Change the Degree to MDO?

[icevermin]

[deleted]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GUH]

That's just being disingenuous.

DO = Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (US only)
MD = Medicinae doctor (Latin: Teacher of medicine); Doctor of Medicine (common connotation).

We can argue technicalities all day but this is otherwise a useless point.

Btw, if people are interested, I really encourage you to read Gevitz's article about the California merger, here's a link: http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094777

Some interesting highlights: Osteopathic education has forever been behind that of allopathic education - "In those jurisdictions where DOs and MDs took the exact same examinations before MD or composite (MD + DO) licensure boards, osteopathic graduates fared comparatively poorly. Between 1927 and 1931, for example, only 48% of DO candidates passed the examination compared with 95% of MDs candidates."

What was the DO response to their poor performance on these boards? - "Osteopathic physicians argued that their mediocre performance on medical and composite board licensure examinations as well as independent basic science board tests could be explained away as a form of discrimination. "

What was the AOA doing during WW2, when countrywide DOs were clamoring for them to put pressure on the legislature? - "Instead, it continued to hold periodic meetings with Army and Navy officials to see how osteopathic physicians and surgeons could become qualified"

How COPS (california school) distinguished itself from all other DO schools - "An analysis of the results of a college questionnaire sent to all accredited osteopathic schools covering the 1936-1937 school year showed that although it was the third largest osteopathic school in terms of enrollment, the COP&S provided its students with the most outpatient cases, clinic visits, obstetric cases, and total number of hospital cases."

**How California DOs felt hampered by the AOA** (something many of us current students can actually relate to) - "Younger practitioners regarded the AOA leadership to be primarily composed of older and dogmatic osteopaths. The AOA had consistently opposed their efforts to expand their practice rights and teach and use all forms of proven diagnostic and therapeutic modalities."

Did the term "little MD" arise after the merger (as we are all taught to believe? - answer: no) - "California DOs, though, had no love for their California MD counterparts, who belittled them as “little m.d.s”. "

The rest of the article deals with the actual merger and how the COPS school benefitted. I think it's an excellent read, written by one of the Osteopathic worlds most respected professors (Norman Gevitz). I highly encourage people to read it, learn from it, and hopefully pressure the AOA or Congress or somebody to fix this broken system.

Nice necrobump! As it turns out, I read his book which talks a lot about the CA merger. Every indication was that it clearly did not benefit the osteopathic profession and was spearheaded by young DOs who disliked the fact that the older (and old-fashioned) DOs in charge of the AOA wanted osteopathic medicine to continue to exist - some things don't change. As it turns out, the "little MDs" never received equal treatment as they were barred from using their purchased titles in other states.

Thankfully, osteopathic physicians who wanted to remain such successfully fought the law that forced the merger to happen and it was found to be unconstitutional. The COA was dissolved, the OPSC was formed, new DO schools were established, osteopathic residencies were created, and the merger is now just a warning from history.

 

[cryhavoc]

At the hospital I work at, all the DO's have MD on their coats because the hospital was sick of the confusion.

 

[JoeUSA]

At the hospital I work at, all the DO's have MD on their coats because the hospital was sick of the confusion.

They might not have realized what they have done. In some states, such as FL, it is not legal. Professionals are required to use the credentials that they are licensed under. DO's must not use MD after their name in FL (even on a hospital coat).

 

[hallowmann]

They might not have realized what they have done. In some states, such as FL, it is not legal. Professionals are required to use the credentials that they are licensed under. DO's must not use MD after their name in FL (even on a hospital coat).

Not legal in PA either, and I don't think it's legal in NY. States without Osteopathic medical boards probably don't have a law about it though.

 

[Mad Jack]

Nice necrobump! As it turns out, I read his book which talks a lot about the CA merger. Every indication was that it clearly did not benefit the osteopathic profession and was spearheaded by young DOs who disliked the fact that the older (and old-fashioned) DOs in charge of the AOA wanted osteopathic medicine to continue to exist - some things don't change. As it turns out, the "little MDs" never received equal treatment as they were barred from using their purchased titles in other states.

