I believe I made the right choice. If I wasn't here right now, I'd probably working a boring desk job for the man right now, and that would be no bueno. MD/DO, I don't really care what comes behind my name because at the end of the day, it's your work and dedication that will define you, especially to the people that matter.

Originally Posted by River Rat

not to be inflammatory, intentionally at least, but is there even a difference between an MD and a DO anymore that we 'need' separate entities to govern us? This is where it gets dicey because we as D.O.s try so hard to establish ourselves as equals to our M.D. counterparts, that it's counter-intuitive when we try and rationalize why we're different, a catch 22 of sorts. Like I said in a previous post, modern medicine has evolved to the point where you will see M.D.s treat the patient "as a whole" and not "prescribe harmful medications," and that you will see D.O.s infiltrate into virtually every specialty out there, ACGME world included. We're not different anymore.

Sparing me the history lessons, if this time tomorrow the AOA and AMA decided to merge and be unified under one collective M.D. degree (effective retroactively as well,) are there any practical reasons why you feel this wouldn't be a good idea for us as physicians? Outside of OMM (which I'm not sure how many grads even practice nowadays, no exact figures but if it's anything like what I anticipate, it can't be good,) what makes us "us" today is that we are clinging onto our history, which to me is not a good enough reason to lose sight of what we do in the bigger picture -- we are physicians.

This is not an issue I care about enough to whine for a degree change. It would be nice and convenient, though it will never happen. I couldn't get into a M.D. school and I just wanted to be a physician. Looking back at the alternatives I believe I made the right choice. If I wasn't here right now, I'd probably working a boring desk job for the man right now, and that would be no bueno. MD/DO, I don't really care what comes behind my name because at the end of the day, it's your work and dedication that will define you, especially to the people that matter.

But that's not what this poll is asking....

You can't have it both ways; Either we are all exactly the same (one organization/one accreditation body/one curriculum/one licensing board/one board exam/etc.) or we must remain totally separate and independent with equal rights as it is currently the case/law. This poll and similar proposals want some BS intermediary where you'd be separate but then not really and then you get to use their initials but take different exams and will have to follow their rules/guidelines while following our rules/guidelines and go to different schools with different curricula/accreditation and you get to do OMM but they have to take extra classes, and you can do different residencies but they can't or they won't accept your training, etc.

I am 100% against any intermediary proposal that infringes on DOs' absolute legal right to practice the full scope of medicine under the auspices of osteopathic medical organizations/boards as fully independent and autonomous physicians.

Now, if one day you could convince the majority of licensed DOs (not osteopathic medical students/premeds) and AOA to completely merge with the AMA (no conditions attached) and completely replace the DO profession and grant all DOs, MDs and allopathic board certifications in their current specialties, simultaneously in all 50 states without any interruption or hardship for DOs and without requiring them to take any extra exam(s), pay extra fees or discriminate against them in any way, then come back and we'll talk. But since this will never happen neither will this proposal, talking about all this is a big waste of time.... Just be proud of your accomplishments and go out there and be the best student/physician/scientist that you possibly can be and you will succeed like all the DOs before you.

Also, I never said MDs currently prescribe poison; I said historically that was the reason why DO started in response to a post which claimed DOs were created because of the physician shortage which is totally false.

Last but not least, claiming equal rights is not claiming to be the same; For instance, people (should) have equal rights but they are not the same;

Originally Posted by bala565

But that's not what this poll is asking....

You can't have it both ways; Either we are all exactly the same (one organization/one accreditation body/one curriculum/one licensing board/one board exam/etc.) or we must remain totally separate and independent with equal rights as it is currently the case/law. This poll and similar proposals want some BS intermediary where you'd be separate but then not really and then you get to use their initials but take different exams and go to different schools with different curricula and you get to do OMM but they have to take extra classes, and you can do different residencies but they can't or they won't accept your training, etc.

I am 100% against any intermediary proposal that infringes on DOs' absolute legal right to practice the full scope of medicine under the auspices of osteopathic medical organizations/boards as fully independent and autonomous physicians.

Now, if one day you could convince the majority of licensed DOs (not osteopathic medical students/premeds) and AOA to completely merge with the AMA (no conditions attached) and completely replace the DO profession and grant all DOs, MDs and allopathic board certifications in their current specialties, simultaneously in all 50 states without any interruption or hardship for DOs and without requiring them to take any extra exam(s), pay extra fees or discriminate against them in any way, then come back and we'll talk. But since this will never happen neither will this proposal, talking about all this is a big waste of time.... Just be proud of your accomplishments and go out there and be the best student/physician/scientist that you possibly can be and you will succeed like all the DOs before you.

