i read a post about the idea of a D.O. regular on ER. I agreed with many of you that it wouldn't be a good idea because what is most likely to happen is that hollywood would probably just further reinforce the misconceptions of what a D.O. is. Plus, in the ER, a D.O. most likely wouldn't use OMT very extensively, but on a very limited basis. But, I think it would be a good idea for a D.O. to show up on just one episode, where the premise is that a visiting D.O. is there in the ER and there exists a prejudice and condescending attitude to the D.O. from Dr. Weaver and Romano, who are pretty much pricks anyways on the show. Then the story could go on to enlighten those prejudiced against D.O.'s through some trauma event that occurs (always happens on the show anyway) to illustrate that D.O.'s are just as competent as M.D.'s and deserve respect as physicians. It would be hard to incorporate the OMT in it, maybe a short spot on it during the episode, but mainly to focus on the prejudice that exists towards D.O's from the ignorant...not just from some M.D.'s, but even some patients as well. What do you think?
A D.O. on ER? What do you think?
- Thread starter aecuenca
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 1999
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
i thought having a DO as a regular would be a good idea. People could learn about there being more than one type of doctor. the "prejudice" issue definitely has to be an issue, so the doctors on the show learn how competent DOs are. America will learn as well.
nirav
nirav
- Joined
- Sep 4, 1999
- Messages
- 284
- Reaction score
- 1
I think there should be a regular too, to close the (perceived)
gap b/t M.D. & D.O.
gap b/t M.D. & D.O.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 1999
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 4
Jesus, once you get into med school...you'll be hard pressed to even watch ER; or any other show for that matter. However, a DO or two on the show under the auspices of Romano and Weaver showing their asses and using that as a venue to demonstrate to the lay-people that DOs and MDs are EQUIVALENTS might not be such a bad idea. Much of the success would in turn be dependent upon Michael Crichton's [who is an MD] perspective--->afterall, he is the writer.
------------------
'Old Man Dave'
KCOM, Class of '03
------------------
'Old Man Dave'
KCOM, Class of '03
well, you're probably right dave about not having the time since you're experiencing it already. Yup, it would depend on who was writing, but I read somewhere on this site that one of the writers on staff was a D.O. but 8404, i do have time right now since i was accepted about 2 weeks ago at COMP, so now i've got an almost a year to just kick back and relax. I actually haven't seen ER in like 2 years, but i did just watch the premiere episode on Thursday, and watching that "moonlighting" doctor being labeled as not as good as the other doctors reminded me of how D.O.'s are sometimes seen as not as good as "regular" doctors.
well, you're probably right dave about not having the time since you're experiencing it already. Yup, it would depend on who was writing, but I read somewhere on this site that one of the writers on staff was a D.O. but 8404, i do have time right now since i was accepted about 2 weeks ago at COMP, so now i've got an almost a year to just kick back and relax. I actually haven't seen ER in like 2 years, but i did just watch the premiere episode on Thursday, and watching that "moonlighting" doctor being labeled as not as good as the other doctors reminded me of how D.O.'s are sometimes seen as not as good as "regular" doctors.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 1998
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 2
I haven't watched ER in years but I see only one way to present a D.O. on ER in order to "get the point across." Basically, you bring a new doctor onto the cast at the beginning of a season. You let the audience fall in love with this doctor for half-a-season and then boom... the docs are out playing basketball and one of the them pulls his back out-of-whack on the court and the D.O., whose already been practicing traditional emergency medicine forever by now, fixes the guy on the spot. So the rest of the docs had no idea this guy was a D.O until this particular incident.
This way, we keep the scenario realistic: 1) This doctor is good and so, like in the real world, nobody (patients and colleagues) cares where he/she went to school. 2) We demonstrate that OMM isn't the mainstay of our profession, but a damn good tool to have.
Just be careful... D.O.s are minorities and the AOA has plenty of lawyers. If the D.O. does anything wrong or kills a patient (like most of the docs on the show have done), be ready for a lawsuit.
This way, we keep the scenario realistic: 1) This doctor is good and so, like in the real world, nobody (patients and colleagues) cares where he/she went to school. 2) We demonstrate that OMM isn't the mainstay of our profession, but a damn good tool to have.
Just be careful... D.O.s are minorities and the AOA has plenty of lawyers. If the D.O. does anything wrong or kills a patient (like most of the docs on the show have done), be ready for a lawsuit.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 1998
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 0
Uhh, I thought being a DO meant more than just utilizing OMT?! Radiologist DO's are still DO's right? I think being a DO may have something to do with decision making and making an attempt at understanding the body as a unit. Maybe I have been wrong then.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 1999
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 4
EWagner,
I think you are correct in there being more to being a DO than 'cracking backs.' Believe me, Greg is one of the most ardent pro-DO people you'll ever meet.
However, it would be highly difficult to demonstrate differences in philosophy and decision making paradigms versus soething as overt as 'cracking a back'.
Also, I think Greg's main point is that the majority of hub-bub over the MD v DO thing resides in the pre-med world. It is a lot less of a 'thing' [at least it seems to me] after you start. Heck, you don't have time to split hairs over the subtle differences.
Even our school's guru's have said that at clinical sites, DO prepared grads seem to have a clinical advantage only initially. That gap is rapidly closed by our MD bretheren. IMHO, the "differences" are becoming less and less well defined anyhow.
------------------
'Old Man Dave'
KCOM, Class of '03
I think you are correct in there being more to being a DO than 'cracking backs.' Believe me, Greg is one of the most ardent pro-DO people you'll ever meet.
However, it would be highly difficult to demonstrate differences in philosophy and decision making paradigms versus soething as overt as 'cracking a back'.
Also, I think Greg's main point is that the majority of hub-bub over the MD v DO thing resides in the pre-med world. It is a lot less of a 'thing' [at least it seems to me] after you start. Heck, you don't have time to split hairs over the subtle differences.
Even our school's guru's have said that at clinical sites, DO prepared grads seem to have a clinical advantage only initially. That gap is rapidly closed by our MD bretheren. IMHO, the "differences" are becoming less and less well defined anyhow.
------------------
'Old Man Dave'
KCOM, Class of '03
- Joined
- Jun 10, 1999
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
Sounds to me like Greg should be a writer for the show. I like that story line.
------------------
Phillip
Class of 2004 (somewhere)
Happiness isn't having what you want, it is wanting what you have.
------------------
Phillip
Class of 2004 (somewhere)
Happiness isn't having what you want, it is wanting what you have.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 1999
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 0
Personally I'd have to say it's probably not going to really happen. To focus on a D.O. would be dangerous. The D.O. "cracking a back" scenario could come off all wrong. It could turn Osteopathy into "glorified chiropractic care" as I heard one person put it. It is a good concept I must say however. Furthermore, most bias against D.O.
's (in my experience) is subtle at the professional level. Furthermore to stress the philosophic difference will NEVER happen. That would just turn into a dogmatic "who's right" debate over who is treating patients more effectively. Don't anticipate Michael C. an M.D. to let that one loose just to help D.O.s
's (in my experience) is subtle at the professional level. Furthermore to stress the philosophic difference will NEVER happen. That would just turn into a dogmatic "who's right" debate over who is treating patients more effectively. Don't anticipate Michael C. an M.D. to let that one loose just to help D.O.s
