DO discrimination

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

I tend to agree with Johnny here, it sounds like the posters now are claiming DO=MD, and if that's the case, they should just award MDs, and forget DOs exist.

I don't know why people are in favor of a DO degree if it is "essentially the same" as an MD......

Originally Posted by Sileni

Think about it, "in the early 2000s they used to give cancer patients copious amounts of poisions and just hoped it worked".

1) we still do that
2) I dont think you understand what chemotherapy is or how it works, nor do you understand the concept of "poison"

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

I tend to agree with Johnny here, it sounds like the posters now are claiming DO=MD, and if that's the case, they should just award MDs, and forget DOs exist.

I don't know why people are in favor of a DO degree if it is "essentially the same" as an MD......

I can only give you my personal opinion on the matter. But I just don't give a sh!t what the letters are after my name. To me it's not worth all the crap to turn it into an MD. It just doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

1) we still do that
2) I dont think you understand what chemotherapy is or how it works, nor do you understand the concept of "poison"

1) I was using that sentence to describe how people 100 years from now would describe it.
2) I'm well aware of how it works, I was (over)simplifying it to make a point.

My point being, our knowledge grows as time goes on, we're going to be looked at as quacks in 100+ years just as we look at medicine in the early 1900's and late 1800s.

Originally Posted by Wolverines83

I can only give you my personal opinion on the matter. But I just don't give a sh!t what the letters are after my name. To me it's not worth all the crap to turn it into an MD. It just doesn't matter.

That's valid.

Can't wait to be at my desk, legs up on the desk, with my medical degree (MD? DO? who cares!) and look back at SDN to look at all the premed quacks who will argue about something so stupid and petty, whatever that topic may be at that time and realize it was all just in the neurotic mind.

Originally Posted by Sileni

1) I was using that sentence to describe how people 100 years from now would describe it.
2) I'm well aware of how it works, I was (over)simplifying it to make a point.

My point being, our knowledge grows as time goes on, we're going to be looked at as quacks in 100+ years just as we look at medicine in the early 1900's and late 1800s.

ummmm

Originally Posted by Sileni

1) You're calling the originator a quack because we know now a portion of his philosophy has been debunked. But truthfully, most doctors (if not all) back at his same time would also be "quacks". In fact, I'm certain 100 years from now we'll be considered quacks. Think about it, "in the early 2000s they used to give cancer patients copious amounts of poisions and just hoped it worked".

2) The DO degree is an alternative pathway, yes, but backdoor implies it's sneaky or underhanded. DOs get the same license, and practice the same exact medicine. Many take the same exams (the USMLE) or the comparable exam (COMLEX). There's nothing sneaky about this.

you pretty much directly used chemo as an example of something we USED to do that we have since moved on from.

Maybe just bad phrasing for a bad example?
I think I agree with part of what you are saying, but I think the major and pivotal difference is the willingness to improve and to abandon outdated therapies instead of expend resources trying to validate them as the AOA has done with cranial

Originally Posted by OncoMD

Can't wait to be at my desk, legs up on the desk, with my medical degree (MD? DO? who cares!) and look back at SDN to look at all the premed quacks who will argue about something so stupid and petty, whatever that topic may be at that time and realize it was all just in the neurotic mind.

I think you really undervalue the benefit to critical thinking that debate has. As this is the internet nobody should be moving forward with the understanding that we are going to affect real change anyways

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

I tend to agree with Johnny here, it sounds like the posters now are claiming DO=MD, and if that's the case, they should just award MDs, and forget DOs exist.

I don't know why people are in favor of a DO degree if it is "essentially the same" as an MD......

I have nothing against DPM. I'm just curious, why not create a podiatry specialty, convert DPM schools into MD schools, and forget DPMs exist?

Originally Posted by NeuroLAX

I have nothing against DPM. I'm just curious, why not create a podiatry specialty, convert DPM schools into MD schools, and forget DPMs exist?

to be blunt? We already do - its called ortho. But the bulk of the work done by DPM is below the pay grade for orthopods. The times when it is not, the work is suspect to legal criticism and I don't think outcomes have been very good.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

ummmm


you pretty much directly used chemo as an example of something we USED to do that we have since moved on from.