Also, I never said MDs currently prescribe poison; I said historically that was the reason why DO started in response to a post which claimed DOs were created because of the physician shortage which was totally false.

Last but not least, claiming equal rights is not claiming to be the same; For instance, people (should) have equal rights but they are not the same;

agree with bolded parts. and wasn't using the MD/Arsenic point to discredit you, first example that I could think of.

Originally Posted by bala565

But that's not what this poll is asking....



Also, I never said MDs currently prescribe poison; I said historically that was the reason why DO started in response to a post which claimed DOs were created because of the physician shortage which is totally false.

Last but not least, claiming equal rights is not claiming to be the same; For instance, people (should) have equal rights but they are not the same;

That is technically what I said but not the point I was getting at. It's nice to learn a little history lol, but what I meant was that DO expansion and increasing presence is in part due to doctor shortages and extreme competition in admissions.

I agree with the bottom statement though. Completely actually. It's damn near a motto lol. The philosophy of "we're all people and people are people blah blah blah" will be the downfall of us. It's a gross over reaction to a PC culture that somehow got the idea that differences are somehow bad.

.

Originally Posted by River Rat

agree with bolded parts. and wasn't using the MD/Arsenic point to discredit you, first example that I could think of.

It's a common argument however that I really think should be done away with.
For a couple reasons:

we have already established that in the clinic DOs and MDs are largely indistinguishable. Many DOs also take allopathic residencies (is it most? I get the feeling the AOA match is small and there are a good number of allopathic residencies, specifically primary care, which will take comlex..... Or do we consider such residencies as mixed/ non allo?). Either way, with DOs in allopathic residencies the difference in practice will be minimal. DOs will be just as likely to prescribe something harmful if recommended by current literature.

Also, mistakes happen as knowledge grows and evolves. Once upon a time we claimed that heroin was a miracle drug. Said to "balance the humors" and even gave it to kids. This sucks, no arguing that, but to use it to attack a practice is somewhat nonsensical, especially when the counterpoint usually favors some new/old age technique (not that DO fits here so this is somewhat tangential). The practitioners of that time did the best they could with the information available just as we all will. Citing past mistakes that generated measures like EBM and further advanced our understanding is not a valid argument in favor of adherence to rigid and out dated practices - acupuncture, herbalism, homeopathy, ect. Not to compare DO to those, but the basis of the argument is the same. I also highly suspect the development of OMT was not a painless process. And given the inception of DO we didn't really know the Phys that currently dictates OMT

Originally Posted by Whiskeypunch

If there is ever a change to something like MD-O, it will only happen in concert with a change to opening DO residencies to MD students and some sort of unification of the professional organizations.

I'd put a low probability on that occurring, and honestly it wouldn't be a good change for DO's. Right now the only reliable way to get into a number of competitive fields as a DO is through a DO only residency (in particular I'm thinking of fields like ortho/derm).

It's hard to know what the future holds because there are so many variables like GME funding, the rate of expansion of the various schools, etc.

I really don't think anyone should be ashamed of having a DO degree. I mean if anything we should just be grateful there aren't offshore diploma mills churning out DO degrees like they do for MD's.

It isn't a bad idea though. As has been pointed out, OMM is largely unused in practice. A unification to MD with distinctions is really the only thing that makes sense

I wouldn't mind having an MD-R for all of the research I do lol.

Originally Posted by bala565

The difference here is that you want to use the initials/title "MD" for licensure purposes which is already taken/reserved by the allopathic licensing boards. Therefore, if you want to use their initials, you have go under their jurisdiction, which effectively abolishes Osteopathic Medicine as a separate entity which is in violation of the oath every DO takes.

The example you used, was the AOA changing their internal policy/definition. It didn't require loss of autonomy or approval from anyone else as it will be with this proposal.

The problem is that most people arguing on this thread fail to understand/appreciate the difference between DEGREE and LICENSE. You can name the DEGREE whatever you want. But to get LICENSED (irrespective of your degree) and advertise yourself as whatever, you need state licensing board's blessing which equals submitting to their jurisdiction.

BTW, that's a cool picture you posted!

