DO title voting page.

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

Originally Posted by bala565

First of all, if you read my posts, you'll see that I'm 100% against MD/DO or any combination or any change to my DO degree and I'm willing to fight it on SDN and in court any day.

The problem with the DPNs introducing themselves as Dr. is that there is an element of deception where the patient may think s/he is physician therefore, invalidating the informed consent (the burden is on the practitioner to make sure the consent is truly an informed consent). On the other hand, if there was a change and the degree became MD/DO vs DO, there is no difference in level of care as far as the US law is concerned (MDs can argue MDs provide better care and DOs can argue DOs provide better care until they are blue in the face, but the law is clear DO = MD+OMM). Therefore, the informed consent is not violated.

I know ur against it lol.

and the informed consent thing is a valid point. What I was mostly getting at is only that i think the motivating factors for this are suspect. It strikes me as substanceless re-branding and I think it is a little ridiculous. It would be like going into OB/Gyn and calling myself a gynecological surgeon just because there is an over-representation of procedures as compared to other clinical specialists. The implication is that 2 doctorate degrees were earned and that really isnt true. OMM is not a doctorate in and of itself which is why i said i didnt have an issue with moving to an MD/DO degree if it is understood that the DO portion is similar in impact to a distinction tract or "focus".

Also, the problem with medical degree is that the initials for the degree and license are the same. The solution (if one assumes that there is a problem to begin with which I personally don't), is to change the LICENSE initials to some random letters (e.g. XYZ) such that XYZ meant physician for everyone regardless of DEGREE. For instance, licensed engineers get PEs regardless of what type of engineer they are or which degree they got (BS vs MS vs PhD).



What is this "pay to play" stuff you have mentioned multiple times now and I keep hearing on SDN.... I went to a DO school, had a great education and was very satisfied with my experience while being in a environment that not everything was a competition like some other schools. So, I'm not sure what you are referring to but I'm sure you'll explain!

DO schools cost substantially more than MD schools in the vast majority of cases.

Given the option (almost) everyone wants to go to Hopkins and Harvard. But not everyone does. Following your logic I can argue that your school was a backup for you and therefore your abilities are not the same as someone who went to Hopkins (I don't know you, it may be true, it may be false). However, the only thing we can deduce is that your MCAT taking abilities are not up to par with someone who went to Hopkins. Whether or not that translates into you (or people with your score) becoming a good physician or not can't be deduced from MCAT scores.

What you are missing is that there is a score at which point a higher score doesn't necessarily translate into higher success rates or higher intellectual abilities for the purposes of becoming a physician (i.e. there is a plateau in the graph). None of us know for a fact what that magic number is. You can argue 35 and I can argue 20. What we know for sure is that a 45 is good enough to be a physician and a 3 is not. Anything else is speculations.

ive made this exact same argument in antoher thread we were in on. I do believe that the more highly selective schools have on average a more successful student. I think the students at hopkins or northwestern on average have a higher ability than the students at my school. That doesn't mean that every one of them is smarter than every one of us, and since we are talking about a collective of bodies and not a pure continuum it follows that there will very likely be students in a lower tier group which are more able than those in a higher tier group. The difference in mcat between MD and DO is about 5 on average? If we accept MCAT's predictive value with error, and also acknowledge the range around the ~25 and ~30 needed for DO and MD respectively it is likely that a significant portion of the students overlap. This is why I am comfortable applying this logic widely because I understand that I am subject to it as well when I compare myself against students in the oober top schools.

And this is why i didnt want to use the word "backup", because my school was my first pick for me. I would have loved to go to hopkins but it wasnt in the cards. I dont feel like my school is a backup and neither should you or anyone regardless of school - and if you do then you dun messed up. That said, most of us stacked up our resumes, took a good look at them, and then shot our applications out where we thought we had the best chance of getting in.

Think about it like an odds ratio from a cohort study. There are plenty of exposures which will increase or decrease OR by whatever levels... Just because I have said exposure does not mean that I will have the outcome. There is an OR related to MCAT score as far as success in school goes, and this is indicated in the correlative studies between MCAT and boards and also the links i posted (which I will defend in a minute)

I put a couple words in bold up there. "good" - this is an absolute term. Nobody has suggested or even implied that any current DO student will not make a "good" doctor. The only possible implication that has been made is that increases in MCAT can make one "better", but this does not make anyone below that mark un-"good". and "necessarily" -you are right, it doesnt necessarily predict ability. That is an almost direct paraphrase of what I have been saying about it being a predictor of ability vs an absolute scale. using the word "necessarily" like you did is a qualifier which only indicates a set of exceptions to the rule, but does not negate it. if, instead, what you meant to say was "the MCAT does not predict ability" that is different. "necessarily" means that there is some truth to it but we cannot make specific conclusions from it. it's like a bad p-value

the underlined thing I agree with and I am not sure what I said to make you think I dont. This is exactly what I have been getting at. as I said here and in other threads, "better" and "worse" do not equal "good" and "bad". relative vs absolute terminology.... more of this happens here where you say

Let me give you an example which will hopefully illustrate this: Let's say we are hiring janitors; I would argue that anyone with a IQ of 85 or higher is smart enough to be a janitor. Now if your IQ is 85 vs 100 vs 125 vs 180, it makes no difference; You have what it takes (in the IQ department at least) to be a janitor. Same argument applies here. Now if you have data to show that there is a magic number (based on quality of care or competence to practice medicine) I'd love to see it. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

ya, nobody is arguing that nor was anything to the contrary even so much as suggested. if you recall, much of what we are talking about is in response only to the absurdity of the "we have to do more" statement. It comes up in any comparison. PA is one w the courses vs time artument, had a chiropractor tell me that they do more neuro than med students do.... basically I just don't want to be told by someone that I have consistently outscored that they have to do something harder or more challenging or requiring of higher ability. that's ridiculous. Other such comparisons are just skewed data... vet or dental school harder to get into than med? well.... there is a supply and demand thing going on there if true at all, by the simple fact that raw scores (just GPA, although awhile back I saw plenty of anecdotal evidence of people with lower MCATs going back and destroying the DAT to pursue a different career) are higher among medial applicants. i.e. while the average dental student might face more competition, the scores of the average medical applicant are well above the average dental applicant and therefore ease of entry is being dumbed down to simple #accepted/#applied or something to that effect. The point being - lots and lots of statements get made which have implications that are exaggerated at best. The DO = MD+ thing is one of them.

What are you talking about? The AAMC data ONLY includes academic reasons while the AACOM data includes Withdrawals and Leave of absences in addition to dismissals. All three could be due to non-academic reasons and the first two are almost always due to non-academic reasons, which AAMC data doesn't reflect. Also leave of absences are NOT necessarily permanent and those people may come back.