Maybe just bad phrasing for a bad example?
I think I agree with part of what you are saying, but I think the major and pivotal difference is the willingness to improve and to abandon outdated therapies instead of expend resources trying to validate them as the AOA has done with cranial

I don't understand I wrote it in quotes implying that that's what someone 100+ years from now is saying. "Used" is a the past passive conjugation of the verb use, I don't understand what your confused about. I'm implying that 100+ years from now, hopefully, there will be a significantly better treatment available than chemo/radition therapy and that scientist then (in the future) will view what we did as ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Sileni

I don't understand I wrote it in quotes implying that that's what someone 100+ years from now is saying. "Used" is a the past passive conjugation of the verb use, I don't understand what your confused about. I'm implying that 100+ years from now, hopefully, there will be a significantly better treatment available than chemo/radition therapy.

maybe you are just not aware that supporting evidence or statements need to actually be in-line with the statement they are intended to support?
DOs used to do x, but dont anymore. MDs used to do y [but dont anymore], the part in brackets is what was implied in your statement
Remember back when women were allowed to vote?

That statement sounds weird, right? even though there is nothing technically wrong with it.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

Everyone else seemed to be able to read my posts just fine... Maybe get your brain checked out?

Had you been reading my posts, you'd realize that I believe that DOs should practice OMM, as that is what sets them apart from MDs. As this conversation has evolved, others have pointed out other differences, but realistically I am still convinced that OMM is the difference between a DO and an MD, especially for a pre-med student deciding which schools to apply to.

Following this logic, in my opinion, it does not make sense for a DO to become a radiologist. Because again, a premed student only applies to DO school because they like OMM, so, if you're bothering to get a degree different than MD, and you're bothering to learn OMM, why go to a field that does not require that knowledge??

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

It doesn't make sense.

Let's say there are two cooking schools. One teaches cooking, the other teaches baking AND cooking. If you didn't care about baking, why would you go to the baking/cooking school? You wouldn't.

In this idea, I guess I would prefer not to see a DO radiologist or surgeon, as it literally makes no sense to me that a DO to go in a field that makes them indistinguishable from an MD.

DOs and MDs are different, I don't know why everyone is so adamant about making them the same. I also don't know why you always come to the same assumption that everyone thinks DOs are worse. I've never said that yet people keep implying it, maybe you have an inferiority complex, and just assume people look down on you.

Simple, I don't want to be a primary care doc like pretty much everyone else in medical school and I had the board scores to get into a competitive specialty. Just because I learned OMT doesn't mean I have to practice it. I also will never use anything I learned in my OB/GYN, peds, psych rotations ever again in my field. Medical school is full of learning things you'll forget and never use again. I think non-DO students grossly overestimate the amount of OMT we learn in school. Even if I wanted to use it on a patient I absolutely don't have the skill or practice to use it.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

maybe you are just not aware that supporting evidence or statements need to actually be in-line with the statement they are intended to support?
DOs used to do x, but dont anymore. MDs used to do y [but dont anymore], the part in brackets is what was implied in your statement
Remember back when women were allowed to vote?

That statement sounds weird, right? even though there is nothing technically wrong with it.

Ok, I'm not sure what your confused about. My entire point was that MDs back then did things we today regard as foolish. So his argument that Still was a quack is pointless as he's judging still based on what we know now.

Also remember that most DOs don't practice OMM (there are exact numbers in some thread here, but I think it was 5% of DOs actually use OMM)

Anyway, this thread has become a troll fest.

DO = MD no one is better than anyone else.

The reason for the distinction between DO and MD is osteopathy, which is hokum.

The reason for the distinction between DDS and DMD is that Harvard was snooty about the Latin on its degrees.

You say that DO programs have abandoned the hokum, but they haven't and it remains a major part of their philosophy. Many people just go through the motions and laugh it off, but the schools still take it seriously. There are even stupid trivia questions about AT Still on COMLEX, so don't pretend his wackiness isn't still pervasive in the DO curriculum.