One could argue that AT Still's first class were MD's or that the "Diplomate of Osteopathy" takes care of the oath problem, but I guess at this point we gotta agree to disagree.

I don't see anything about having to preserve the degree as part of the oath: http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-ao...thic-oath.aspx I only see preserving the principles and philosophy.

Due to being on the 3rd page of discussion here's the link for the vote: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoc...45844652126484

To clarify a point that was brought up further back in the discussion, this is not a one size fits all argument, people have different reasons for being for the change and against the change. To each their own, please be respectful of that. I would like to make a general statement to remind everyone that you are all someone's physician or on the road to becoming it. Please act accordingly. A good rule of public conduct is to behave as if your patients were watching, and in this instance, they very well may be.


Thank You and Please Vote. -Tissot

Originally Posted by Tissot

Due to being on the 3rd page of discussion here's the link for the vote: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoc...45844652126484

To clarify a point that was brought up further back in the discussion, this is not a one size fits all argument, people have different reasons for being for the change and against the change. To each their own, please be respectful of that. I would like to make a general statement to remind everyone that you are all someone's physician or on the road to becoming it. Please act accordingly. A good rule of public conduct is to behave as if your patients were watching, and in this instance, they very well may be.


Thank You and Please Vote. -Tissot

seriously stop with the voting thing. it's annoying. it's about as worthwhile as a facebook personality quiz (oh your thing is on facebook? you don't say...)

stop. just stop.

Originally Posted by Tissot

Due to being on the 3rd page of discussion here's the link for the vote: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoc...45844652126484

To clarify a point that was brought up further back in the discussion, this is not a one size fits all argument, people have different reasons for being for the change and against the change. To each their own, please be respectful of that. I would like to make a general statement to remind everyone that you are all someone's physician or on the road to becoming it. Please act accordingly. A good rule of public conduct is to behave as if your patients were watching, and in this instance, they very well may be.


Thank You and Please Vote. -Tissot

BTW, you forgot answer the following.... Maybe instead of teaching morality you should answer the following:

Could you reiterate what you are trying to accomplish by this poll... Just for the information of folks who are publicly attaching their real names/profiles to either choice which can be viewed by ANYONE with internet/FB access.... I'm sure they would love to know how this information (specifically their real names) are going to be used in the future....

Originally Posted by River Rat

seriously stop with the voting thing. it's annoying. it's about as worthwhile as a facebook personality quiz (oh your thing is on facebook? you don't say...)

stop. just stop.

Should be Graduate of Osteopathic Doctrine, G.O.D.

Originally Posted by DocMan22

Should be Graduate of Osteopathic Doctrine, G.O.D.

This wouldn't further the belief that some people have about physicians and GOD complexes...
"No sir, I do not have a god complex, I have a G.O.D. diploma!"

.

Now that I think about it, I like the idea of a license that all physicians use (be it MD or other letters) and to just keep the degrees as is.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Now that I think about it, I like the idea of a license that all physicians use (be it MD or other letters) and to just keep the degrees as is.

Although I agree with your post, just to be clear, the above resolution asks the exact opposite (i.e. change the degree and then hope for some BS compromise with MDs so we can use their initials).....

Originally Posted by bala565

Although I agree with your post, just to be clear, the above resolution asks the exact opposite (i.e. change the degree and then hope for some BS compromise with MDs so we can use their initials).....

I think either way produces the same goal, so I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but it does seem "easier" to do the licensing thing.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

I think either way produces the same goal, so I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but it does seem "easier" to do the licensing thing.

No it doesn't.... Did you just ignore 3 pages of posts? Are you trying to restart this pointless argument all over again?

Either way, this exact resolution was brought up to the AOA board few years ago and it was overwhelmingly voted down.... Maybe when you actually become a DO you can vote for it, but until then the AOA has spoken....

Originally Posted by bala565

No it doesn't.... Did you just ignore 3 pages of posts? Are you trying to restart this pointless argument all over again?

Either way, this exact resolution was brought up to the AOA board few years ago and it was overwhelmingly voted down.... Maybe when you actually become a DO you can vote for it, but until then the AOA has spoken....

No, I'm not (ignoring or trying to start something). I understand what your point is. I don't agree with it. Leave it at that.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

No, I'm not (ignoring or trying to start something). I understand what your point is. I don't agree with it. Leave it at that.

Originally Posted by DocMan22

Should be Graduate of Osteopathic Doctrine, G.O.D.

