Choosing DO with MD acceptance!

[aquaboy]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was just wondering how many osteopathic students out there actually turned down an allopathic acceptance to attend an osteopathic school? There are many debates on this right now in multiple forums and it would be nice to know this info. I believe that DO's and MD's are on equal grounds and applicants should choose the philosophy that is the best match for them. Many say that osteopathic schools are "back-ups" for people who don't get accepted to osteopathic schools. Also post if this was the case in your situation.😎

 

[Albah]

Hey aquaboy,
After spending some time in these forums, I have realized that there are quite a few people who do turn down MD acceptances to go DO. It is good to know that not everyone looks at DO school as a back-up.
In my case I applied to both MD and DO so I would not limit my options. Sure, my MCAT may not be any good, and perhaps I did apply to DO schools to increase my chances of being accepted, but at this point I have learned a great deal about osteopathy that I did not know before and I have realized that this is the philosophy I want to pursue. Many people may assume that my change of thought may have come because of no MD acceptances. But surprisingly, I was offered 2 MD interviews. I declined them both after being accepted into a DO program.
I was confident that I wanted to go DO. 🙂

 

[DrMom]

There are, of course, those in my med school class who "settled" for an osteopathic school, but there are also many who chose to come here.

I've talked with a number of classmates who applied and were accepted to our state's allopathic school, who then turned the acceptance down to go DO. In fact, some of the ones with the highest stats did this. One of my classmates even left her allopathic interview day early (after the interview, but before the lunch, etc) telling them that she wasn't interested in attending their school...only to get an acceptance from them! Needless to say, she turned it down.

I chose not to apply to the MD school here because I don't like it (for a variety of reasons). My stats, however, were well above their averages, so its not that I couldn't have gotten in.

 

[Doctor Peloncito]

Then there are those of us who didn't want to be MDs. I learned early in college about osteopathy and fell in love with the idea. I LIKED the fact that they had slightly lower admissions criteria. It allowed me to be a student as well as a good father and husband rather that a stressed out pre med gunner. I never had MD acceptances because I didn't want them.

 

[msgbueno]

I choose to go into a DO over an MD school because I believe more in its philosophy over medicine. Medicine can only cure so much. The key note that I believe in is that medicine can not cure everything. The use of medicine to cure diseases is more of a Western idea. Granted, it has done its job and it has changed the way the world treats the ill and sickened. But can medicine cure cancer? Can it cure aids? What about chronic back pain. Can a single, miracle pill change everything and cure everything? I don't think so. In other countries, specifically the Asian countries, the philosophy that DO's use mimicks the techniques that other cultures have been using for centuries.

I knew that if I went to an MD school, I would be cheating myself of learning what I believe in and grew up with. Additionally, as a DO, you'll learn everything an MD will, but more. I don't see why others would not want to learn OMT.

 

[nanato]

everyone who has read this thread should go to the allopathic forum and read my response on the page 3 to relish's thread "osteopathic medicine". 100% grade A reality.
From a person with a DO,my suggestion is if you don't have any sentimental ties, or family tradition.... go allopathic within the US, island schools you'll have to think long and hard about... I got into St. George but still went osteopathic.... no regrets 360 days a year. As much as DO students keep saying 'it's all the same, it's all the same, I swear mommy, it's all the same"... the harsh reality is that we just don't have the same resources. Just ask yourself why the comlex is still paper and pencil... little things like that paint the big picture.... just look at our match website, just read the JAOA for christ sake.... at times embassaring.
I'm grateful that the osteopathic world gave me the opportunity to become a physician but it doesn't mean I have to be brained washed thinking they're the best.... come on people...