Non-academic reasons: Professionalism, Death, Serious accident/injury/disability, Change your mind about medical school, Family needs, etc.

Let's keep the discussion objective. You can't compare apples and oranges. AACOM data and AAMC data are not comparable as they report different things. Comparing those two figures is no different than comparing two random numbers and then drawing conclusions regarding such comparison. Neither you nor I have any idea what the attrition rate only due to academic reasons are at DO schools. However, I can tell you that at my school (n=1), there is usually 0-2 dismissals due to academic reasons out of a class of 120+ (all 4 yrs) which boils down to 1% (all 4 yrs). So, this part of your post is misleading at best.

These studies arent perfect, but they arent as vastly different as you believe. The AAMC study gives academic reasons only so we have those numbers. 1.5% by year 4 or ~0.375% per year. Im also not sure if these numbers are MD only or MD+DO, because the AAMC publishes MCAT numbers for both groups.

But if we look at the AACOM data and apply a little common sense....
Non academic reasons for withdrawl or leave of absense - death, illness, whatever....


The trend goes from ~3% to ~2% to 1% and then back up to 2% pretty regularly for all of the years sampled across the entire country. Unless you are suggesting that there is a statistically significant decrease in illness, family deaths, uh..... bank robberies? for 3rd year DO students as compared to other years, the trend is very likely to be academic. The published numbers for dismissal vs other show about even spread at 1.5% each, and these numbers are weighted towards the first two years. your argument is to basically treat those numbers as not having any academic component but id argue that leaves of absence can have academic motivators just as they can also not. Dismissal often has academic reasons. Withdrawl isnt necessarily (theres that word again....) different than drop-out.

But the point is - there is no reason that I can think of other than academics to yield such a reproducible pattern. As I said, the alternative is that you claim a nearly 200% increase in the chance of "Professionalism, Death, Serious accident/injury/disability, Change your mind about medical school, Family needs, etc." in MS1 year vs MS3, and I would suggest that these non-academic reasons have no reason not to be evenly distributed across the years. ergo the trends are academic in nature. its an assumption.... but I am fairly comfortable with it

To compare DO attrition rate of (<10% over 4 years) with carib attrition rate of ~50% over 4 years is just absurd. Also, I would restate that based on your data we don't know the REAL attrition rate at US MD schools.

Now since your assumption is incorrect, I'm not going to address the rest of your post which was based on that assumption.

and again I think you tend to react strongly to examples of extreme. IF MCAT predicts success to even a minute degree, then the carib attrition rates, DO attrition rates, and MD attrition rates are all just a statistical probability based on that prediction.

Not that I really give two flying craps, specifically in the fact that there are more important things than this, like keeping residency options open for graduates and removing cranial omm from the curriculum,

But, Bala, are there any really any negatives associated with the degree change? Other than the issue of false pride in a non-existent difference?

Originally Posted by TeeHeHe

You are acting as if this is not a real or important issue. The fact is that the vast majority of the public doesn't even understand the role of a D.O., and the name itself is a misnomer. The proposed name change to MD/DO or MD,DO would keep the unique identity of osteopathic physicians intact while more accurately reflecting the role of the DO as a medical doctor.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I can certainly see that there are some good arguments in favor of it, and that its a topic worthy of some discussion.

I'd rather take 30 seconds to explain there are 2 medical degrees then be questioned of why I went to medical school twice. I rarely get asked what a DO is and have never seen my residents or attendings be questioned. You need real world experience before you make such a blanket statement.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Don't be disingenuous here. The majority of people pushing for "MD, DO" are using it as a compromise to appease those that simply want "DO." I bet you the large majority of them won't even care to add the "DO" in their credentials if the name changes. Either way, the degree is supposed to read "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy," so it's not even double doctorate or something people that go to allopathic schools can't earn.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

"but our findings show Low SES students are more likely to leave medical school in the first two years of enrollment, regardless of MCAT score"

Okay, thanks for disproving yourself.

I prefer hashing this out with Bala.... that guy makes me think. you.... you just repeat a word I used previously a few times like its a shiny new toy...

You completely misread that data. The statement on Low SES students says that either high or low MCAT, they are likely to leave medical school. However within low SES, those with low MCAT are EVEN more likely to leave(its on the first page... 1.6% vs 2.9%)


And for that matter, in a discussion on MCAT, who gives a crap about lower SES students? The numbers show an increased attrition rate with lower MCAT scores. The convoluting factor is that lower SES may be prone to lower mcat scores in the first place so we need a sub-analysis. Because the trends hold true in gross analysis, and also within sub analysis, the results are valid. The paper was focused on SES rather than MCAT, so this is why they comment on the SES of the students vs scores, but that doesnt mean data cant be re-purposed. For all intents and purposes we can use either SES or MCAT as a variable control here. Their results say that a higher MCAT and higher SES both independently and inversely correlate with attrition rates.


in fact, if you look at all 3 orgnaizations in table 1, there is something else interesting that happens. The primary concern in the paper was that med school demographics were increasingly shifted towards higher SES students. The total averages most closely match higher mcat and higher ses sub-analyses within groups suggesting their concern is valid and med school demographic consists of primarily high ses and higher MCAT students (for mcat look at the 2 other comparisons. of all students involved there were only 15672 <27 vs 46328 >28. low SES comprised 9k compared to 37k high ses total)

Finally... within the 28+ group, the low SES students had a LOWER attrition rate than even the high SES <28 group. and these are MATRICULANTS! we cant even talk about grossly skewed numbers by guys getting 13s because of the negligible numbers of matriculants there.

So yes... disproved myself

How about instead of MD/DO (which IS a double doctorate.... don't care what you say)
we go MD-O?

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

DO schools cost substantially more than MD schools in the vast majority of cases.

Private DO schools are comparable to private MD schools in cost and public DO schools are comparable to public MD schools in cost and given that the salary is essentially equal for DO and MD, I still don't see where the high cost that you refer to comes from?