Thankfully, osteopathic physicians who wanted to remain such successfully fought the law that forced the merger to happen and it was found to be unconstitutional. The COA was dissolved, the OPSC was formed, new DO schools were established, osteopathic residencies were created, and the merger is now just a warning from history.

Seems less like a warning and more like a good way to move forward to me Higher standards, better training, etc. Look at where UC-Irvine is compared to literally every osteopathic school and tell me they ultimately didn't do right by their students.

 

[GUH]

Seems less like a warning and more like a good way to move forward to me Higher standards, better training, etc. Look at where UC-Irvine is compared to literally every osteopathic school and tell me they ultimately didn't do right by their students.

Sure, it's a good way to move forward if the goal is to annihilate the profession and screw over those who already have their degrees or are currently enrolled.

But yeah, it was found to be in violation of the California constitution anyways. So it likely won't happen again here. Maybe in some other state, though.

 

[GUH]

At the hospital I work at, all the DO's have MD on their coats because the hospital was sick of the confusion.

I've seen it too and it's a shame. DOs have not earned the MD degree. Pushing physicians to put false credentials behind their names is also confusing.

 

[Mad Jack]

Sure, it's a good way to move forward if the goal is to annihilate the profession and screw over those who already have their degrees or are currently enrolled.

But yeah, it was found to be in violation of the California constitution anyways. So it likely won't happen again here. Maybe in some other state, though.

Except it wouldn't screw anyone over, at all, if we had a national merger that did away with the separate designation. We'd all still get to practice medicine just like we do now.

 

[GUH]

Except it wouldn't screw anyone over, at all, if we had a national merger that did away with the separate designation. We'd all still get to practice medicine just like we do now.

Medical licensing is handled at the state level. The only thing that would eliminate the DO degree from being awarded would be the osteopathic national organizations involved (COCA and the AOA) forging an agreement with the MD organizations to only award the MD degree at current osteopathic medical schools. It's possible but unlikely to happen.

 

[Mad Jack]

Medical licensing is handled at the state level. The only thing that would eliminate the DO degree from being awarded would be the osteopathic national organizations involved (COCA and the AOA) forging an agreement with the MD organizations to only award the MD degree at current osteopathic medical schools. It's possible but unlikely to happen.

Right now it's unlikely. But post-merger, with the elimination of AOA residencies, there will be massive opportunities for those that are more merger-inclined to work their way into AOA leadership positions and change things. Given the crunch we'll be putting on the LCME with our rampant school expansion, it would be in their best interest to merge with the COCA and put a clamp on things at some point down the road. I predict the schism will be over before, or shortly after, we retire.

 

[GUH]

Right now it's unlikely. But post-merger, with the elimination of AOA residencies, there will be massive opportunities for those that are more merger-inclined to work their way into AOA leadership positions and change things...

haha like who? And why would the AOA want to promote someone who wants to eliminate the osteopathic profession?

 

[Mad Jack]

haha like who? And why would the AOA want to promote someone who wants to eliminate the osteopathic profession?

Like 90% of my classmates? You can't keep the status quo forever when the vast majority of those within your profession are against it.

 

[GUH]

Like 90% of my classmates?

90% of your classmates want to be leaders in the AOA?

 

[Mad Jack]

90% of your classmates want to be leaders in the AOA?

90% of my classmates want to change the status quo, and a lot of them already are both very vocal and very involved in AOA student leadership positions and events. And they're smart enough to know the right things to say to work their way to the top and then pull a surprise 180- the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making us think he doesn't exist, or something to that effect, as the saying goes. Politics is all about that sort of deception.

 

[GUH]

Like 90% of my classmates? You can't keep the status quo forever when the vast majority of those within your profession are against it.

Do you have any evidence at all that the "vast majority of those within the profession" don't want the profession to exist anymore?