 

[msgbueno]

Come on nanato!! Read the postings. Who here is saying that osteopathic is the best? We're just saying why we choose go to DO over MD. You're obviously someone who just "settled" into an osteopathic school. Just think, if you didn't make it into any osteopathic school, you would have settled for your perfect allopathic school. Then, you would have at LEAST wish you'd made it into an osteopathic school. Some people believe in the philosophy, like me, and that's why we choose to go DO. I don't hate other methods, so stop hatin' us.
As for resources, you're right that DO's and MD's don't have the same amount of resources. DO's have more. We learn everything else an MD would learn, but more. After we graduate, we have 3 different programs to apply to for residency, while MD's only have 1. Maybe you would have been better off at your allopathic island school... out of the country.

 

[nanato]

obviously msbueno didn't read my last line.... and as far as 'resources' I'm talking about money for large university based hospitals, with millions of dollars in research money with 100's of full time faculty..... i don't mean that we can crack backs and MD's can't.... and believe me I'm not a DO 'hater', I'm proud to be a DO but it doesn't change the fact that we have lots of improvements to make. I would never discourage anyone from going to a DO school, you just have to ask yourself how much do you want to accomplish. You can be a great physician but if you're looking to be the next Ian T. Jackson, Debacky, Cameron, Brunwald,Bernard, you have your work cut out for you. No matter how hard you work you'll have some old school MD that may hold you back, no matter how hard you try... My discouragement comes from when I read annal of surgery, nejm, annal of IM, Plastic and Reconstructive Sx Journal, Journal of CT Surgery... how many DO's publish??... any DO's second/third/fourth authors, and research coming out of Bostford Hospital, GrandView, Mount Clemens, PCOM, UMDNJ?? The sad answer is no. What do you answer when an MD student or resident asks you 'why don't DO's do research or crank out publications? I feel we can be a more complete physician than MD's in general practice... fp, im, peds, obgyn, gen sx, but how many pediatric neurosurgeons are DO's, how many DO's specialize in Vascular Medicine (not surgery).. we don't have the $$$$or the leadership YET to have it ALL. How many DO student are being taught by FP's/'internist' / ERmed attds who have never done a residency!!! they became DO in the 60's 70's, did a year of internship and started practice.. that how it used to be just ask them. And they are the same ones in charge of our education and in charge of directing the futrure of osteopathic medicine. So do you think they are going to allocate $$$ into the foundation of something like the 'Cleveland clinic of Osteopathic Medicine'??? I went to med school in missouri so 'show me'!... Until then intern/residents like those at Northside Hospital in St. Petersburg Florida will chose to have Dr. so and so on their lab coats instead of joe blow D.O.
....well correction, ONE intern chose .... ..... D.O.... sorry for the oversight.

 

[kristing]

I chose DO over MD. I didn't even apply MD for all the reasons everyone else is giving, so I won't preach to the choir.

I have to admit, though, that Nanato has a very very good point. DOs are just not involved in research especially not enough OMT research and that is so sad. As is the JAOA. A total nightmare of a journal. Friends at my school have attempted NUMEROUS times to do OMT research and have been shot down every single time by the faculty. It's as if they don't want bad press about OMT which is so stupid, since we all know it takes many many studies to get any sort of scientific consensus on an issue.

That is the biggest gripe I have with my future profession. But I am convinced some of my classmates will save the profession when they get out of school with research. These are research mongers.

🙂

 

[GoForIt]

My discouragement comes from when I read annal of surgery, nejm, annal of IM, Plastic and Reconstructive Sx Journal, Journal of CT Surgery... how many DO's publish??... .. any DO's second/third/fourth authors, and research coming out of Bostford Hospital, GrandView, Mount Clemens, PCOM, UMDNJ?? The sad answer is no. What do you answer when an MD student or resident asks you 'why don't DO's do research or crank out publications?

University of California, Irvine published a book"Pediatric MRI" which covers 90 cases. These cases were researched and published by Radiology residents. They are all MDs from UCI except one who is a DO from COMP. This DO is one of the MAJOR contributors. Go buy this great book at Amazon or your favorite bookstrore, and may be you can learn a great deal.

Who says DO's don't do research????? Do you know there are PLENTY of research projects doing on at COMP?