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Think about it like an odds ratio from a cohort study. There are plenty of exposures which will increase or decrease OR by whatever levels... Just because I have said exposure does not mean that I will have the outcome. There is an OR related to MCAT score as far as success in school goes, and this is indicated in the correlative studies between MCAT and boards and also the links i posted (which I will defend in a minute)

I put a couple words in bold up there. "good" - this is an absolute term. Nobody has suggested or even implied that any current DO student will not make a "good" doctor. The only possible implication that has been made is that increases in MCAT can make one "better", but this does not make anyone below that mark un-"good". and "necessarily" -you are right, it doesnt necessarily predict ability. That is an almost direct paraphrase of what I have been saying about it being a predictor of ability vs an absolute scale. using the word "necessarily" like you did is a qualifier which only indicates a set of exceptions to the rule, but does not negate it. if, instead, what you meant to say was "the MCAT does not predict ability" that is different. "necessarily" means that there is some truth to it but we cannot make specific conclusions from it. it's like a bad p-value

the underlined thing I agree with and I am not sure what I said to make you think I dont. This is exactly what I have been getting at. as I said here and in other threads, "better" and "worse" do not equal "good" and "bad". relative vs absolute terminology.... more of this happens here where you say


ya, nobody is arguing that nor was anything to the contrary even so much as suggested. if you recall, much of what we are talking about is in response only to the absurdity of the "we have to do more" statement. It comes up in any comparison. PA is one w the courses vs time artument, had a chiropractor tell me that they do more neuro than med students do.... basically I just don't want to be told by someone that I have consistently outscored that they have to do something harder or more challenging or requiring of higher ability. that's ridiculous. Other such comparisons are just skewed data... vet or dental school harder to get into than med? well.... there is a supply and demand thing going on there if true at all, by the simple fact that raw scores (just GPA, although awhile back I saw plenty of anecdotal evidence of people with lower MCATs going back and destroying the DAT to pursue a different career) are higher among medial applicants. i.e. while the average dental student might face more competition, the scores of the average medical applicant are well above the average dental applicant and therefore ease of entry is being dumbed down to simple #accepted/#applied or something to that effect. The point being - lots and lots of statements get made which have implications that are exaggerated at best. The DO = MD+ thing is one of them.

Nobody is telling you DO is better/harder or learns/does more than MD. If anyone has said that to you, they are ignorant and please ignore them. DO is what it is... It's medical degree with distinct philosophy and historical origin (doesn't mean better or worst)... Also you scoring higher on a standardized test, tells me nothing about your knowledge, clinical ability, intelligence or aptitude to become a physician (you may be superior or inferior in all those areas; I don't know). All it tells me is that you score higher on standardized tests or at least ONE standardized test.

And yes there is a correlation between MCAT and boards but ALL studies have indicated that there is absolutely NO correlation between MCAT/boards and the competence to practice medicine. Therefore, pointless. All that says is that people who do good on standardized tests continue to do good on standardized test. This gets back to our Step 1 discussion in the other thread and about how it should be P/F.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

But the point is - there is no reason that I can think of other than academics to yield such a reproducible pattern. As I said, the alternative is that you claim a nearly 200% increase in the chance of "Professionalism, Death, Serious accident/injury/disability, Change your mind about medical school, Family needs, etc." in MS1 year vs MS3, and I would suggest that these non-academic reasons have no reason not to be evenly distributed across the years. ergo the trends are academic in nature. its an assumption.... but I am fairly comfortable with it

Of course non-academic reasons drop between years 1 and 3... It is very unlikely that a 3rd year student changes their mind about medical school (especially given the debt load) while a 1st year has a much higher chance. Same thing with family needs and hardships.... It is much more likely for a 3rd year student to be able to manage hardships (there is light at the end of the tunnel) vs a 1st year...

Again using my school (n=1) and my class specifically, we've had ZERO dismisals for academic reasons, 2 withdrawals, 1 dismissal for professionalism, 1 leave of absence and 1 death. So on AACOM data my class lost 5/125ish (4%) while if we use AAMC data it would be 0/125ish (0%).

I'm not saying that people don't get dismissed for academic reasons, what I'm saying is that you can not objectively compare the data from the two sources because they measure different things.

Also to quote your own document from AAMC, "Medical school attrition is low (usually below 3% annually)" which is very close to the DO attrition rates.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

How about instead of MD/DO (which IS a double doctorate.... don't care what you say)
we go MD-O?

How about DO?

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I'd rather take 30 seconds to explain there are 2 medical degrees then be questioned of why I went to medical school twice. I rarely get asked what a DO is and have never seen my residents or attendings be questioned. You need real world experience before you make such a blanket statement.

These are USUALLY people in preclinical years (i.e. have no clue besides what they read on SDN) or people in the bottom of their class who think somehow the letters will help them compensate for their shortcomings.

Originally Posted by serenade

Not that I really give two flying craps, specifically in the fact that there are more important things than this, like keeping residency options open for graduates and removing cranial omm from the curriculum,

But, Bala, are there any really any negatives associated with the degree change? Other than the issue of false pride in a non-existent difference?

First of all no one is talking about DEGREE; people are talking about LICENSE or more correctly they want a degree so they can get licensed as such so they can advertise themselves as such (the degree doesn't allow you to advertise yourself as anything)....

The issue is that these arguments are childish....

As I said previously, this poll is like asking me would I rather have DO, MD, PhD, JD, DDS, DVM, MBA, MPH after my name after 4 years instead of just a DO? Obviously the answer to that is yes! but when you think about it logically then you see how ridiculous the idea is... This is assuming that all we need to change the degree/license is a Facebook/SDN poll and a AOA resolution and then everyone (specifically AMA) will rollover and do what we ask.... The things that we have to give up as a profession for this to occur is not worth it.... (go read about the California experiment of the 60s)...

What I don't understand is why would you go to a DO school and then come here asking for a degree change.... All of you knew exactly what degree/license you were getting when you signed up for it.... Stop complaining and try to be the best d*** osteopathic physician that you can be.... That's 1000 times more recognition than any MD can get you....

This whole argument is extremely disrespectful to the DOs who fought so dearly with their careers over the past 100+ years, so we can now have equal rights in this country and many countries around the world....

You don't want to be a DO don't go to DO school.... It's very simple....

There are some good points being brought up, on both sides. Just wanted to re-post the link since we have lapped into the second page. Please vote. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

Originally Posted by Tissot

There are some good points being brought up, on both sides. Just wanted to re-post the link since we have lapped into the second page. Please vote. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

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 bala565

Private DO schools are comparable to private MD schools in cost and public DO schools are comparable to public MD schools in cost and given that the salary is essentially equal for DO and MD, I still don't see where the high cost that you refer to comes from?



Nobody is telling you DO is better/harder or learns/does more than MD. If anyone has said that to you, they are ignorant and please ignore them. DO is what it is... It's medical degree with distinct philosophy and historical origin (doesn't mean better or worst)... Also you scoring higher on a standardized test, tells me nothing about your knowledge, clinical ability, intelligence or aptitude to become a physician (you may be superior or inferior in all those areas; I don't know). All it tells me is that you score higher on standardized tests or at least ONE standardized test.

ud be surprised. nobody in here is saying it, but that is why i prefaced the argument with other instances. just like nobody is saying that DOs are worse than MDs

And yes there is a correlation between MCAT and boards but ALL studies have indicated that there is absolutely NO correlation between MCAT/boards and the competence to practice medicine. Therefore, pointless. All that says is that people who do good on standardized tests continue to do good on standardized test. This gets back to our Step 1 discussion in the other thread and about how it should be P/F.