DocMan22 for President, 2012.

Frankly, I don't understand why this poll exists? 0 transparency - don't expect people to vote.

Originally Posted by TeeHeHe

DocMan22 for President, 2012.

He's got my vote

I applied to, and enrolled at, an Osteopathic progam because I WANT to be an osteopathic physician. I had extremely competitive test scores, experience, and a high undergrad GPA. I find it insulting that some consider DO a "second-chance program", rather I believe DO programs have a different criteria for the types of students they desire. Futhermore, I believe the MD/DO change says nothing other than, "I felt that my training was inadequate in light of allopathic programs, and I am unable to compete." My advice to pre-meds is to shadow a number of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians and see which philosophy you'd like to emulate in your own future career.

Originally Posted by crmellon

I applied to, and enrolled at, an Osteopathic progam because I WANT to be an osteopathic physician. I had extremely competitive test scores, experience, and a high undergrad GPA. I find it insulting that some consider DO a "second-chance program", rather I believe DO programs have a different criteria for the types of students they desire. Futhermore, I believe the MD/DO change says nothing other than, "I felt that my training was inadequate in light of allopathic programs, and I am unable to compete." My advice to pre-meds is to shadow a number of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians and see which philosophy you'd like to emulate in your own future career.

Originally Posted by crmellon

I applied to, and enrolled at, an Osteopathic progam because I WANT to be an osteopathic physician. I had extremely competitive test scores, experience, and a high undergrad GPA. I find it insulting that some consider DO a "second-chance program", rather I believe DO programs have a different criteria for the types of students they desire. Futhermore, I believe the MD/DO change says nothing other than, "I felt that my training was inadequate in light of allopathic programs, and I am unable to compete." My advice to pre-meds is to shadow a number of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians and see which philosophy you'd like to emulate in your own future career.

Well, get used to the idea that many people consider DO a "second chance program." Because, quite frankly, it is true to many people. Trying to pretend this doesn't happen is just nothing more than burying your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by sylvanthus

Well, get used to the idea that many people consider DO a "second chance program." Because, quite frankly, it is true to many people. Trying to pretend this doesn't happen is just nothing more than burying your head in the sand.

He speaks the truth, unfortunately.

I'm not saying that people don't have that misconception, nor am I pretending otherwise. However, in the context of changing the title to more closely align to allopathic programs, I think that most people enrolled in a DO program don't feel like they're inadequate compared to their MD counterparts.

Originally Posted by crmellon

I'm not saying that people don't have that misconception, nor am I pretending otherwise. However, in the context of changing the title to more closely align to allopathic programs, I think that most people enrolled in a DO program don't feel like they're inadequate compared to their MD counterparts.

Not a misconception, it's a reality. I personally am attending a DO program in lieu of getting an allopathic acceptance. There are many, many more like me in my class. I don't consider myself inferior to MD students, but it's hard to argue that they don't have it better off with many more resources and better opportunities afforded to them. I'd trade 4 hours a week of OMM for that.

Originally Posted by crmellon

I applied to, and enrolled at, an Osteopathic progam because I WANT to be an osteopathic physician. I had extremely competitive test scores, experience, and a high undergrad GPA. I find it insulting that some consider DO a "second-chance program", rather I believe DO programs have a different criteria for the types of students they desire. Futhermore, I believe the MD/DO change says nothing other than, "I felt that my training was inadequate in light of allopathic programs, and I am unable to compete." My advice to pre-meds is to shadow a number of both allopathic and osteopathic physicians and see which philosophy you'd like to emulate in your own future career.

Philosophically, can you describe the paradigm difference between an Allopathic physician and an Osteopathic physician? Is the adjective honorific of Allopathic or Osteopathic even necessary these days?
The reason people want to branch the gap is not due to inferiority, but rather do to the truly evident lack of difference in paradigm and education. Personally I don't think the degree change is necessary, but I do think that there needs to be a branching between the AOA and AMA, things like dual accreditation of DO schools under both COCA and LCME, and dual accreditation of DO residencies should be sought and encouraged.

Originally Posted by serenade

Philosophically, can you describe the paradigm difference between an Allopathic physician and an Osteopathic physician? Is the adjective honorific of Allopathic or Osteopathic even necessary these days?
The reason people want to branch the gap is not due to inferiority, but rather do to the truly evident lack of difference in paradigm and education. Personally I don't think the degree change is necessary, but I do think that there needs to be a branching between the AOA and AMA, things like dual accreditation of DO schools under both COCA and LCME, and dual accreditation of DO residencies should be sought and encouraged.