SDN or "a poll of my friends" doesn't count.

 

[Mad Jack]

Do you have any evidence at all that the "vast majority of those within the profession" don't want the profession to exist anymore?

SDN or "a poll of my friends" doesn't count.

The profession would still exist- because the profession is medicine. The vast majority (98%) do not use or practice OMM. I find it highly unlikely that those people would find it objectionable to merge back into the fold of mainstream medicine and let the schism be forgotten and the useful techniques of OMM be folded into mainstream medicine for those that wanted to utilize them.

 

[GUH]

The profession would still exist- because the profession is medicine. The vast majority (98%) do not use or practice OMM. I find it highly unlikely that those people would find it objectionable to merge back into the fold of mainstream medicine and let the schism be forgotten and the useful techniques of OMM be folded into mainstream medicine for those that wanted to utilize them.

The vast majority of physicians don't practice everything they learn in medical school.
When a person graduates from an osteopathic medical school, has he earned an MD degree?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Except it wouldn't screw anyone over, at all, if we had a national merger that did away with the separate designation. We'd all still get to practice medicine just like we do now.

I think it's going to eventually happen.

 

[Mad Jack]

The vast majority of physicians don't practice everything they learn in medical school.
When a person graduates from an osteopathic medical school, has he earned an MD degree?

The question is, should the DO degree exist as a separate entity just because of a small bit of extra training?

I dare say it should not. There's really zero reason for it. As to the "majority of physicians don't practice everything they use in medical school" argument, the big difference is that there is no reason for someone to spend hundreds of hours training in something they will never use AND have an entire degree based on that extra training. It's like if someone decided that the heart was super important and integrated a bunch of extra hours of cardiac training into the MD curriculum, then said, no, we aren't MDs, we're DCs (Doctors of Cardiopathy, not to be confused with those chiropractic quacks). It just doesn't make sense to have a whole 'nother degree for, nor does it make sense to have a bunch of students put hundreds of extra hours into all that cardiac training when only a small fraction of them will be cardiologists.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The vast majority of physicians don't practice everything they learn in medical school.
When a person graduates from an osteopathic medical school, has he earned an MD degree?

That's a pedantic argument. You cannot claim that a single class entirely validates having a separate degree. This further becomes even more pedantic when in all consideration our main education comes from our training in residencies, which will all be ACGME soon.

 

[kenjixshadow]

The vast majority of physicians don't practice everything they learn in medical school.
When a person graduates from an osteopathic medical school, has he earned an MD degree?

When AMA offered AOA to allow DO degree exchangable for MD degree, AOA was the one didn't let that happen. Every single DO student today would have earned an MD degree if AOA was not so stubborn. You kept mentioning of AOA is doing the best interest for DO. It's more like they are doing their best to be in power and keep making money from those newly soon-to-be opening DO schools that are going to give half-ass clinical educations. If AT Still is still alive today, do you think that he would agree for the merge between MD and DO? I'd think so. He's an MD after all.

 

[GUH]

That's a pedantic argument. You cannot claim that a single class entirely validates having a separate degree. This further becomes even more pedantic when in all consideration our main education comes from our training in residencies, which will all be ACGME soon.

The degree comes from medical school, not from residency. And the schools that award MDs are separate from the schools that award DOs.

The question is, should the DO degree exist as a separate entity just because of a small bit of extra training?

I dare say it should not. There's really zero reason for it. As to the "majority of physicians don't practice everything they use in medical school" argument, the big difference is that there is no reason for someone to spend hundreds of hours training in something they will never use AND have an entire degree based on that extra training. It's like if someone decided that the heart was super important and integrated a bunch of extra hours of cardiac training into the MD curriculum, then said, no, we aren't MDs, we're DCs (Doctors of Cardiopathy, not to be confused with those chiropractic quacks). It just doesn't make sense to have a whole 'nother degree for, nor does it make sense to have a bunch of students put hundreds of extra hours into all that cardiac training when only a small fraction of them will be cardiologists.