Of course non-academic reasons drop between years 1 and 3... It is very unlikely that a 3rd year student changes their mind about medical school (especially given the debt load) while a 1st year has a much higher chance. Same thing with family needs and hardships.... It is much more likely for a 3rd year student to be able to manage hardships (there is light at the end of the tunnel) vs a 1st year...

Sources, please.... I am not aware of studies which look at error rates vs board scores. I feel like what you mean to say is that no evidence exists to correlate the two in any fashion.

Again using my school (n=1) and my class specifically, we've had ZERO dismisals for academic reasons, 2 withdrawals, 1 dismissal for professionalism, 1 leave of absence and 1 death. So on AACOM data my class lost 5/125ish (4%) while if we use AAMC data it would be 0/125ish (0%).

I'm not saying that people don't get dismissed for academic reasons, what I'm saying is that you can not objectively compare the data from the two sources because they measure different things.

Also to quote your own document from AAMC, "Medical school attrition is low (usually below 3% annually)" which is very close to the DO attrition rates.



How about DO?

well yeah duh lol that was mostly for the sake of argument. The issue with the MD/DO thing is the adoption of a title that is separate and that you didnt earn. Functional equivalence doesnt make them interchangeable. For this reason I cannot tag on MD/PA/RN/BSN/NP even though there will not be anything within the skill set of these other titles that is not already included in MD or DO.

I'm kind of curious how relevant any of this is. can the AOA just snap their fingers and adopt the title? I really have no idea here... is MD as a title owned by allopathic accreditation boards?

Originally Posted by bala565

The problem with the DPNs introducing themselves as Dr. without further qualifications is that there is an element of deception where the patient may think s/he is physician (i.e. higher level of care) (same as someone with a PhD in physics introducing him/her self as Dr. in a healthcare setting without further qualifications). Therefore, invalidating the informed consent (the burden is on the practitioner to make sure the consent is truly an informed consent).

I think that SpecterGT260 makes an excellent point. You are arguing about DNP's deceiving patients, but how is that any different from a DO introducing him or herself as doctor? In the United States doctor infers MD to the vast majority of the public. Saying that they both equal physician in the eyes of the law is irrelevant. If you were really so worried about informing the patient, you could introduce yourself as an osteopathic doctor or an osteopathic physician.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I'm kind of curious how relevant any of this is. can the AOA just snap their fingers and adopt the title? I really have no idea here... is MD as a title owned by allopathic accreditation boards?

The AOA can change the name of their degree to whatever they want but no one can advertise themselves as a MD or DO without being licensed as such irrespective of their degree.

The MD title (or the DO title) is owned by each state's medical licensing board. For this to occur, every single state has to change their law stating that COCA-accredited schools are eligible for MD licensure... AMA will fight this until death.... Therefore, it will never happen and this is just bunch of disgruntled DO students who think writing MD after their name gives them any special status/prestige.... What they fail to understand, is that patients go to doctors based on word of mouth not based on letters after their names...

Originally Posted by rad0nc

I think that SpecterGT260 makes an excellent point. You are arguing about DNP's deceiving patients, but how is that any different from a DO introducing him or herself as doctor? In the United States doctor infers MD to the vast majority of the public. Saying that they both equal physician in the eyes of the law is irrelevant. If you were really so worried about informing the patient, you could introduce yourself as an osteopathic doctor or an osteopathic physician.

Seriously?

The difference is that in a clinical setting when the patient hears "doctor" they assume "physician." MD, DO, both physicians. End of story.

Still though, most of this jibber-jabber isn't that important. Study?

Originally Posted by rad0nc

I think that SpecterGT260 makes an excellent point. You are arguing about DNP's deceiving patients, but how is that any different from a DO introducing him or herself as doctor? In the United States doctor infers MD to the vast majority of the public. Saying that they both equal physician in the eyes of the law is irrelevant. If you were really so worried about informing the patient, you could introduce yourself as an osteopathic doctor or an osteopathic physician.

When a patient goes to see a physician they go to see a person with a license level equivalent to that of a physician as determined by their state of residence. MDs and DOs are both considered physicians in all 50 states.

BTW, I have no problem with introducing myself as an osteopathic physician as long as MDs introduce themselves as allopathic physicians. Because the term physician is not exclusive to either degree.

Originally Posted by rad0nc

I think that SpecterGT260 makes an excellent point. You are arguing about DNP's deceiving patients, but how is that any different from a DO introducing him or herself as doctor? In the United States doctor infers MD to the vast majority of the public. Saying that they both equal physician in the eyes of the law is irrelevant. If you were really so worried about informing the patient, you could introduce yourself as an osteopathic doctor or an osteopathic physician.

oh dude.... either you are brilliant and wanted to undermine my point or you need to go do some real reading....

Originally Posted by bala565

When a patient goes to see a physician they go to see a person with a license level equivalent to that of a physician as determined by their state of residence. MDs and DOs are both considered physicians in all 50 states.

BTW, I have no problem with introducing myself as osteopathic physician as long as MDs introduce themselves as allopathic physician. Because the term physician is not exclusive to either degree.

this is true. This is what i mentioned in the DNP thread. if we lose the battle over "doctor" then MD and DO alike may have to bite the bullet and change to "physician" because a DNP cannot claim that title under any circumstances

Originally Posted by bala565

The AOA can change the name of their degree to whatever they want but no one can advertise themselves as a MD or DO without being licensed as such irrespective of their degree.

The MD title (or the DO title) is owned by each state's medical licensing board. For this to occur, every single state has to change their law stating that COCA-accredited schools are eligible for MD licensure... AMA will fight this until death.... Therefore, it will never happen and this is just bunch of disgruntled DO students who think writing MD after their name gives them any special status/prestige.... What they fail to understand, is that patients go to doctors based on word of mouth not based on letters after their names...

largely yes. but there are still some people who distrust DOs due to lack of familiarity or whatever. I still think the "clarification" argument here is sketchy at best, so yes, disgruntled bitching lol

This is stupid.

If you want public awareness of DOs, then AOA needs to spend some money and hire a decent ad agency.

If you want MDs to incorporate OMM techniques, then you need to publish good objective research that demonstrates the fact that OMM is a good adjunctive therapy.

Case closed. Move on to something that actually matters.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I prefer hashing this out with Bala.... that guy makes me think.

Then don't respond to me? LOL

you.... you just repeat a word I used previously a few times like its a shiny new toy...