That's a valid point. I definitely think there are substantial overlaps; however, I think there is still a unique mentality to Osteopathic medicine. Maybe it's naivete on my part.

Originally Posted by crmellon

That's a valid point. I definitely think there are substantial overlaps; however, I think there is still a unique mentality to Osteopathic medicine. Maybe it's naivete on my part.

What is that mentality?

Personally, I felt that my experience with Osteopathic medicine was more personal, holistic, and well-rounded. A study done by Peer (1999) found that the majority of Osteopathic medical students listed socioeconomic impacts and a desire for primary care as their main motivation for choosing Osteopathic medicine. I found that I resonated more strongly with that, and the students, then I did while interviewing and touring Allopathic programs. I don't think one is superior than the other, I think there are strengths and weaknesses to both.

Originally Posted by crmellon

Personally, I felt that my experience with Osteopathic medicine was more personal, holistic, and well-rounded. A study done by Peer (1999) found that the majority of Osteopathic medical students listed socioeconomic impacts and a desire for primary care as their main motivation for choosing Osteopathic medicine. I found that I resonated more strongly with that, and the students, then I did while interviewing and touring Allopathic programs. I don't think one is superior than the other, I think their are strengths and weaknesses to both.

So because your experience was rich in personal medicine and total body health, the assumption is that allopathic programs are weak in them. n=1

Originally Posted by crmellon

Personally, I felt that my experience with Osteopathic medicine was more personal, holistic, and well-rounded. A study done by Peer (1999) found that the majority of Osteopathic medical students listed socioeconomic impacts and a desire for primary care as their main motivation for choosing Osteopathic medicine. I found that I resonated more strongly with that, and the students, then I did while interviewing and touring Allopathic programs. I don't think one is superior than the other, I think their are strengths and weaknesses to both.

Except that you havent started yet.....


AZCOM Class of 2016
Views: 5,826
Posted By crmellon
Hi!

I'll be apart of the class of 2016. Has anyone applied for on-campus housing?

Originally Posted by sylvanthus

Except that you havent started yet.....


AZCOM Class of 2016
Views: 5,826
Posted By crmellon
Hi!

I'll be apart of the class of 2016. Has anyone applied for on-campus housing?

Absolutely right, and I've said that it might have been naivete on my part. So, you're saying my opinion is invalidated because I haven't experienced it as a student? That seems a little arrogant from a patient perspective. I've had both osteopathic and allopathic doctors, and all I've said was I prefered osteopathic for the reasons I've stated.


*Edit

Specter, you pulled a lot from me saying I resonated more strongly with an osteopathic approach. I didn't say allopathic programs were specifically weak in anything.

Originally Posted by crmellon

Absolutely right, and I've said that it might have been naivete on my part. So, you're saying my opinion is invalidated because I haven't experienced it as a student? That seems a little arrogant from a patient perspective. I've had both osteopathic and allopathic doctors, and all I've said was I prefered osteopathic for the reasons I've stated.


*Edit

Specter, you pulled a lot from me saying I resonated more strongly with an osteopathic approach. I didn't say allopathic programs were specifically weak in anything.

I asked you to identify the difference in ideology between the two and you said Osteopathic was string there. Ergo allopathic is weaker there by comparison. You did say it, just not explicitly

Strong * Damn phone w no edit option.... lol

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I asked you to identify the difference in ideology between the two and you said Osteopathic was string there. Ergo allopathic is weaker there by comparison. You did say it, just not explicitly

"Personally, I felt that my experience with Osteopathic medicine was more personal, holistic, and well-rounded. A study done by Peer (1999) found that the majority of Osteopathic medical students listed socioeconomic impacts and a desire for primary care as their main motivation for choosing Osteopathic medicine. I found that I resonated more strongly with that, and the students, then I did while interviewing and touring Allopathic programs. I don't think one is superior than the other, I think there are strengths and weaknesses to both. "

I thought I made it clear it was my personal opinion, and was heuristic, and not an explicit difference. However, I apologize if it was misleading.

Originally Posted by crmellon

That's a valid point. I definitely think there are substantial overlaps; however, I think there is still a unique mentality to Osteopathic medicine. Maybe it's naivete on my part.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

What is that mentality?

