How surprising that the people to lose the most power and money are against it. It's as if the opposition only had themselves in mind.
Shockingly enough the AOA dermatology residencies don't want scrutiny by the ACGME RRC which approves residency programs. I have no doubt it's bc they believe that they will be shut down for not meeting standards. That letter from their AOA DO specialty group made me laugh. Completely self-serving on their part as to their demands.
That list of reasons sounded like something the NP propaganda machine would write. I thought one reason was esp. interesting: "The osteopathic profession cannot exist if we can only produce primary care doctors." --- But wait a minute, doesn't the D.O. profession hail itself as the ones sending their students to primary care? The reasons below sound very childish if not down right selfish.
So much for the MD = DO moniker. I guess they pick and choose when they wish for it to apply.
When I hear the words, "DO Discrimination", I just stop listening at that point as it sounds ridiculous. The ACGME allowed DOs to apply to their residencies but the AOA did not reciprocate for MDs. Now that's discrimination.
If we are equal physicians under the law and we merge residencies, yes it is immoral and should be illegal to discriminate us.
According to DocEspana ( and he knows people in very high places) this is not true. Please see the thread "I agree with Devitz who insist that LCME will take over COCA" in this forum.
You don't have a RIGHT to a specific residency at a specific institution. Every program can decide which type of resident it wants and what type of pedigree it wants. This happens in the MD world too.
MD's aren't trained in OMT, duh! Oh wait I spent the last year in OMM studying for my USMLE, and passed OMM with flying colors. Its beyond ludicrous the people that represent the DO "profession". Its a circle of old waspy farts that voted themselves into self made positions so that they can feel important.
It seems like that DOs like to **** over their students at every turn, whether it's mandating a different licensing exam - rather than having a separate OMM exam and having everyone take the USMLE, or not having enough seats in their DO residencies for DO students, etc.
That's not the same. In the current climate PDs can literally press one button and weed out all DOs and FMG solely on the basis of their degree. This is equivalent to saying you can't even apply for the job. We can't force anyone to take DOs, but we can force them to not blatantly dismiss us based only on degree, and if we merge and they want MDs in our residencies, they have to give up their discrimination as well.
Straw man. I didn't say we had a right to a specific residency. We have a right to equal protection is all I said.
No, actually you don't. If a residency wishes to not consider DOs at all for their residencies, they are perfectly allowed to do that and not interview a DO. Same with not wanting to consider IMGs. Just like if a Wall Street firm only considers Ivy League graduates.
I would agree with you if we were talking about a Wall St. firm. Here we're talking about federally funded programs intended for everyone. The same rules do not apply.
They're not intended for everyone - only physicians. Just like state public universities, who can choose who they wish to fill its ranks, residency programs can also choose who they wish to fill its ranks, whether it's MD graduate, DO graduate, or an IMG.
I'm not saying you can't have choice on what candidates you take. They do that with universities. What I'm saying is you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate on an entire degree population if things are federally funded AND we do the merger. We can disagree. That's not an issue.
The merger only insures that you are free to apply. It doesn't insure that your application will be looked at. Favoring a certain type of applicant is not "discrimination", and by labeling it so, downplays real incidences of discrimination.
Not when many DO residencies esp. in many of the competitive specialties such as ENT, Ortho, Derm, Rads, etc. have actively "discriminated" against MDs. The DO degree is itself individual merit. Many PDs believe (probably rightfully so) that DO graduates are less qualified bc of their inability to get into an allopathic med school, as demonstrated by lower average GPAs and MCAT scores.
I don't think it downplays anything. Just because one type of discrimination is more egregious (racism), it doesn't mean another lesser type (degree) is not a cause to take.
I don't know if you have heard of a test called the USMLE. It kind of matters a lot for residency and only an idiot would care about how you did in O.Chem when you have USMLE grades on the table.
Racism is an immutable characteristic that you have no choice in. How you equate this to a degree choice is beyond me.
An exam that most DOs don't take, bc their school mandates they take the COMLEX.
It's an example to create an analogy. It doesn't need to be perfect to understand the point. Twisting it like you do is disingenuous. As a minority myself who has both seen racism toward his family and experienced it myself at times, I don't take these things lightly.
Which is why I don't have a problem with today's discrimination. If we move to a merger and one single exam, this story changes.
Yes, and it's a bad analogy on your part. You obviously took it lightly if you have the gall to compare the two to any degree.
Except right now the discrimination is only on your side with DO residencies not allowing MDs to participate in the AOA match, while DOs can participate in both matches.
Your USMLE score is not your entire application and all-encompassing of your medical school experience. Any PD knows this quite well.
So you don't think there's any single scenario when a DO can have a stronger application than MD and that person get discriminated on degree? I mean, there are literally programs that say "DO must attain >250 to apply. US MD must have >220," so lets not pretend the problem doesn't happen with USMLE alone.
And that's why I support an ending to the discrimination by going forward with the merger and having 1 licensing exam. I'm not excusing what other DOs are doing.
Yup and that's bc of the quality of MS-3 clerkship experiences by DO students.
Then we have nothing more to talk about because you're clearly just biased.
No bc a test score is not your entire medical education. It's one part of the puzzle. Also your 200 hours of OMM are not used in AOA Dermatology.
Yeah, try to compare apples to oranges. Compare MSUCOM/OSUCOM to University of Michigan or Case Western. MD residencies compare allopathic schools to eachother as well.
FEDERAL MONEY. Why is that so hard to understand?