LOL talk about being a sad, sad person. I didn't even realize you used it first. You act like the word somehow is unique to you or something. I don't think it would even be a challenging or unique word for a 4th grade spelling bee competition, but hey, feel entitled over nothing. What next? I used the word, word? LOL

You completely misread that data. The statement on Low SES students says that either high or low MCAT, they are likely to leave medical school. However within low SES, those with low MCAT are EVEN more likely to leave(its on the first page... 1.6% vs 2.9%)

LOL you're the one that misread the data. When the authors point MCAT not being the reason, it's more likely that they understand their data than do you. It doesn't matter if its 1.6% vs 2.9% since these are not significant enough. If you use High SES, it's as if you take 100 students and those with <27 will lose 2 as opposed to 1 with >27. Wow, you might just get 99 students instead of 98, lol.Not that huge of a deal at the end. Sure, MCAT performance matters to a point (no brainer there), but it's barely significant and absolute in comparison to any other reason you put out there.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

who gives a crap about lower SES students?

Apparently the authors of what you posted do and should anyone that actually wants to solve a bigger problem in terms of attrition rate.

So yes... disproved myself

Yes, indeed you did. Not statistically significant results = disproved yourself. Come back and play when you can understand simple numbers and statistics.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

largely yes. but there are still some people who distrust DOs due to lack of familiarity or whatever. I still think the "clarification" argument here is sketchy at best, so yes, disgruntled bitching lol

There are also some people who prefer DOs.... The numbers are probably equal to the ones who distrust them.... I don't have any data, do you?

But agree with the second part!

very exhausting to read this, what are people arguing about? M.D.'s don't prescribe arsenic anymore and D.O's don't have a premium on "hollistic medicine" and not just treating the symptoms. you'd be hard pressed to find an MD that treats symptoms while ignoring the cause. hell you'll prob find a DO here and there that's a pill pusher as well.

at the end of the day, MD or DO, you still are in a position to pursue your dream so who cares what people call you? anyone who wants to pretend that osteopathic medicine actually means anything different in modern medicine is free to do so, but I (all of us, I'm sure) learn from the same books, study the same subjects, as our MD counterparts, with a side dish of OMM which we are free to completely abandon if we chose to do so. We have got to get over this inferiority complex.

In a perfect world we'd all be MDs and none of this would matter, but the AOA is never going to let that happen so we can just quit beating this dead horse (for now, until the next hot shot decides to make a facebook poll as if it's going to do anything.) Since nothing is going to change, just suck it up and put that energy into something that matters, like bettering yourself and working harder to set the standard.

Originally Posted by River Rat

In a perfect world we'd all be MDs and none of this would matter, but the AOA is never going to let that happen so we can just quit beating this dead horse (for now, until the next hot shot decides to make a facebook poll as if it's going to do anything.) Since nothing is going to change, just suck it up and put that energy into something that matters, like bettering yourself and working harder to set the standard.

Also, it's not just AOA; AMA will not allow it either without compromise from DOs.... otherwise I agree with the bolded part!

Originally Posted by bala565

First of all no one is talking about DEGREE; people are talking about LICENSE or more correctly they want a degree so they can get licensed as such so they can advertise themselves as such (the degree doesn't allow you to advertise yourself as anything)....

The issue is that these arguments are childish....

As I said previously, this poll is like asking me would I rather have DO, MD, PhD, JD, DDS, DVM, MBA, MPH after my name after 4 years instead of just a DO? Obviously the answer to that is yes! but when you think about it logically then you see how ridiculous the idea is... This is assuming that all we need to change the degree/license is a Facebook/SDN poll and a AOA resolution and then everyone (specifically AMA) will rollover and do what we ask.... The things that we have to give up as a profession for this to occur is not worth it.... (go read about the California experiment of the 60s)...

What I don't understand is why would you go to a DO school and then come here asking for a degree change.... All of you knew exactly what degree/license you were getting when you signed up for it.... Stop complaining and try to be the best d*** osteopathic physician that you can be.... That's 1000 times more recognition than any MD can get you....

This whole argument is extremely disrespectful to the DOs who fought so dearly with their careers over the past 100+ years, so we can now have equal rights in this country and many countries around the world....

You don't want to be a DO don't go to DO school.... It's very simple....

Except most DO's now went to DO school because they want to be a doctor not a DO. As the reality is that, you're not becoming a diplomate of osteopathy, you're becoming a doctor of modern medicine. To compare it to the difference between a DO and a DDS is asinine, as there is no significant applicable difference.
Point being is that you have strong pride in the DO philosophy, a strong believe that it is different than a MD, but honestly, don't expect many people to share a similar opinion.
Our goal is to be a doctor, not to be an osteopathic physician, whatever that even means in this day and time.

In the end, this push for MD/DO will continue to grow as the MD route becomes more and more competitive and many Pre-MD's with not quite strong stats go on to become DOs.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

My position - the degree thing is absurd. DO is not an MD+ degree as has been implied in other instances. I don't say this to bash on DO's or imply that practicing DOs are somehow the retarded younger cousin of MD's (I reserve that for PA's and will change that once they hit a positive/negative outcome ration >1 in my own personal anecdotal experience). If I were in a DO school (and I did apply to a few, so please don't mistake my pragmatism for DO hating) I would see the motion as disingenuous and insulting. Two separate but functionally equal degrees do not need "re-branding". To do so strikes me as a compensatory or defense mechanism by people who are reacting to insecurities.

?

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Specter, I don't think most DO's think that it's MD+, but it's true that you do receive the same education and OMT on top of it. Is that not true? Are DO's not in the same residencies as many MD's? Is that because they aren't trained equivalently? I don't think OMT makes the DO an MD+, but your argument is also a bit disingenuous too.

I don't think DO's have an "inferiority complex" as a reason to want to re-brand to MD. It's simply because it's a matter of being practical and not wanting to deal with the BS associated to having an alternative degree. Even you admit to being practical about what degree to get. Why do others have to have an inferiority complex and you be labelled practical for the exact same thing? I bet you right now if they changed the new doctor letters for XYZ and it meant not having to deal with BS, even the MD students would want re-branding for practical reasons.