The following are outstanding research projects the COMP students are actively working on:

Alzheimer's Disease
Type two diabetes mellitus
Young and elderly smokers
Pharmacotherapy for asthma
Atherogenic lipid profile and diabetes
Diet and exercise and prostate cancer
NHE1 and delayeed cell death
Diazepam and alzheimer's plaque
Age and the risk of ovarian cancer
Rib cage and thoracic spinal column
Steroid systhesis and olfaction
Balloon angioplasty and ultrasound
Atherosclerosis
Bacterial protein

 

[SM-UCLA tech]

i have 3 MD acceptances that I have turned down so far

 

[irish79]

I have been accepted to just about every osteopathic school I applied to and three of the allopathic schools I applied to (so far). I have turned down every school other than AZCOM, only because I felt like I "fit" there. I found the MD schools that I interviewed at to be too malignant and not a positive atmosphere as well as some of the other osteopathic schools. For me, it wasn't so much the OMT or the Philosophy of Osteopathic Medicine, but rather that I felt most comfortable at Midwestern.

As for research, I work in a group of 20 cardiologists. One of them is a DO and the only female in the practice. She said that she did research while attending NYCOM and while she was an internal medicine resident at Bryn Mawr hospital in Pennsylvania. She also made it clear that she did LOTS of research as a Cardiology Fellow at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation and as the Chief Fellow, she was responsible for helping other fellows (mostly male MD's) with their research. In addition, she is constantly doing some kind of cardiovascular research study and having it published. So, some DO's are doing research.

 

[Plinko]

I have to say I agree with nanato. IMO, he tells it like it is. If a premed knows for certain that they wish to specialize and they have both DO and MD acceptances then they should go with the MD acceptance, all other things being equal. I am a DO student. When I was applying I turned down two MD acceptances, mostly for reasons relating to money--the DO school I attend is in-state tuition whereas the MD schools would not have been. I now feel rather certain I would like to specialize, and that means for me a steeper hill to climb when it comes to obtaining the right residency.

The unfortunate aspect of all this however is that many DO medical schools are very underrated. I have many friends at MD schools and I would put my program up against theirs any day of the week. Alas however that is not the overwhelming opinion among those that will be making decisions about my career upon graduation. A DO can do just about anything a MD can do, but if what they want is Neurosurgery, it will be much harder for them to accomplish their goals.

With all this said, if I had to do it over again, I still most likely would have made the same choice. A private MD school would have put me at $200K+ in school loans. And then there is the dreaded interest that over the years will just kill you. I watched my father deal with med school loans well into his forties and it is no fun, believe me.

To any premeds dealing with this predicament, my advice would be first and foremost think about which school will open the most doors to you upon graduaiton in concert with the financial sacrifices you feel you are willing to make. After that, think about things like what school you like the most after a school tour, school philosphy, etc.

All and all, I think the most prudent choice would be to choose a MD state school over a DO state school, as well as a private MD school over a private DO school. After that, the decisions get a little more harry. Decisions such as those you can only make yourself.

 

[fyrfly]

I'm not of either the MD or DO persuasion. My gf goes to a DO school. She originally applied to mostly MD schools, but ended up withdrawing more than half of her applications after she got into this DO school that she absolutely loves. She's always been the type to go for what she wants, and not what everybody else expects her to do. Her stats are great, and she's always wanted to go to med school. What made her choose the osteopathic route had nothing really to do with the "philosophy", or the promise of learning OMM. It's hard to explain, but I think it's because she thinks that being the "underdog" will put her in a position to work harder and "prove herself". Yeah, it might sound like a selfish reason, but if it makes her a better doctor to her patients, then it's all worth it.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

Here check out the archives of family medicine journals of the ama. http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues...ll/fsa8021.html it states:

"Although many osteopaths use manipulation as an adjunct to treat many illnesses, there are no large controlled trials of the effectiveness of manipulation for conditions other than lower back pain ... Studies that have shown positive effects of manipulation for back pain have been criticized for not adequately controlling placebo effect. Doran and Newell65 concluded after studying 456 patients that although a few patients responded rapidly to manipulation, there were no significant differences compared with physiotherapy, corsets, and analgesics ... Osteopathic medicine is similar to allopathic medicine, but places a greater emphasis on the importance of the musculoskeletal system and normal body mechanics as central to good health. To support this emphasis, more basic research and controlled trials for the effectiveness of manipulation are needed."