If the distinction were truly arbitrary like DDS vs DMD, I'd think it was stupid to have two degrees but wouldn't protest.

Osteopathy as a philosophy needs to be removed from all medical school curriculums.

Originally Posted by NeuroLAX

I have nothing against DPM. I'm just curious, why not create a podiatry specialty, convert DPM schools into MD schools, and forget DPMs exist?

They probably should, for consistency.

The only drawback is that a lot of people probably don't like working with feet (like urology?), and people would probably feel shafted if they went through med school and matched podiatry if they knew the admission stats that are currently in the field.

So: medically it should be, culturally med students would get pissed I think.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

The reason for the distinction between DO and MD is osteopathy, which is hokum.

The reason for the distinction between DDS and DMD is that Harvard was snooty about the Latin on its degrees.

You say that DO programs have abandoned the hokum, but they haven't and it remains a major part of their philosophy. Many people just go through the motions and laugh it off, but the schools still take it seriously. There are even stupid trivia questions about AT Still on COMLEX, so don't pretend his wackiness isn't still pervasive in the DO curriculum.

If the distinction were truly arbitrary like DDS vs DMD, I'd think it was stupid to have two degrees but wouldn't protest.

Osteopathy as a philosophy needs to be removed from all medical school curriculums.

So what's your solution? We eliminate the DO agree by forcing all DO schools to apply for LCME accrediation? That's a tremendous amount of work for both the schools and the LCME.

Do you think DOs aren't competent enough to practice medicine? Should DO schools just be shut down?

You say you want the Osteopathy philosophy removed from the DO schools all together? What do you suggest, revoking accrediation if they don't?

I'm confused what exactly you want to happen.

Originally Posted by Sileni

So what's your solution? We eliminate the DO agree by forcing all DO schools to apply for LCME accrediation? That's a tremendous amount of work for both the schools and the LCME.

In a word, yes. The COCA is a much less rigorous organization than the LCME and is letting in schools that really shouldn't exist (eg new for-profit DO programs brought to you by the creators of the Caribbean diploma mills).

Do you think DOs aren't competent enough to practice medicine? Should DO schools just be shut down?

As long as they can pass the USMLE, let them practice. Schools that cannot meet LCME requirements (and a few won't be able to) should indeed be shut down, but the rest should just convert to MD like the UC schools did a few decades ago.

You say you want the Osteopathy philosophy removed from the DO schools all together? What do you suggest, revoking accrediation if they don't?

I'm confused what exactly you want to happen.

Easiest way to do this would be to shut down ACGME residencies to schools that do not switch.

The better schools will convert to meet student demands, and the worse ones will limit their students to DO residencies and become even more marginalized.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

to be blunt? We already do - its called ortho. But the bulk of the work done by DPM is below the pay grade for orthopods. The times when it is not, the work is suspect to legal criticism and I don't think outcomes have been very good.

I mean, orthos are mostly involved only in hard tissue surgery. Pods do much more than that.

As for your comment on pods doing suspect work, I disagree with you. Maybe some older pods who graduated 25+ years ago, but now we have a 3 year surgical residency required, focusing on the F/A, so I'd say a new pod would do better f/a surgery than a new othopod....

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

I mean, orthos are mostly involved only in hard tissue surgery. Pods do much more than that.

As for your comment on pods doing suspect work, I disagree with you. Maybe some older pods who graduated 25+ years ago, but now we have a 3 year surgical residency required, focusing on the F/A, so I'd say a new pod would do better f/a surgery than a new othopod....

I think podiatry and dentistry should be medical subspecialties as well, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by Sileni

So what's your solution? We eliminate the DO agree by forcing all DO schools to apply for LCME accrediation? That's a tremendous amount of work for both the schools and the LCME.

Do you think DOs aren't competent enough to practice medicine? Should DO schools just be shut down?