If someone doesn't want to spend hundreds of hours training in osteopathic practice, they shouldn't go to an osteopathic medical school. It doesn't make sense for them to go through it then come out on the other side and say "because I don't practice it, we should just get rid of the degree for everyone regardless of whether they do". We already have medical schools for people who want to be MDs and eliminating DO schools won't change that.

 

[Mad Jack]

The degree comes from medical school, not from residency. And the schools that award MDs are separate from the schools that award DOs.

If someone doesn't want to spend hundreds of hours training in osteopathic practice, they shouldn't go to an osteopathic medical school. It doesn't make sense for them to go through it then come out on the other side and say "because I don't practice it, we should just get rid of the degree for everyone regardless of whether they do". We already have medical schools for people who want to be MDs and eliminating DO schools won't change that.

The thing is, there is zero reason to justify there being a second degree. Most of the DO community understands and agrees with this, there's just a few people, basically you and all the people in the OMM department of any given school, that disagree. And here's the thing- if you so adamantly believe in OMM, why wouldn't you be willing to allow its principles to be folded into the MD world and those that survived rigorous testing be allowed to stand, while those that didn't could fall by the wayside? If your belief is as strong as you make it sound to be, there should be no fear in your mind that OMM can prove itself and be incorporated into the MD curriculum post-merger.

Finally, there's the issue of quality control- making every school an MD school would ensure that there were a greater degree of QC placed upon schools, rotation sites, and applied to the applicant pool. I think it'd be a win all around. Plus all the DO schools would have to do more basic science research moving forward, and would have to limit the amount of funding that came from tuition and thus would have to diversify their revenue streams into grants, research, etc. Society would win because they'd get more innovative research and physicians with a higher quality education, students would win because of increased rotation quality, research, and residency opportunities, and the educational community would win because we'd have greatly expanded research capabilities care of 30+ massive research facility expansions.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

The degree comes from medical school, not from residency. And the schools that award MDs are separate from the schools that award DOs.

If someone doesn't want to spend hundreds of hours training in osteopathic practice, they shouldn't go to an osteopathic medical school. It doesn't make sense for them to go through it then come out on the other side and say "because I don't practice it, we should just get rid of the degree for everyone regardless of whether they do". We already have medical schools for people who want to be MDs and eliminating DO schools won't change that.

I don't think we need to eliminate osteopathic medicine nor do we eliminate it by becoming MDs. It only communicates that we are physicians better than a degree which is identical and in the rest of the world the same as non-physicians.

 

[GUH]

The thing is, there is zero reason to justify there being a second degree. Most of the DO community understands and agrees with this,

Is there any evidence at all of this?

there's just a few people, basically you and all the people in the OMM department of any given school, that disagree. And here's the thing- if you so adamantly believe in OMM, why wouldn't you be willing to allow its principles to be folded into the MD world and those that survived rigorous testing be allowed to stand, while those that didn't could fall by the wayside? If your belief is as strong as you make it sound to be, there should be no fear in your mind that OMM can prove itself and be incorporated into the MD curriculum post-merger.

Putting the teaching of osteopathy under the control of an organization that has historically tried to stamp it out of existence is clearly not the best way to lead to an impartial assessment of its benefits.

Finally, there's the issue of quality control- making every school an MD school would ensure that there were a greater degree of QC placed upon schools, rotation sites,

Evidence?

and applied to the applicant pool. I think it'd be a win all around. Plus all the DO schools would have to do more basic science research moving forward, and would have to limit the amount of funding that came from tuition and thus would have to diversify their revenue streams into grants, research, etc. Society would win because they'd get more innovative research and physicians with a higher quality education, students would win because of increased rotation quality, research, and residency opportunities, and the educational community would win because we'd have greatly expanded research capabilities care of 30+ massive research facility expansions.

I'm all for weaning schools off of tuition dollars but am not convinced that more research = better teaching, or that all schools should be major research centers. But yeah I agree with you that less dependence on tuition dollars would be a good thing for the profession because it would reduce the incentive for schools to push through more students than they can handle or provide GME for.