And from http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

David E. Jones Ph.D.

"I spent 12 years teaching basic sciences and 7 years as an associate dean at the an osteopathic medical school ... The department of manipulative medicine was completely segregated from the other departments, both in principles and in practice. The osteopathic faculty members in the standard medical departments neither practiced nor taught OMT. Nor did the OMT faculty practice or teach the standard forms of medicine. It was as if OMT was a freestanding form of health care ... one that, unlike other departments, was not necessarily bound by scientific foundations. Being a basic science researcher, I have made attempts to set up an animal model to objectively test the claim that certain harmful forms of sympathetic nerve traffic could be altered by spinal OMT. However, I never received any support from the osteopathic faculty in seeing such a study completed."

 

[luckystar]

Originally posted by Deuce 007 MD
Doran and Newell65 concluded after studying 456 patients that although a few patients responded rapidly to manipulation, there were no significant differences compared with physiotherapy, corsets, and analgesics ... Osteopathic medicine is similar to allopathic medicine, but places a greater emphasis on the importance of the musculoskeletal system and normal body mechanics as central to good health. To support this emphasis, more basic research and controlled trials for the effectiveness of manipulation are needed."

Yeah, I too agree that more research needs to be done on manipulation. But, from Deuce's quote, if it works as well as other forms of therapy, namely medication and physiotherapy, then it's a good option to present to the patient. If all it is happens to be the placebo effect, does it matter to the patient who benefits from the treatment?

 

[MadE]

It was very interesting reading all your opinions. I am not a med student but my husband is currently interviewing. So far, he has been accepted at both an MD and DO school. First, I would love to hear more about both. Second, I have had many doctors in my life and the ABSOLUTE best doctor overall has been a DO.

 

[jekel]

i applied at md schools last year. i didn't have a clue what osteopathic medicine was. then i did some research on it and fell in love. i pulled all my apps (don't know if i would have been accepted or not) and reapplied at only osteopathic schools the next year. i am very happy with my decision. i feel that osteopathic medicine is the future of medicine and the numbers prove it.

 

[medneuro]

Jekel, what do you mean by "the numbers prove it?"
Thanks!

 

[DOSouthpaw]

Hmmm....I don't know where to start. I turned down a MD acceptance to go DO. I wanted to learn OPP, and I like the fact that Osteopathy had a nice philosophy with it (as opposed to Allopathy which has no "official" philosophy attached to according to the AMA. The AOA is the only medical society that has ascribed to a philosophy regarding medicine). I also felt that my school would best prepare me to be a FP. I want to do medical mission work so I need to know how to do a lot of stuff very very very well. A neurosurgon isn't in high demand in the middle of a third world country, someone who can do infections, deliver babies, set bones, do OMT (lol)...etc...

As far as opportunities go...we have a long way to go, but what do you expect? We've only had unlimited practice rights for what??? 40-50 years? I think we're doing pretty good for ourselves actually.

Research in OMT....bunch of crap. Here's why:

1) It won't get published in the US. We've done some here and had to go to New Zealand to get it published. No one cares about OMT outside of DO land.

2) Most of the big research projects involving OMT are flawed because they are working on the disease/drug model. OMT is not a drug. Do you honestly think that cracking a spine will kill a bacteria/virus, etc??? No one thinks that, but that's the way that the majority of the research is being conducted. "Let's see how doing technique X will affect disease X" What kind of crap is that? They are testing techniques and not OMT. OMT is so the body can function properly and heal itself better, not that it will cure disease. Sutherland called OMT surgery without the knife. We should base the research to that, and not on the drug model. The big whoppin' 2 mil that we spend on research each year in OMT( yep, 2 million. it takes about 500 million to get a drug approved) is just a waste as it is being done right now.