Originally Posted by crmellon

Personally, I felt that my experience with Osteopathic medicine was more personal, holistic, and well-rounded. A study done by Peer (1999) found that the majority of Osteopathic medical students listed socioeconomic impacts and a desire for primary care as their main motivation for choosing Osteopathic medicine. I found that I resonated more strongly with that, and the students, then I did while interviewing and touring Allopathic programs. I don't think one is superior than the other, I think their are strengths and weaknesses to both.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

So because your experience was rich in personal medicine and total body health, the assumption is that allopathic programs are weak in them. n=1

I honestly dont believe I am stretching your statements too much. This is a common notion I kind of rage against. This idea that MD and DO have this fundamental difference in philosophy and the proponents of that view use personal anecdotes without acknowledging the implication about the other school of thought. U cannot have it both ways

I respect that.

Awww come on. Respectful acceptance of an opposing opinion? On SDN??!?

No way.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

The only reason the D.O. degree still exists is because it is suppose to be "different" from an MD degree. In reality, it is not. In clinical practice, it is not. When the powers at be realize this (outside of the DO profession) and start asking questions like, why do we need two different state licensing boards for the same thing? Why do we need two accreditation standards for the same degree? why do we need two match processes? Then maybe things might change. Why do you think the AOA spends so much money trying convince people how different a D.O. degree is? It is because when everyone realizes it is really the same, there really is no reason for them to exist. Pure and simple.

My only issue with the degree is it never lets people know the person is a medical physician especially with so many allied health professions having doctoral degrees now, it would be like MD being DA, nobody knows what an allopath is and allopath nreally isn't a great descriptor- everyone knows what medical means. I always thought MDO, OMD, or DOM would actually be more descriptive of a degree name. I don't think DO,MD makes any sense. The AOA could put this simple descriptor in and make it more patient friendly.

Sent from my LePanII using SDN Mobile

How about DOOM - Doctor Of Osteopathic Medicine? Especially awesome if your last name is something like Pain.... Dr. Pain, DOOM

In all seriousness, I think the degrees should merge. However, it's never going to happen. The AOA exists for the sole purpose of perpetuating the myth of an osteopathic distinction. In practice this boils down to the sole act of teaching us OMM, which the vast majority of us don't care about and will not use in practice. This shred of distinction will never be pried from their cranium manipulating hands because it is the one thing that justifies their existence and keeps them in business. To merge would be for them to all fire themselves, and that's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by impact2d

My only issue with the degree is it never lets people know the person is a medical physician especially with so many allied health professions having doctoral degrees now, it would be like MD being DA, nobody knows what an allopath is and allopath nreally isn't a great descriptor- everyone knows what medical means. I always thought MDO, OMD, or DOM would actually be more descriptive of a degree name. I don't think DO,MD makes any sense. The AOA could put this simple descriptor in and make it more patient friendly.

That actually makes sense, being that it does explain things a bit better for the public (i.e. easier to understand and it's better marketing) and does not include any notion of a merger- a merger that will not happen in the foreseeable future. The powers that be will be replaced by those with similar perspectives, so I wouldn't expect any drastic changes in the ways of the old guard.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I honestly dont believe I am stretching your statements too much. This is a common notion I kind of rage against. This idea that MD and DO have this fundamental difference in philosophy and the proponents of that view use personal anecdotes without acknowledging the implication about the other school of thought. U cannot have it both ways

I have a question as an outsider:

why can a dentist, graduate dental school and complete an oral surgery residency and be granted an MD while people who graduate from osteopathic medical schools and complete a ACGME residency but are not granted an MD?

I think this is a valid question to be asked.

Originally Posted by PharmaTope

I have a question as an outsider:

why can a dentist, graduate dental school and complete an oral surgery residency and be granted an MD while people who graduate from osteopathic medical schools and complete a ACGME residency but are not granted an MD?

I think this is a valid question to be asked.

They are not granted MDs. Also a DO does not need an MD as their title comes with all of the same privileges

I am surprised in all this talk about titles why no one has brought up that some of the foreign grads are granted an MBBS degree in their country which is "converted" to an MD degree when they take their USMLEs and enter residency here in the states. They do not go through an MD degree granting school. I have asked about this and was informed that they got the MD to avoid "confusion". I do not know how accurate this information was as I got it from the foreign grad I asked directly.