And yes, go ahead and become MD, DO too. Matters nothing to me and probably anyone else.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Don't be disingenuous here. The majority of people pushing for "MD, DO" are using it as a compromise to appease those that simply want "DO." I bet you the large majority of them won't even care to add the "DO" in their credentials if the name changes. Either way, the degree is supposed to read "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy," so it's not even double doctorate or something people that go to allopathic schools can't earn.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Then don't respond to me? LOL


LOL talk about being a sad, sad person. I didn't even realize you used it first. You act like the word somehow is unique to you or something. I don't think it would even be a challenging or unique word for a 4th grade spelling bee competition, but hey, feel entitled over nothing. What next? I used the word, word? LOL

oh mah bad brah. Looks like I'm completely mistaken here

LOL you're the one that misread the data. When the authors point MCAT not being the reason, it's more likely that they understand their data than do you. It doesn't matter if its 1.6% vs 2.9% since these are not significant enough. If you use High SES, it's as if you take 100 students and those with <27 will lose 2 as opposed to 1 with >27. Wow, you might just get 99 students instead of 98, lol.Not that huge of a deal at the end. Sure, MCAT performance matters to a point (no brainer there), but it's barely significant and absolute in comparison to any other reason you put out there.

someone else help me out here.... you read 1 single sentence of the article they NEVER said the numbers were not significant. By that reasoning the numbers about low SES would also be insignificant.

The authors said, that when comparing SES to attrition

Medical school attrition is low
(usually below 3% annually), but our
findings show Low SES students are
more likely to leave medical school
in the first two years of enrollment,
regardless of MCAT score (see Table
1). This is substantial since only 15
percent of medical students were Low
SES.

This simply does not mean that MCAT does not have an effect. It means that low SES has an effect independent from the effect that MCAT has. Look at the numbers given.

1.6 vs 2.5 is not significant enough thus sayeth the great TriagePreMed



however the numbers which led to the conclusion that low SES is an independent factor are 1.1 vs 1.6 for high mcat, 2.3 vs 2.9 for low mcat, and 1.3 vs 2.1 for overall

Ill help you out here a little all of those ranges are SMALLER than the range from low SES/high MCAT to Hight SES/low MCAT. Therefore LESS significant no matter how you cut it - the error for each reported value is constant no matter how you put them together.

Apparently the authors of what you posted do and should anyone that actually wants to solve a bigger problem in terms of attrition rate.


Yes, indeed you did. Not statistically significant results = disproved yourself. Come back and play when you can understand simple numbers and statistics.

and again you missed the point. im glad you're premed.....

what i asked was "who cares about SES when we are discussing MCAT. Obviously the authors cared about SES, because that is what they wrote their paper on.

you are quite clearly the one that doesnt understand statistical significance. It doesnt mean "small", it means there is a statistical probability (greater than 1 in 20 usually) that the true values are the same. EBM will often look at very small correlations that are statistically significant and make changes accordingly. Many drugs are also touted as "More powerful than ___" when the calculated difference is as low as <5% based on whatever criteria they use... however that number is still significant and therefore true. Will you feel something that works 5% better than tylenol? no. doesnt change the statistical significance

If the MCAT numbers provided are insignificant then the SES values would be more so, but since, as you claim, the authors know more about their data I guess I will concede the point. You're right. The authors know, and they drew a conclusion from the data which addressed their point and VALIDATED it by accounting for impact of mcat:

We chose the MCAT score of 28 to divide matriculants for two reasons: 1) a score of 28 is approximately the mean
score for each year’s applicant pool and 2) using the mean for matriculating students (30) significantly decreases the
number of lower SES matriculants in the group of those with high MCAT scores.

Do u see what they are getting at here? no... you dont. It was already known that low SES students get lower MCAT scores. They wanted to see how SES alone affected attrition, and in order to do that they had to account for MCAT scores because of the assumption that low mcat (as received by low SES at a higher rate than high SES) would also affect attrition.

Again... nowhere do they say that the mcat data is insignificant. What they said was that low SES students still drop out at a higher rate compared to other SES groups even when we take MCAT out of the picture. Because the MCAT data is also significant we expect to see the greatest attrition among low SES low MCAT and the lowest rate among high SES/MCAT. And we do.



I guess you have contradicted yourself again...... (im also counting the disingenuous thing)

Originally Posted by serenade

Except most DO's now went to DO school because they want to be a doctor not a DO. As the reality is that, you're not becoming a diplomate of osteopathy, you're becoming a doctor of modern medicine. To compare it to the difference between a DO and a DDS is asinine, as there is no significant applicable difference.
Point being is that you have strong pride in the DO philosophy, a strong believe that it is different than a MD, but honestly, don't expect many people to share a similar opinion.
Our goal is to be a doctor, not to be an osteopathic physician, whatever that even means in this day and time.

In the end, this push for MD/DO will continue to grow as the MD route becomes more and more competitive and many Pre-MD's with not quite strong stats go on to become DOs.

First of all, in this country, DO stands for Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine; The Diplomate stuff is for Canadian/UK-trained DOs where they are Osteopaths (non-physicians)...

I don't have any problem with anyone who goes to DO school who just wants to be a physician or just because they didn't get into MD school or whatever... I also don't expect everyone to share my passion for the profession... But now that you have entered the profession (by your free will) you are obligated to work to advance it not to s*** on the degree or change the degree that many before you spent their professional lives to get it where it is now.... Working to advance the profession is the oath every DO must take before they graduate... Part of professionalism is to adhere and execute what you said you would (e.g. in an oath).... Therefore, if you don't want to be a DO don't go to a DO school.... There are foreign MD schools who would gladly take you and give you the coveted MD degree....

Either way, such proposals will never happen (too much opposition on both sides).... So, it is in everyone's best interest to focus on becoming the best physician they possibly can become and we'll take it from there....

I'm an MD-student and I'm fine with a DO having the title 'MD,DO'

...as long as they get into an MD school, complete the curriculum, and pass all of the MD-specific licensing exams.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

oh mah bad brah. Looks like I'm completely mistaken here



someone else help me out here.... you read 1 single sentence of the article they NEVER said the numbers were not significant. By that reasoning the numbers about low SES would also be insignificant.

The authors said, that when comparing SES to attrition

This simply does not mean that MCAT does not have an effect. It means that low SES has an effect independent from the effect that MCAT has. Look at the numbers given.

1.6 vs 2.5 is not significant enough thus sayeth the great TriagePreMed



however the numbers which led to the conclusion that low SES is an independent factor are 1.1 vs 1.6 for high mcat, 2.3 vs 2.9 for low mcat, and 1.3 vs 2.1 for overall

Ill help you out here a little all of those ranges are SMALLER than the range from low SES/high MCAT to Hight SES/low MCAT. Therefore LESS significant no matter how you cut it - the error for each reported value is constant no matter how you put them together.



and again you missed the point. im glad you're premed.....

what i asked was "who cares about SES when we are discussing MCAT. Obviously the authors cared about SES, because that is what they wrote their paper on.

you are quite clearly the one that doesnt understand statistical significance. It doesnt mean "small", it means there is a statistical probability (greater than 1 in 20 usually) that the true values are the same. EBM will often look at very small correlations that are statistically significant and make changes accordingly. Many drugs are also touted as "More powerful than ___" when the calculated difference is as low as <5% based on whatever criteria they use... however that number is still significant and therefore true. Will you feel something that works 5% better than tylenol? no. doesnt change the statistical significance

If the MCAT numbers provided are insignificant then the SES values would be more so, but since, as you claim, the authors know more about their data I guess I will concede the point. You're right. The authors know, and they drew a conclusion from the data which addressed their point and VALIDATED it by accounting for impact of mcat:


Do u see what they are getting at here? no... you dont. It was already known that low SES students get lower MCAT scores. They wanted to see how SES alone affected attrition, and in order to do that they had to account for MCAT scores because of the assumption that low mcat (as received by low SES at a higher rate than high SES) would also affect attrition.

