applying DO + MD= applying MD + dentistry????

[Dr2Bee]

Most DO schools do not have a problem with you applying to MD schools or vice versa...as long as you know what their different philosophies are.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Word of caution to applicants: Some osteopathic programs...ehmm..the older ones...might ask you if you applied to allopathic programs...if they do and you applied to both - then you are in a jam.

You can either lie and say you applied to only osteopathic programs to make yourself look good. They won't know unless your from Texas.

Or you can be honest and say you applied to both - and sadly your honesty will be a -1 to your application....I know... it sucks.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Yep, he's an idiot. I applied to both -- no one thought anything about it. In Oklahoma, it actually raises some suspicion about your motivation to be a doctor if you apply to the allopathic school but not the osteopathic school.

I just read that Edward Goljian teach at Oklahoma osteopathic? I didn't know he was an Okie?

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I just read that Edward Goljian teach at Oklahoma osteopathic? I didn't know he was an Okie?

Yep, he's at OSU.

About your comment above about telling DO schools that you applied to MD programs, that was a non-issue to me last year. Yeah, I got asked about it. I was honest about applying to MD programs and still got in to every DO school I interviewed at. Of course, you have to show interest in osteopathic medicine and interest in the school you're interviewing at.

 

[Creightonite]

If you'll notice, one person just said this different philosophy is never really defined. Then the next post makes mention of this different philosophy without defining it...classic.

agree with that. I have the same question about what is really the deferences. Saying that DOs are treating the patient as whole, not only the disease is too vague. Isn't it what both MDs and DOs do....

 

[spicedmanna]

Word of caution to applicants: Some osteopathic programs...ehmm..the older ones...might ask you if you applied to allopathic programs...if they do and you applied to both - then you are in a jam...Or you can be honest and say you applied to both - and sadly your honesty will be a -1 to your application....I know... it sucks.

I attended two interviews at osteopathic schools, one at an older school and another at a newer school (not new, just not as old as compared to the first). The older school didn't ask me anything about whether I had applied to allopathic programs, or anything related to MD vs. DO. On the other hand, the newer school grilled me very heavily and extensively about that (I am grateful for all the extended discussions I got involved in here on SDN; they ended up being helpful to me ). When confronted with these probes by that particular school, I was diplomatically honest, but I was honest. Although I can't really say for sure, I don't think it necessarily hurt my chances at that school.

I think the important thing is to be knowledgeable about osteopathic medicine, know why you would specifically want to be a part of that tradition, and why you would choose to attend the specific school in which you are interviewing. Make sure to do your homework on osteopathic medicine and on the schools that you are interviewing. As much as is reasonable and possible, give them evidence-based answers to their questions.

 

[medhacker]

agree with that. I have the same question about what is really the deferences. Saying that DOs are treating the patient as whole, not only the disease is too vague. Isn't it what both MDs and DOs do....

Please refer to post #26 of this very thread.

 

[RockShox]

Dookter,

If I must, however, I will say that the philosophy of osteopathic medicine is a historical, original, comprehensive, medical system with emphasis on non-pharmacological, holistic health care approach.

Whether one can find an allopathic physician, now, in the future, or any time in the past, who also held to these principles, does not negate the fact that osteopathic medicine was the first system of health care, to institute these principles as its fundamental working philosophy.

Well I have to give you props for effort but you get no points for practicing history without a license.

First "Whether one can find an allopathic physician, now, in the future, or anytime in the past who held these principles..."?? WHAT??! Whether you can find one? Did anyone bother to tell you, or did anyone bother to find out who started the entire movement? His name would be...

Dr. Andrew Taylor Still he was a M.D. So of course there were MDs that used osteopathic methods. MOST OF THE FIRST OSTEOPATHS UNTIL 1902 WERE MDs! I know, I know

Osteopaths don't get to claim the were the first to try holistic. Actually Holistic crowd would be own right offensive that you grouped them with the DOs The homeopaths beat the DOs to this by about 60 years. so they win.

Now I do not want to start a religion called Dr. Still worshippers because, though, he started the movement..in truth when you read his autobiography, many of his principles were wacky. But thats not his fault it would be many years after his death that science would advance enough to finally answer the question "what is the origin of disease?" It is because that question existed before we had the technology to answer it that there are several disciplines of medicine.

The only reason that Osteopathic Medicine continues to exist with the stature it does is because it abandoned most of the principles that it was founded on when the science proved to not support those principles. Thats way more than can be said for homeopathy.


Here is just one reference on the subject but there are many more.

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/eamt/files/booth/chapter02.htm

Oh PS to the allopaths... most MDs in their time found this term to be about as offensive as calling someone a b*tch. Funny what time and lack of historical knowledge lead to.

 

[medhacker]

Well I have to give you props for effort but you get no points for practicing history without a license.

