- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
I realize this may be a tired argument, but as a pre-med, it's one that I would like a little clarification on. Here is what I know:
1.) Most everyone I talk to says there is virtually no difference between a D.O. and an M.D. in terms of job prospects, respect amongst colleagues and so on. If this is the case, why are the admission standards lower for a D.O. school?
2.) One D.O. I spoke with admitted that, besides the obvious emphasis on the musculoskeletal system, the osteopathic curriculum was comprised of the same material as the allopathic curriculum with a bit of pseudo-science thrown in, of which the student could take or leave.
3.) I've heard that another area where osteopathy and allopathy diverge is in their general approach to the patient; D.O.s take the entire health of the patient into consideration rather than "just treating the symptoms" as it is assumed M.D.s do. However, shouldn't any good doctor take the entire health of the patient into consideration?
I'd appreciate any feedback from ya'll on these points. Thanks!
1.) Most everyone I talk to says there is virtually no difference between a D.O. and an M.D. in terms of job prospects, respect amongst colleagues and so on. If this is the case, why are the admission standards lower for a D.O. school?
2.) One D.O. I spoke with admitted that, besides the obvious emphasis on the musculoskeletal system, the osteopathic curriculum was comprised of the same material as the allopathic curriculum with a bit of pseudo-science thrown in, of which the student could take or leave.
3.) I've heard that another area where osteopathy and allopathy diverge is in their general approach to the patient; D.O.s take the entire health of the patient into consideration rather than "just treating the symptoms" as it is assumed M.D.s do. However, shouldn't any good doctor take the entire health of the patient into consideration?
I'd appreciate any feedback from ya'll on these points. Thanks!