Again... nowhere do they say that the mcat data is insignificant. What they said was that low SES students still drop out at a higher rate compared to other SES groups even when we take MCAT out of the picture. Because the MCAT data is also significant we expect to see the greatest attrition among low SES low MCAT and the lowest rate among high SES/MCAT. And we do.



I guess you have contradicted yourself again...... (im also counting the disingenuous thing)

You tried and you failed. Notice how I never said that you were not right that you used the word first. I didn't even catch that I was using it multiple times. Again, my criticism is based on the fact that it isn't a special word in any way. If you think it is, I feel pretty bad for you.

Sure, call me "premed" and feel happy about it. It won't be for too long, and for all you know, I'll end up in a better place than you. When you have had to live through what I've lived the past 27 years, you come talk to me, and I can't wait for the moment you get slapped down for realizing that there are smarter people than you out there that don't necessarily need to be med students or doctors.

And there's no point in arguing things with you. You can say I read one sentence. One sentence at random right, brah? LOL. You're a pathetic excuse. Your great argument for the MCAT is a 1% difference, and you cheaply try to manipulate my point to seem like I'm arguing that MCAT has no baring whatsoever. Too bad anyone reading it will notice quite quickly my argument was that what you posted was contradicted by your own link.

Again, not statistically significant, and to pretend the authors don't mention it because their only concern was SES is cheap. Anyone who has been through a basic class would know that reporting another equally significant variable would have been done.

How disingenuous.

I'm done with you.

im open to correction.... but you have yet to offer any. show me where the authors say the mcat figures are statistically insignificant. I'm all ears

although perhaps dropping it is better... you seem incapable of following your own posts, let alone mine.

but read this please http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/ele...tics-concepts/

The statistical significance of a result is the probability that the observed relationship (e.g., between variables) or a difference (e.g., between means) in a sample occurred by pure chance ("luck of the draw"), and that in the population from which the sample was drawn, no such relationship or differences exist. Using less technical terms, we could say that the statistical significance of a result tells us something about the degree to which the result is "true" (in the sense of being "representative of the population").

More technically, the value of the p-value represents a decreasing index of the reliability of a result (see Brownlee, 1960). The higher the p-value, the less we can believe that the observed relation between variables in the sample is a reliable indicator of the relation between the respective variables in the population. Specifically, the p-value represents the probability of error that is involved in accepting our observed result as valid, that is, as "representative of the population." For example, a p-value of .05 (i.e.,1/20) indicates that there is a 5% probability that the relation between the variables found in our sample is a "fluke." In other words, assuming that in the population there was no relation between those variables whatsoever, and we were repeating experiments such as ours one after another, we could expect that approximately in every 20 replications of the experiment there would be one in which the relation between the variables in question would be equal or stronger than in ours. (Note that this is not the same as saying that, given that there IS a relationship between the variables, we can expect to replicate the results 5% of the time or 95% of the time; when there is a relationship between the variables in the population, the probability of replicating the study and finding that relationship is related to the statistical power of the design. See also, Power Analysis). In many areas of research, the p-value of .05 is customarily treated as a "border-line acceptable" error level.

your insistence that something is insignificant because of its absolute value (while concurrently citing another value of lesser magnitude as being relevant....) or that something is automatically insignificant because it didnt show up explicitly stated in the discussion.... well.... it explains the whole word repetition thing... lets just put it that way.

and yes, someone who has taken a basic class.... say..... intro to chem? bio 101? those people would report all values recorded. While this paper DID report the values, they were only interested in discussing conclusions based on their original question. This is also a shortened version of the original. When I have more time I will try to find the original with all of the p values. I'm interested in helping you here... no... really....


EDIT: I just read what i linked... I feel like that is going to be a bit beyond you.... I'll try to dig up an excerpt from Stats for Dummies

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...t-numbers.html there ya go

What about MD-O

Originally Posted by bala565

First of all, in this country, DO stands for Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine; The Diplomate stuff is for Canadian/UK-trained DOs where they are Osteopaths (non-physicians)...

I don't have any problem with anyone who goes to DO school who just wants to be a physician or just because they didn't get into MD school or whatever... I also don't expect everyone to share my passion for the profession... But now that you have entered the profession (by your free will) you are obligated to work to advance it not to s*** on the degree or change the degree that many before you spent their professional lives to get it where it is now.... Working to advance the profession is the oath every DO must take before they graduate... Part of professionalism is to adhere and execute what you said you would (e.g. in an oath).... Therefore, if you don't want to be a DO don't go to a DO school.... There are foreign MD schools who would gladly take you and give you the coveted MD degree....

Either way, such proposals will never happen (too much opposition on both sides).... So, it is in everyone's best interest to focus on becoming the best physician they possibly can become and we'll take it from there....

And that's part of the point you're missing here. My friend posted her great grandmother's DO degree that said "Doctor of Osteopathy." New generations and new people have a right to propose things and want new things. One generation proposed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" and it is so now. Then there are some people from today's generation that say "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy." It doesn't mean you are against your oath. The strict adherence you propose is what keeps people from moving into the future, and honestly, if Osteopathy can only stand because of some letters, it would have nothing of real value to it. What truly matters is the philosophy, not its name.

For those that want to see some history from 1911: http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...87297708_n.jpg

I know bala aint gunna put up with your off-beat fallacious logic either.

SpecterGT and Triage why are you guys so mean? You made your points and now if you dont have anything else relevant to the discussion maybe you should find a new post or pm each other. The rest of us, or at least me, just wanted to read a debate about DO,MD- against it, by the way, you re a phy sician with a DO,you didnt go to medical school, which is fine. My doc is a DO and he's great. Knows everything and MD knows and probably a little more about some things

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

And that's part of the point you're missing here. My friend posted her great grandmother's DO degree that said "Doctor of Osteopathy." New generations and new people have a right to propose things and want new things. One generation proposed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" and it is so now. Then there are some people from today's generation that say "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy." It doesn't mean you are against your oath. The strict adherence you propose is what keeps people from moving into the future, and honestly, if Osteopathy can only stand because of some letters, it would have nothing of real value to it. What truly matters is the philosophy, not its name.