That's it, I'm done. lol

 

[drusso]

DOSouthpaw,

I don't think that you're very up to date on the latest efforts in OMM research. You might want to check out the following links...


Osteopathic Research Center

Osteopathic Clinical Research Website

NIH sponsored Osteopathic Manipulative Trials

Osteopathic Literature Database

AT Still Research Intitute (Click on menu on Left of Screen)

OMT is not magic, it is a therapeutic modality just like any other modality in medicine. Therefore, its effects can be rigorously described and studied.

 

[DOSouthpaw]

I think I'm pretty up to date. I just got back from a conference with Scott T. Stoll, DO, PhD, the guy at Texas who is in charge of all of the Osteopathic Research. He gave a nice presentation (where he said that only 2 million a year is spent on OMT research in the US compared to the 500 million/drug that comes to market).


He stated, that at this time, the majority of research in OMT will be directed toward Clinical testing and not Mechanism testing because there is not enough $ to go around to do both.

He also raised the same objection that I have. Testing OMT using the same methods used to test drugs is not a good way of doing things:

1) OMT does not lend itself well to that kind of study because of operator dependence, hence my statement about how it should be compared more to surgery than medicine.

2) If you treat OMT like a drug, then you lose the whole "Treating Patients, not Symptoms" that DO's love to use. For example, if you want to see the effects of OMT on Asthma, and you do a group of patient where you do rib raising on people with Asthma vs. standard care are you really treating the patient or just the Asthma.

In reality, everyone of those Asthma patients have a different Key Lesion, and if you don't treat that Key Lesion, you won't get near as good of results than if you treat it. You might get lucky and have a patient with Asthma in which their area of greatest restriction is in the ribs, but that's just shooting in the dark and setting yourself up for bad results.

 

[paramed2premed]

I find myself in the position that I will have to decline an allopathic WL (from a school that has a rapidly moving waitlist) as well as an acceptance to Pitt so that I can apply to a DO school. The reasons are many: location, the graduates I know, attitude of students, a wife who can't transplant... Regardless, I am choosing DO over MD. Hope I get in!

Sometimes I wonder though, when I read stuff like DOsouthpaw. Hey, OMM sounds fine to me. Makes people feel good, and it doesn't cause hepatic failure or thrombocytopenia. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Dosouthpaw seems to feel that we cannot even provide ordinary evidence.

The future of medicine is outcomes research, period. We may not know how a drug works, but we sure know how to find out if it works. Randomized, controlled trials are the only way to do credible research. Surgery does very few such studies (using "sham" surgery), but those studies are taken very seriously as a result of the methods. The "surgical model" of evidence is also known as "anecdotal."

As for the assertion that "it can't get published anyway," that seems to be the chorus of every psuedoscientist out there. Too conspiratorial for my taste. Embarassing.

 

[ramsestiger]

I'm a lowly premed-to-med, so I do not know exactly how OMM is used. If the claim is that it improves the flow of bodily fluids and indirectly helps the patient heal, then I don't think that should be very difficult to prove conclusively. However, if the claim is that it is as effective as drugs and should be used in their place for treatment, then I suppose clinical trials that conclusively prove efficacy must be done.

 

[AnnaIn]

🙄 Alot of D.O.'s were not accepted at the school they wanted. I know many. They have a tendency to not say this. One of the mistakes we are making is thinking were better and not equal. Alot of patients are being turned off by this. It's the capability's of the Physician and not what's behind there names. So be the best that you can be.

 

[goooooober]

How about Dr. D.O. Little. He is pretty famous.