I predict you have fallen prey to arrogance by prematurity

First "Whether one can find an allopathic physician, now, in the future, or anytime in the past who held these principles..."?? WHAT??! Whether you can find one? Did anyone bother to tell you, or did anyone bother to find out who started the entire movement? His name would be...

Did you never have an english teacher explain to you that the expression above does not negate but rather render the possibility irrelevant?

MOST OF THE FIRST OSTEOPATHS UNTIL 1902 WERE MDs! I know, I know

Please refer to petition to contact your english lit. teachers above

Osteopaths don't get to claim the were the first to try holistic. Actually Holistic crowd would be own right offensive that you grouped them with the DOs The homeopaths beat the DOs to this by about 60 years. so they win.

Since when do homeopaths practice surgery, ob/gyn, psych and use of drugs? not very holistic relative to the osteopathic crowd ain't it? Just because a group claims to be holistic it does not make it so...

The only reason that Osteopathic Medicine continues to exist with the stature it does is because it abandoned most of the principles that it was founded on when the science proved to not support those principles. Thats way more than can be said for homeopathy.

DOs can in general bill [insurance code] for osteopathic manipulation, that is also way more than can be said for homeopathy.

Oh PS to the allopaths... most MDs in their time found this term to be about as offensive as calling someone a b*tch. Funny what time and lack of historical knowledge lead to.

Just because no one is talking about the offensive connotation of the word allopath, it does not mean no one knows it before you mentioned it....

 

[RockShox]

I kind of agree with the advisor actually...

The whole reason the DO degree was invented was because Dr. Andrew Still didn't agree with how MD's were going about medicine. Osteopathic medicine was supposed to offer something different from allopathic.

This also is not quite true. It is not that he was like "OMG! this is so dumb I am starting a new office across town and calling it D.O!" It was more than this he believe that the fundemental nature of disease was something other than what was believed at the time. Here is an quote from his autobiography that sums it up.

"With this thought in view I began to ask myself, what is fever? Is it an effect, or is it a being, as commonly described by medical authors? I concluded it was only an effect, and on that line I have experimented and proven the position I then took to be a truth, wonderfully sustained by nature, responding every time in the affirmative. I have concluded after twenty-five years' close observation and experimenting that there is no such disease as fever, flux, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, lung-fever, or any other fever classed under the common head of fever. Rheumatism, sciatica, gout, colic, liver disease, nettle-rash, or croup, on to the end of the list of diseases, do not exist as diseases. All these separate and combined are only effects. The cause can be found, and does exist, in the limited and excited action of the nerves only, which control the fluids of parts or the whole of the body. It appears perfectly reasonable to any person born above the condition of an idiot, who has familiarized himself with anatomy and its working with the machinery of life, that all diseases are mere effects, the cause being a partial or complete failure of the nerves to properly conduct the fluids of life.

 

[RockShox]

Since when do homeopaths practice surgery, ob/gyn, psych and use of drugs? not very holistic relative to the osteopathic crowd ain't it? Just because a group claims to be holistic it does not make it so...

Not trying to offend...it could be possible that when you think you are writing clearly you really are not. I run into this alot with Doctors..they write something down and can't figure out why it reads one way to them but another to most other people.

I am not sure what you are saying here. By definition of holistic.. surgery/drugs are NOT holistic. I think that Dr. Still would think most Osteopaths as complete sell outs for even using drugs as this is the antithesis of what he was trying to accomplish. It was the homeopaths that first believe that you needed to do treatments that aligned naturally with the body and nature, and coined the term holistic. The reason homeopaths don't do surgery is because it is not holistic. I am just saying that you are attributing a philosophy to Osteopathy that is historically inaccurate. Sure they may use more holistic methods now but not then.

No worries I am still in regular communication with my English Professors, even after this many years. As a historian I do get a bit offended when people try to teach people about history without actually trying to research exactly what the history was. I.e. just because you are in a profession does not make anyone an expert as the the origins, progress, or nature of that profession. (unless they read about it of course )

The history of the progress of American medicine and why we have the current distinctions and system we have today is quite fascinating and well worth the time if you all have it. I highly recommend it.

 

[spicedmanna]

It was the homeopaths that first believe that you needed to do treatments that aligned naturally with the body and nature, and coined the term holistic.

Well, I'm sure you are referring to that particular time period in the West in making your argument, because it could be stated that the philosophy of holism in medicine, while it wasn't coined as such, was present for much longer in the East. An example of such an occurance can be found in Classical Chinese Medicine, first described in a written work somewhere between 2698 to 2596 B.C., significantly before the advent of homeopathy (1). But that's a historical argument, not a medical one.

 

[RockShox]

Well, I'm sure you are referring to that particular time period in the West in making your argument, because it could be stated that the philosophy of holism in medicine, while it wasn't coined as such, was present for much longer in the East. An example of such an occurance can be found in Classical Chinese Medicine, first described in a written work in somewhere between 2698 to 2596 B.C., significantly before the advent of homeopathy. But that's a historical argument, not a medical one.