 

[Mad Jack]

Is there any evidence at all of this?

Putting the teaching of osteopathy under the control of an organization that has historically tried to stamp it out of existence is clearly not the best way to lead to an impartial assessment of its benefits.

Evidence?

I'm all for weaning schools off of tuition dollars but am not convinced that more research = better teaching, or that all schools should be major research centers. But yeah I agree with you that less dependence on tuition dollars would be a good thing for the profession because it would reduce the incentive for schools to push through more students than they can handle or provide GME for.

The evidence you're looking for is in

1: The studies that examined the number of DOs that use OMM
2: Comparing the COCA and LCME standards side-by-side

I read them both end to end once to see just how different they were, and would strongly encourage you to do the same. The rules speak louder than any dogma you've internalized.

 

[GUH]

The evidence you're looking for is in

1: The studies that examined the number of DOs that use OMM
2: Comparing the COCA and LCME standards side-by-side

I read them both end to end once to see just how different they were, and would strongly encourage you to do the same. The rules speak louder than any dogma you've internalized.

The number of DOs who do not use OMM is not necessarily the same as those who believe that DOs shouldn't exist.
LCME standards are remarkably flexible in terms of quality of rotation sites.

 

[Mad Jack]

The number of DOs who do not use OMM is not necessarily the same as those who believe that DOs shouldn't exist.
LCME standards are remarkably flexible in terms of quality of rotation sites.

They are far less flexible than the COCA, and rotation sites are far from the only difference. Look at faculty:student ratios, minimum funding requirements, facility requirements, etc.

 

[GUH]

They are far less flexible than the COCA, and rotation sites are far from the only difference. Look at faculty:student ratios, minimum funding requirements, facility requirements, etc.

I don't know all of the differences and agree that there are improvements to be made but also believe that it is possible to work on them without eliminating the profession.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't know all of the differences and agree that there are improvements to be made but also believe that it is possible to work on them without eliminating the profession.

The profession won't be eliminated, as I stated previously, because the profession is medicine, and we are physicians. You don't cease practicing medicine or being a physician because they changed your credential initials.

 

[GUH]

The profession won't be eliminated, as I stated previously, because the profession is medicine, and we are physicians. You don't cease practicing medicine or being a physician because they changed your credential initials.

When the merger happened in California, they were actually banned from advertising any practice of osteopathy, which goes beyond just changing initials. So the only historical example we have contradicts your statement of reassurance.
Some of us would like to continue practicing those elements which make osteopathic medicine distinct, or at least leave the option open.

 

[GUH]

I don't think we need to eliminate osteopathic medicine nor do we eliminate it by becoming MDs. It only communicates that we are physicians better than a degree which is identical and in the rest of the world the same as non-physicians.

Some patients seek out DOs and giving us a degree which we did not earn is inconsistent with the goal of presenting a clear picture of our profession to the public.

 

[Mad Jack]

When the merger happened in California, they were actually banned from advertising any practice of osteopathy, which goes beyond just changing initials. So the only historical example we have contradicts your statement of reassurance.
Some of us would like to continue practicing those elements which make osteopathic medicine distinct, or at least leave the option open.

That wouldn't happen nowadays lol, you know that's nonsense. CAM is huge in MD schools now, and physical therapists share many techniques with DOs. This isn't 60+ years ago anymore. And the reasons for their banning the advertising of osteopathy were politically motivated, something you should understand, a political motivation that would no longer exist if DO schools no longer existed.

 

[GUH]

That wouldn't happen nowadays lol, you know that's nonsense. CAM is huge in MD schools now, and physical therapists share many techniques with DOs. This isn't 60+ years ago anymore. And the reasons for their banning the advertising of osteopathy were politically motivated, something you should understand, a political motivation that would no longer exist if DO schools no longer existed.