 

[DOSouthpaw]

ramsestiger:

You're right, tests should be able to be done, but the problem is that most of the tests are being done, in my opinion, incorrectly because of the protocol being used. An example would be: I'm going to test how rib raising (OMT technique) effects patients with asthma. Ok, but what exactly is rib raising for? Asthma?? Heck no, it's for ribs stuck in exhalation by somatic dysfunction. So for every patient that comes in with Asthma and expired ribs, rib raising will have profound affects, but every patients that comes with somatic dysfuntion elsewhere, it won't do a thing. Even worse, if the patient has an inspired rib cage, you could actually be doing harm by exagerating the dysfunction doing rib raising.

My point? Every patient is different. Every patient has his or her own history of trauma and dysfunction and therefore they should be treated that way. So how could the Asthma and OMT be better tested?

Say that every patient in the OMT Group was treated using OMT in the area that had the greatest restriction in that patient. The deal with OMT is that it makes the body fuction better mechanically so that it can fight disease and carry out its normal processes at its potential: reduce allostatic load.

The Problem? Many DO's treat the problem and not the patient, the research is operator dependant, and there is really no way to do a true double blind test with manipulation because how can you make the doctor blind? The only way you can do it is if you believe in triple blind studies in which the statistics gathering person is the "third blind" person, then you could make a "double blind" by making the patient and the person gathing the info blind.

 

[paramed2premed]

Many medical fields have faced difficulties in developing high-quality methodologies for reasearch. Any study comparing medical versus surgical treatment faces these problems. In psychiatry, a topic of debate revolves around the best way to construct valid control arms, especially when psychotherapy is being compared with pyschopharmacology.

Medicine demands proof. Credit goes to those who can provide that proof. Accolades go to those who develop innovative ways of obtaining that proof.

The sort of nihilism that you are espousing, DOsouthpaw, is troubling, and I pray is not reflected in the faculty at DO schools. The lament that a certain therapy is unique, not amenable to proof, and that journals will not allow any proof to be published anyway, is the familiar cry of the quack.

Instead, direct your energies into creating good tests. You sound commited to the value of OMT, DOsouthpaw. Now do the hard work that will validate your faith.

I challenge you to describe, in your next post, a valid research protocol for testing the value of OMT in any certain medical condition.

 

[DrQuinn]

My 0.02

DOSouthpaw makes some good claims (I'm a lefty, too, btw). OMT research has to be conducted "differently" than the classic evidence-based double-blind placebo controlled studies that is the "standard" for western medicine. Each patient does usually have unique lesions. Be it rib dysfuncitons, myofascial dysfunctions, TOS, blah blah for such a disease such as asthma. Diagnosing them isn't necessarily standard amongst all practitioners... and the treatment isn't standard (amount of force given, etc)... compared to just a 500 mg po Levaquin QD.

OMT research has a big hurdle to pass in regards to just setting up the research and the plan. Now I am no research guru (one reason why I am going into EM, although EM research is a growing field)... but it is indeed tough. And proposing that DOSouthpaw come up with a protocol right now on this website is pretty demanding.

DOSouthpaw is no quack... I can assure you. It is obvious he is interested in OMT (and not an antagonist, which, classically, I am...). The DO profession needs more people like him. I hope he continues his philosophy throughout medical school (usually dies in the beginning of third year).


Q

 

[paramed2premed]

Yeah, I guess banging out a research protocol on the spot is fairly heavy lifting! It's not like I'm exactly churning out studies...

I meant no ad hominems about quacks and DOsouthpaw. I don't know anything about him/her and his/her beliefs beyond that which I have read here. By quacks, I meant, for example, those folks on the internet who say they can cure AIDS with herbs, but that their research is being repressed

Back to the asthma example. As an allopathic paramedic, I realize that asthma may be atopic, triggered by irritants, or even the cold. Regardless of the multiple etiologies of asthma, studies abound that compare therapies for undifferentiated asthma. That is why studies need so many darn subjects, in order to show a difference in therapies despite the heterogeneity of the patients and the concomitant variation in effects of those therapies.