Absolutely true. I was limiting my contribution to only the development of American medicine and the original societies in it. But this is a very good point to remember.

 

[medhacker]

Not trying to offend...it could be possible that when you think you are writing clearly you really are not. I run into this alot with Doctors..they write something down and can't figure out why it reads one way to them but another to most other people.

Got you

I am not sure what you are saying here. By definition of holistic.. surgery/drugs are NOT holistic. It was the homeopaths that first believe that you needed to do treatments that aligned naturally with the body and nature, and coined the term holistic. The reason homeopaths don't do surgery is because it is not holistic. I am just saying that you are attributing a philosophy to Osteopathy that is historically inaccurate. Sure they may use more holistic methods now but not then.

I must admit I tripped with the meaning of the word holistic. I had comprehensive in the back of my mind while you were talking about holistic.

I never claimed osteopaths claimed to be the fist holistic group. What I did claim was:
osteopathic medicine was the first system of health care, to institute these principles as its fundamental working philosophy.

What principles? the ones I set forth on the working definition I gave of its pilosophy: a historical, original, comprehensive, medical system with emphasis on non-pharmacological, holistic health care approach.

That is, osteopathic medicine was not the first to be holistic, but it was the first to be comprehensive, holistic and with an emphasis on the above

No worries I am still in regular communication with my English Professors, even after this many years. As a historian I do get a bit offended when people try to teach people about history without actually trying to research exactly what the history was. I.e. just because you are in a profession does not make anyone an expert as the the origins, progress, or nature of that profession. (unless they read about it of course )

Sorry to send you back to your prof. it was more in fun than anything

The history of the progress of American medicine and why we have the current distinctions and system we have today is quite fascinating and well worth the time if you all have it. I highly recommend it.

I agree, while I have only skimmed its surface, it is indeed fascinating. Thanks this conversation was stimulating

 

[CatsandCradles]

Yep, he's at OSU.

I always thought he was some guy at like "Haaavad" or Duke or something like that. I think it's soo neat that he's an Okie..

 

[RockShox]

Hey Medhacker...I agree its these kinds of conversations that I think SDN was made for. Pure mental improvement. No worries about miscommunications. My eyes get worse the older they get..I know I will be like my geeky professors with grandpa glasses one day. (but no bowties!!! I refuse to ever wear those.) so who knows what I read sometimes.

This DO vs MD yaya is so eternal on SDN and it is just ridiculous. I think the only realm for this is historical (save the conversations about the modern washout of each societies original philosophies).

I have always thought the terms alternative medicine and conventional medicine to be truly foolish distinctions in the modern era. Why? because the philosophy that now prevails and will prevail for the future is..."what is proven to benefit the patient and cure the disease?" Anything that actually works will be embraced by modern medicine and anything that does not won't. As statins are proven to prevent heart attacks they are used. As acupuncture is shown (via well designed studies not false ones) to work it will be incorporated. As we show that not being a complete ass to your patients actually helps them heal it will be taught.

And that is why the difference between DO and MD will continue to disappear. Because both are committed to helping people heal and they are so dedicated to that they will use any method with proven benifit to achieve that no matter which side of the fence it came from.

 

[medhacker]

I have always thought the terms alternative medicine and conventional medicine to be truly foolish distinctions in the modern era. Why? because the philosophy that now prevails and will prevail for the future is..."what is proven to benefit the patient and cure the disease?" Anything that actually works will be embraced by modern medicine and anything that does not won't. As statins are proven to prevent heart attacks they are used. As acupuncture is shown (via well designed studies not false ones) to work it will be incorporated. As we show that not being a complete ass to your patients actually helps them heal it will be taught.

I agree 100%

And that is why the difference between DO and MD will continue to disappear. Because both are committed to helping people heal and they are so dedicated to that they will use any method with proven benifit to achieve that no matter which side of the fence it came from.

Do you, however, believe the governing osteopathic organizations will ever cede and allow a "merger" type of movement? if yes what do you think would compel them to do so?

Personally, I think such a "merger" will never occur for obvious reasons.

 

[RockShox]

Do you, however, believe the governing osteopathic organizations will ever cede and allow a "merger" type of movement? if yes what do you think would compel them to do so?

Personally, I think such a "merger" will never occur for obvious reasons.

I would not expect them to. Give that they would then have to release themselves from their own history and culture I think it would be a hard sell. Second, what advantage would be gained other than to unify all of medical education under one banner? They are already able to enjoy the benefits of being physicians, other than they have to often defend themselves to those who are ignorant of their abilities. There have even been movements in the AMA and AOA to remove the financial barriers that hinder visiting student from doing away rotations from on to the other (DO doing a ENT away at and MD often has to pay a much higher fee than and MD to MD and vis-versa).
Perhaps as we continue to allow the US government to be pervasively involved in our activities each may be compelled to fall under one blanket (something I could envision if we were to embrace a government run healthcare system, sweet Mary and Joseph that never happens!).