I suspect that resistance would decrease if there were any reassurances at all that it would not result in the stamping out of OMM. I could be wrong, but I doubt that any such reassurances are forthcoming.

 

[Mad Jack]

I suspect that resistance would decrease if there were any reassurances at all that it would not result in the stamping out of OMM. I could be wrong, but I doubt that any such reassurances are forthcoming.

It won't matter one way or another, ultimately. There will be a sea change, mark my words. The minority can only suppress the majority for so long. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because there were so few schools, but the massive expansion of DO schools will actually be the undoing of the AOA, as they grew the profession too fast to keep the ratio of "true believers" high enough to maintain the status quo.

 

[GUH]

...the massive expansion of DO schools will actually be the undoing of the AOA, as they grew the profession too fast to keep the ratio of "true believers" high enough to maintain the status quo.

This part could very well be true.

 

[hallowmann]

I really think that the degree could exist without elimination, and just sit alongside the MD degree in the US even if standards were governed by the same institutions (kind of like DDS and DMD). Eventually it might change, but I don't necessarily think it would be a requirement. I mean practically 25% of medical students enrolled in the US are DOs. I can't imagine a sudden shift that would eliminate the degree. There might be a majority that would be for it, but there are plenty that wouldn't want it or even think it necessary. Just look at how many fought the merger out of primarily fear of change and the unknown.

I suspect that resistance would decrease if there were any reassurances at all that it would not result in the stamping out of OMM. I could be wrong, but I doubt that any such reassurances are forthcoming.

I don't know, the ACGME made some pretty big reassuring moves by creating an NMM RRC and an OMT-specific committee for osteopathic focus. What makes you think the same wouldn't happen with the AMA, LCME, etc.?

 

[GUH]

I really think that the degree could exist without elimination, and just sit alongside the MD degree in the US even if standards were governed by the same institutions (kind of like DDS and DMD). Eventually it might change, but I don't necessarily think it would be a requirement. I mean practically 25% of medical students enrolled in the US are DOs. I can't imagine a sudden shift that would eliminate the degree. There might be a majority that would be for it, but there are plenty that wouldn't want it or even think it necessary. Just look at how many fought the merger out of primarily fear of change and the unknown.



I don't know, the ACGME made some pretty big reassuring moves by creating an NMM RRC and an OMT-specific committee for osteopathic focus. What makes you think the same wouldn't happen with the AMA, LCME, etc.?

There are currently no ACGME-accredited NMM GME programs and only 18 in total with osteopathic recognition. Maybe that will change in the future but so far the numbers don't prove much.

You're right though - a significant number of NMM and osteopathic-recognized programs that remains stable or grows over time would be a great sign.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

There are currently no ACGME-accredited NMM GME programs and only 18 in total with osteopathic recognition. Maybe that will change in the future but so far the numbers don't prove much.

You're right though - a significant number of NMM and osteopathic-recognized programs that remains stable or grows over time would be a great sign.

Well, they will be ACGME accredited. And when they suddenly become a part of the MD hierarchy, tell me what happens then for the distinction?

 

[GUH]

Well, they will be ACGME accredited. And when they suddenly become a part of the MD hierarchy, tell me what happens then for the distinction?

If osteopathic principles and practice become well-integrated into the rest of medicine, then there will be less need for the distinction. At this point it is not clear that this is the case. Until such an integration occurs, there is a need for such a distinction in order to prevent extinction.

 

[deleted731525]

I feel like you dont need to change the degree. Just have one accreditation system for all medical schools. And the agency that accredits DO schools currently can accredit the OMM portion of DO schools.

 

[Mad Jack]

If osteopathic principles and practice become well-integrated into the rest of medicine, then there will be less need for the distinction. At this point it is not clear that this is the case. Until such an integration occurs, there is a need for such a distinction in order to prevent extinction.

If it still exists as an ACGME accredited specialty, why does it matter if everyone has to learn it or not? Not everyone has to learn, say, radiation oncology, but we don't say "oh, rad onc must be further integrated to prevent its extinction!" Let the people that want to learn it learn it, and the ones that don't can skip it.