You say you want the Osteopathy philosophy removed from the DO schools all together? What do you suggest, revoking accrediation if they don't?

I'm confused what exactly you want to happen.

I don't think he wants anything to happen. He needs DO's to exist so he can feel better about himself. If you look at his prior posts he puts down "lower tier" MD schools too. Smug elitism like this is usually the result of some sort of deep seeded self-esteem thing(or he is just a huge d-bag).

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Osteopathic medicine originally did not accept the use of medications and believed all ills could be treated with physical manipulation. When patients stopped being willing to see doctors who would not prescribe medications, DOs decided they needed to switch.

Unless you are willing to publicly denounce AT Still and all of his theories and get them completely removed from your required curriculum, the entire foundation of your degree is still suspect.

This simply isn't true. If you had your facts straight, you'd know that Still used drugs in surgery and as antidotes to poisons, just not as remedial agents to cover up symptoms, eg. opiates, cathartics, diuretics and purgatives.

And osteopathic schools have been teaching pharm since 1929... so, I don't see your point at all.

You're basing your argument on traditionalist ideas (Still's original osteopathy) that have long since become more of a historical footprint rather than something that DOs base their practice in.

Really the only current differences between DO and MD are: 1. the four basic tenets of osteopathic philosophy (which many MD's can agree with and really are not extreme "quack" ideas in the slightest) 2. a commitment to primary care 3. OMM, which only a minority of DO's actually use in clinical practice.

Much of the reason why admissions stats at DO schools continue to lag behind MD is because of this misinformation that continues to pervade public thinking and hence DO schools receive less applicants (in sheer number and in competitiveness). Thus, a "backdoor," as you call it.

Originally Posted by WDeagle

[B]

Simple, I don't want to be a primary care doc like pretty much everyone else in medical school and I had the board scores to get into a competitive specialty. Just because I learned OMT doesn't mean I have to practice it. I also will never use anything I learned in my OB/GYN, peds, psych rotations ever again in my field. Medical school is full of learning things you'll forget and never use again. I think non-DO students grossly overestimate the amount of OMT we learn in school. Even if I wanted to use it on a patient I absolutely don't have the skill or practice to use it.

So the question that follows is: Why didn't you go to allopathic school?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I think podiatry and dentistry should be medical subspecialties as well, but that's another story.

Hmm i probably disagree about dentistry. It'd force a huge number of dental residencies to open up, which is realistically not plausible.

D-students start dental labs first year, they'd have to learn all the manual dexterity in residency?!?!

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

I mean, orthos are mostly involved only in hard tissue surgery. Pods do much more than that.

As for your comment on pods doing suspect work, I disagree with you. Maybe some older pods who graduated 25+ years ago, but now we have a 3 year surgical residency required, focusing on the F/A, so I'd say a new pod would do better f/a surgery than a new othopod....

I doubt it

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

Hmm i probably disagree about dentistry. It'd force a huge number of dental residencies to open up, which is realistically not plausible.

D-students start dental labs first year, they'd have to learn all the manual dexterity in residency?!?!

Exactly. Residencies that don't exist? Seeing johnnydrama make these kinds of far-fetched statements is really making me question how far his trolling can go.

Dental training is WAY different than medical training. There is no way you are going to make dentists go to medical school... why would they ever need to learn about ACL injuries? Or psychiatry?

....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

right. so go a little further here.
The ideas that support that belief are not only unsupported, but are in direct contradiction to what we know from basic sciences like gross anatomy and phys. So that person who believes in it... how confident are you that they truly understand the principles upon which medicine is built? This person has very likely memorized a few factoids to pass boards and otherwise has very little understanding. This person is also likely to continue to employ other such sham treatments based on this lack of understanding to, potentially, the peril of the patients
(alliteration is fun )

Hmm, well only a few are in outright contradiction and it is unlikely that they are used even by practitioners of OMM save for maybe the ones who specialize in it. Furthermore the factoid memorization part can apply to almost every medical doctor.
Generally I think that there is potentially a risk here. But in comparison to other things it may not be as high importance.
Who knows maybe there is a stronger correlation that MD's who do not accept evolution cause more mistakes. Or something like that, generally this is all very philosophical and many other factors may be of greater importance.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I doubt it

Why?