For those that want to see some history from 1911: http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...87297708_n.jpg

Thats a cool post

Originally Posted by psychgirl2311

SpecterGT and Triage why are you guys so mean? You made your points and now if you dont have anything else relevant to the discussion maybe you should find a new post or pm each other. The rest of us, or at least me, just wanted to read a debate about DO,MD- against it, by the way, you re a phy sician with a DO,you didnt go to medical school, which is fine. My doc is a DO and he's great. Knows everything and MD knows and probably a little more about some things

I agree with what you say. I'm not responding any further.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

And that's part of the point you're missing here. My friend posted her great grandmother's DO degree that said "Doctor of Osteopathy." New generations and new people have a right to propose things and want new things. One generation proposed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" and it is so now. Then there are some people from today's generation that say "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy." It doesn't mean you are against your oath. The strict adherence you propose is what keeps people from moving into the future, and honestly, if Osteopathy can only stand because of some letters, it would have nothing of real value to it. What truly matters is the philosophy, not its name.

For those that want to see some history from 1911: http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...87297708_n.jpg

Not to simply piggyback, but this sums up my feelings exactly. The same can be said about the AOA dropping the term "osteopath" in exchange for "osteopathic physician."

Originally Posted by psychgirl2311

SpecterGT and Triage why are you guys so mean? You made your points and now if you dont have anything else relevant to the discussion maybe you should find a new post or pm each other. The rest of us, or at least me, just wanted to read a debate about DO,MD- against it, by the way, you re a phy sician with a DO,you didnt go to medical school, which is fine. My doc is a DO and he's great. Knows everything and MD knows and probably a little more about some things

I enjoy a little psychology so i find it interesting to watch someone like triage validate a position by ignoring, altering, or misrepresenting data and at the same time be completely unaware he is doing it. Similar to certain circus shows - the irony of someone who believes they are gloating down at someone who is unaware they are looking into a mirror on the floor of the hole they've dug themselves..... can't stop watching

Oh, but DO school IS medical school. you used the words physician and doc(tor) to describe your PCP, so if DO isnt medicine.... what is it?

why is that lately the threads in this forum downgrade very quickly to a pissing match?

Originally Posted by FrkyBgStok

why is that lately the threads in this forum downgrade very quickly to a pissing match?

Certain forum users that regularly post in this section employ a debate style that favors emotional, hostile responses and ad hominems over calm discussion.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I enjoy a little psychology so i find it interesting to watch someone like triage validate a position by ignoring, altering, or misrepresenting data and at the same time be completely unaware he is doing it. Similar to certain circus shows - the irony of someone who believes they are gloating down at someone who is unaware they are looking into a mirror on the floor of the hole they've dug themselves..... can't stop watching

Oh, but DO school IS medical school. you used the words physician and doc(tor) to describe your PCP, so if DO isnt medicine.... what is it?

You are very confrontational. :-/
I agree it is medical school, but people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs in my experience. When I was thinkig about psychiatry, I was told by many people to apply to med school and/or DO programs.
And I call my PCP doc, bc he has earned that title. What do you call DO programs?

Originally Posted by TeeHeHe

Certain forum users that regularly post in this section employ a debate style that favors emotional, hostile responses and ad hominems over calm discussion.

I would argue that certain forum users react emotionally to debate points which results in the actual message of the original post getting lost in emotional extension and projection

Originally Posted by psychgirl2311

You are very confrontational. :-/
I agree it is medical school, but people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs in my experience. When I was thinkig about psychiatry, I was told by many people to apply to med school and/or DO programs.
And I call my PCP doc, bc he has earned that title. What do you call DO programs?

which part? the part about triage or the part asking you to clarify what you meant by not med school? A couple emphasized words for clarity shouldnt ruffle any feathers....

Originally Posted by psychgirl2311

You are very confrontational. :-/
I agree it is medical school, but people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs in my experience. When I was thinkig about psychiatry, I was told by many people to apply to med school and/or DO programs.
And I call my PCP doc, bc he has earned that title. What do you call DO programs?

I think people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs because people commonly do not know we exist. DO programs are, however, for all intents and purposes, "medical schools." Your doc knows everything his MD counterparts do because he learned pretty much everything they did.

funny you mention, though, I've come across a few instances where people did not know that medical school was synonymous with MD/DOs and thought it was an all encompassing thing - following up if I was going to be a PA/Nurse/whatever.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I would argue that certain forum users react emotionally to debate points which results in the actual message of the original post getting lost in emotional extension and projection

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by River Rat

I think people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs because people commonly do not know we exist. DO programs are, however, for all intents and purposes, "medical schools." Your doc knows everything his MD counterparts do because he learned pretty much everything they did.

funny you mention, though, I've come across a few instances where people did not know that medical school was synonymous with MD/DOs and thought it was an all encompassing thing - following up if I was going to be a PA/Nurse/whatever.

I've seen the same thing.
"Im in medical school"
"oh... so what are you going to study?"


Cant expect people not living it to know whats up, right?

Originally Posted by River Rat

I think people commonly reserve the term medical school for MDs because people commonly do not know we exist. DO programs are, however, for all intents and purposes, "medical schools." Your doc knows everything his MD counterparts do because he learned pretty much everything they did.

funny you mention, though, I've come across a few instances where people did not know that medical school was synonymous with MD/DOs and thought it was an all encompassing thing - following up if I was going to be a PA/Nurse/whatever.

Like I said, I understand its equivalent to medical school, but it still kind of has a different name. Thats why I was seriously asking what to call it. DO=MD so med school it is

Originally Posted by psychgirl2311

Like I said, I understand its equivalent to medical school, but it still kind of has a different name. Thats why I was seriously asking what to call it. DO=MD so med school it is

The real sticklers like to call it Osteopathic Medical School, but if you're anything like me, you like to cut to the chase and avoid any possible headache/confusion.

Haha gotcha. As long as you give ne a script I can read with a valid dosage Im not going to care where your degree came from. But I will be sure to call it med school or osteopathic med school in the future.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

And that's part of the point you're missing here. My friend posted her great grandmother's DO degree that said "Doctor of Osteopathy." New generations and new people have a right to propose things and want new things. One generation proposed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" and it is so now. Then there are some people from today's generation that say "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy." It doesn't mean you are against your oath. The strict adherence you propose is what keeps people from moving into the future, and honestly, if Osteopathy can only stand because of some letters, it would have nothing of real value to it. What truly matters is the philosophy, not its name.

For those that want to see some history from 1911: http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...87297708_n.jpg

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!

Originally Posted by FrkyBgStok

why is that lately the threads in this forum downgrade very quickly to a pissing match?

Oh lerd! Amen