 

[Mad Jack]

I feel like you dont need to change the degree. Just have one accreditation system for all medical schools. And the agency that accredits DO schools currently can accredit the OMM portion of DO schools.

Hell, I'd even be okay with that. Or having DO added as a certificate to interested students at any given school, have it as a track that is offered.

I really think it comes down to people not wanting this to happen because those that specialize in OMM would worry that they would lose teaching opportunities due to lack of interest, much as English and other liberal arts departments vehemently fight any efforts to remove their department's courses as prerequisites for graduation because there aren't enough people interested in their discipline enough to keep it afloat without it being required as a prereq. It's self-interest at its finest.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If osteopathic principles and practice become well-integrated into the rest of medicine, then there will be less need for the distinction. At this point it is not clear that this is the case. Until such an integration occurs, there is a need for such a distinction in order to prevent extinction.

Last i checked they're already integrated in.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

 

[GUH]

If it still exists as an ACGME accredited specialty, why does it matter if everyone has to learn it or not? Not everyone has to learn, say, radiation oncology, but we don't say "oh, rad onc must be further integrated to prevent its extinction!" Let the people that want to learn it learn it, and the ones that don't can skip it.

Fair point. It remains to be seen whether it will be a specialty taught in any ACGME-accredited programs.

 

[GUH]

Last i checked they're already integrated in.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile

How so? I have not seen it as part of a formal curriculum outside of a primarily DO setting.

 

[Mad Jack]

How so? I have not seen it as part of a formal curriculum outside of a primarily DO setting.

Osteopathic principles:

1. The body is a unit, and the person represents a combination of body, mind and spirit. -The "holistic" approach to medicine is being taught basically across the board now, it's not unique to DOs. Focus on the mind-body connection and not treating a patient as a disease is standard practice at most schools.
2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance. -Obviously. It's the basic principle of homeostasis, and it's taught in every MD school.
3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated. -Evolution dictates that this is so, as structures do not exist without a current or vestigial function; structures don't exist for no reason, something MDs learn plenty well through their anatomy and embryology training.
4. Rational treatment is based on an understanding of these principles: body unity, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function. -Um, obviously, treating someone best requires you to pay attention to their overall health, their ability to recover based on their physiological reserves and whatnot, and the structures and functions that maintain homeostasis.

They're BS feel-good tenants.

Also note that NONE of them say OMM is a required treatment modality that must be utilized, or even that it should be utilized. It's open for pretty broad interpretation.

 

[GUH]

Osteopathic principles:

1. The body is a unit, and the person represents a combination of body, mind and spirit. -The "holistic" approach to medicine is being taught basically across the board now, it's not unique to DOs. Focus on the mind-body connection and not treating a patient as a disease is standard practice at most schools.
2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance. -Obviously. It's the basic principle of homeostasis, and it's taught in every MD school.
3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated. -Evolution dictates that this is so, as structures do not exist without a current or vestigial function; structures don't exist for no reason, something MDs learn plenty well through their anatomy and embryology training.
4. Rational treatment is based on an understanding of these principles: body unity, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function. -Um, obviously, treating someone best requires you to pay attention to their overall health, their ability to recover based on their physiological reserves and whatnot, and the structures and functions that maintain homeostasis.

They're BS feel-good tenants.

Also note that NONE of them say OMM is a required treatment modality that must be utilized, or even that it should be utilized. It's open for pretty broad interpretation.

I am familiar with the tenets of osteopathy.
None of that post indicates that the tenets have been integrated in, which is what was asserted.

 

[Mad Jack]

I am familiar with the tenets of osteopathy.
None of that post indicates that the tenets have been integrated in, which is what was asserted.

There's no need to nitpick with words and have those exact ones integrated in when they're pretty much already standard parts of MD curricula around the country. You're just being difficult for the sake of it.