Originally Posted by WDeagle

I don't think he wants anything to happen. He needs DO's to exist so he can feel better about himself. If you look at his prior posts he puts down "lower tier" MD schools too. Smug elitism like this is usually the result of some sort of deep seeded self-esteem thing(or he is just a huge d-bag).

Haha, that's clearly not true. As you point out, I don't think particularly highly of lower tier MD programs either, so I don't need DO programs to exist to feel "superior" as you put it.

It's not even that I feel superior - I just personally would have gone a different route than becoming a physician if I hadn't been able to get into a decent MD program. I'm interested in academics, so that is necessary for what I want to do.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I disagree. Maybe you are right practically, that it is difficult to reach the AOA elites so such things won't simply happen. But I wasnt talking about going through the channels. I was addressing the comment at the level of the AOA - there is no excuse for them. They cant say it will be too difficult to implement. Its as simple as no longer requiring it in OMM training and removing the related qustions from COMLEX. Done and done.

Your supporting argument contradicts your premise. Basically you said the AOA will not listen to anything so gradual change will not work, thus they need to simply remove all OMM training and questions. It's boarding a non-sequitur here.
The reality is that OMM should be removed and that removing from the educational curriculum would be nice. However it would be far from easy as over 50 OMM professors and many of the board of trustees would suddenly be out of a job and thus would be fought harder than world war 2. I think no matter what a compromise of interests is best, potentially the removal of cranial and other odd techniques along with potentially switching over to the USMLE being a substitute and removal of the majority of crazy OMM questions will be significantly more reasonable goal that could be accomplished in the decade.

Originally Posted by pattr

Exactly. Residencies that don't exist? Seeing johnnydrama make these kinds of far-fetched statements is really making me question how far his trolling can go.

Dental training is WAY different than medical training. There is no way you are going to make dentists go to medical school... why would they ever need to learn about ACL injuries? Or psychiatry?

....

Well many schools do have med and dental schools taught by one teacher and at one time. They just really branch off from year 3.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

Hmm i probably disagree about dentistry. It'd force a huge number of dental residencies to open up, which is realistically not plausible.

D-students start dental labs first year, they'd have to learn all the manual dexterity in residency?!?!

Do you think medical students do not need manual dexterity? It could pretty easily be incorporated into the clinical years as well.

I'm not saying this is going to happen or should happen, but it would be a more rational approach to training.

There's no reason to treat the teeth differently than any other organ system, aside from historical development of the profession.

Originally Posted by serenade

Well many schools do have med and dental schools taught by one teacher and at one time. They just really branch off from year 3.

You're forgetting dental labs that start first year.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Do you think medical students do not need manual dexterity? It could pretty easily be incorporated into the clinical years as well.

I'm not saying this is going to happen or should happen, but it would be a more rational approach to training.

There's no reason to treat the teeth differently than any other organ system, aside from historical development of the profession.

To be honest, med students don't need the manual dexterity that a dental student needs.

Dentists need better dexterity than most surgeons, i promise.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

You're forgetting dental labs that start first year.

As I said, could easily be incorporated into dental electives during clinical years.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

So the question that follows is: Why didn't you go to allopathic school?

Because I naively bought into the philosophy plus I had DO's in my family who were successful. How is any 22 year old pre-med going to know if primary care is for them or if they want to practice OMT. I didn't realize until third year what specialty was right for me. If all DO's were forced to do primary care you would have tons of miserable unhappy primary care docs.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

To be honest, med students don't need the manual dexterity that a dental student needs.

Dentists need better dexterity than most surgeons, i promise.

Really? More than CT surgeons? More than ENT? More than plastics? More than ophtho?

The educational paradigm isn't currently set up that way, but there's no reason dentistry couldn't have been included within medicine.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Do you think medical students do not need manual dexterity? It could pretty easily be incorporated into the clinical years as well.

I'm not saying this is going to happen or should happen, but it would be a more rational approach to training.

There's no reason to treat the teeth differently than any other organ system, aside from historical development of the profession.

In theory this sounds nice, but in reality it is a clusterf%#k that will require the government to basically open thousands of dental residencies just for general dentistry. It simply complicates the process and will be highly cost ineffective.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

As long as they can pass the USMLE, let them practice. Schools that cannot meet LCME requirements (and a few won't be able to) should indeed be shut down, but the rest should just convert to MD like the UC schools did a few decades ago.
.

So what do we do about the thousands of DO graduates? Do we force them to submit to the USMLE, now? What score would they have to get to pass?

I guess I want to get this also out in the open now. Do you think that, say, a DO who graduated from MSUCOM is any less competent thant a generic MD from MSUCHM (a low tier MD school).

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

As I said, could easily be incorporated into dental electives during clinical years.

I was talking to serenade, who i think thinks that dental education is currently the same until year 3, which is false.

I can't believe we still have to discuss this. Wow, someone's coat has 1 letter after their name that's an "O" instead of an "M." That should definitely warrant someone giving a damn. Ironically the MD's that look down on DO don't realize that, unless they attended JHU or HMS, their college was a "backup MD" too.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Really? More than CT surgeons? More than ENT? More than plastics? More than ophtho?

Who can really say for sure?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Haha, that's clearly not true. As you point out, I don't think particularly highly of lower tier MD programs either, so I don't need DO programs to exist to feel "superior" as you put it.

It's not even that I feel superior - I just personally would have gone a different route than becoming a physician if I hadn't been able to get into a decent MD program. I'm interested in academics, so that is necessary for what I want to do.

I knew it. You have the same smug mentality of most ivory tower academicians who spend more time smelling each others farts than seeing patients. I agree if research is your goal then you should attempt for an MD school known for research. Most pre-meds, med students, residents, and attending's have no interest in research at all. For docs in the real world the MD/DO thing doesn't have any significance at all. Neither does ACGME vs AOA residency.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

I was talking to serenade, who i think thinks that dental education is currently the same until year 3, which is false.

Do not misconstrue what I say, I said they are similar enough until year 3 when there is a major distinction in the didactic education.

Originally Posted by serenade

In theory this sounds nice, but in reality it is a clusterf%#k that will require the government to basically open thousands of dental residencies just for general dentistry. It simply complicates the process and will be highly cost ineffective.

I know, that's why I'm not suggesting this should be done now. Just that it's the way it should have been done.

Originally Posted by serenade

Your supporting argument contradicts your premise. Basically you said the AOA will not listen to anything so gradual change will not work, thus they need to simply remove all OMM training and questions. It's boarding a non-sequitur here. .

no I didnt
I thought that YOU were saying that the AOA wouldnt listen, and I was just saying that this was beside the point.

Originally Posted by WDeagle

I knew it. You have the same smug mentality of most ivory tower academicians who spend more time smelling each others farts than seeing patients. I agree if research is your goal then you should attempt for an MD school known for research. Most pre-meds, med students, residents, and attending's have no interest in research at all. For docs in the real world the MD/DO thing doesn't have any significance at all. Neither does ACGME vs AOA residency.

Let's not generalize a few academics here on SDN as the norm. Plenty of academics likely are incredibly approachable and do not think they are the right hand of god.
But generally it is true, clinically there is little difference and most will be fine with either or.

Originally Posted by MaxillofacialMN

Dentists need better dexterity than most surgeons, i promise.

doubt it....

Originally Posted by serenade

Do not misconstrue what I say, I said they are similar enough until year 3 when there is a major distinction in the didactic education.

I mean.... I didn't....

Originally Posted by serenade

Well many schools do have med and dental schools taught by one teacher and at one time. They just really branch off from year 3.

Unless you can find me a dental school that doesn't start working with hand-pieces until year three.....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

doubt it....

Why? (i feel like a broken record)

Dentists ONLY deal with small, manually difficult tasks.