Maybe when I get into osteo school I'll see this issue differently, but I doubt it. Whether it's Pfizer or AT Still, I like to see evidence for anything that claims to be medicine.

This thread just ran away from the intent of the OP. I'm done posting here on this subject. If anyone wants to start up a discussion in a new thread focussed on the complexities on OMM research, I would love to listen and particiapate.

 

[az2]

I was accepted into two MD programs and two DO programs. I chose a DO program, and I have no regrets.

 

[sleep deprived]

I notice that whenever subjects like this come up, people equate Osteopathic Medicicne with OMM. But what everyone is forgetting is that Osteopathy is not just medicine plus OMM. If you take away the OMM, there is still a difference. And that difference is clearly mind set and attitude. We are taught a "mind, body, spirit" approach to medicine. I am not saying that MD's are not taught this. I am sure they are also. But just like the MD curriculum has more emphasis on research methodologies than the DO curriculum, the DO curriculum has more emphasis on "Mind, Body, Spirit," and "wholisitic medicine," than the MD curriculum. There may be exceptions here and there. But it is undeniable that this is the general trend. One is not better than the other, they are just different. So even if you take away all of the OMM, there is still an undeniable difference in attitude and philosopical approach toward viewing a patient if you are a DO. I think this is so neat. When I think electrolytes like K+ and Na+, I am automatically thinking nervous system, urinary system, cardiovascular system, muscoloskeletal system, and how all of them are implicated together as a result of an electrolyte imbalance. How all of these body systems directly influence one another wholistically. I am not saying MD's do not do this. Repeat, I am not saying MD's do not do this! I am sure they do, however this thinking style is highly, highly, emphasized at an Osteopathic school. It was evident in the way our physiology course was structured. Instead of learning physio, system by system, we were always kind of learning about all of them, and continually going back to things we already covered and relating it to new information. I love it, I can't get enough of it. My way of thinking in terms of medicine has been influenced forever, and I am only in my first year.

 

[aquaboy]

Thought I would bump this up since we are at the end of the application cycle for this year. Any input?

 

[Nater44]

If DO aren't allowed certain opportunities it's probably not because of ability, rather people in power feeling threatened or holding on to old stereotypes. Many of these people will retire soon and through attrition attitudes will change. Why is it when I tell people that I believe in the philosophy of osteopathic medicine and the approach to patients that's taught in DO school people are immediately suspicious?

 

[normalforce]

I was accepted to Indiana University and declined to attend UHS. It is about where you want to be, how you want to practice medicine, and opportunity. I went to UHS because of the 4-yr DO/MBA Dual Degree Program. I wish someone could hang up a big banner that appears each time someone logs onto this site saying, "People, there is no difference between DO and MD." Premeds and med students seem to have the toughest grappling match with this issue. Medicine is about living, learning and respecting life. If anyone thinks anything else, pack your bags and go do something else. Quit bickering, stay focused and learn everything you can. One day a physician will do something to make your life better or even save it. Before he does that, are you going to ask him/her if he/she is a DO or MD. Nope!

Normal Force

 

[aquaboy]

Bump to see thoughts after this application cycle!!!!!

 

[brianjc]

Yes, D.O. and M.D. are on equal footing. However, why would you go d.o. if you got into m.d. The facts are this: legally, d.o. and m.d. are the same, however, there is a huge political difference which can affect your residency opportunities and where you finally end up practicing. I myself interviewed at two m.d. schools and was declined at both. So I'm going to be a d.o. And when people ask me why I'm going d.o. I don't feed them the line of I like the philosophy better! People that believe that have been taken. Today only about 6% of d.o. practice manipulation and any good doctor (d.o. or m.d.) is going to treat the whole person and not the disease. Again there is nothing wrong with osteopathy and I think learning the manipulation is going to be fun (and I'll score points with my wife!), but if you get into m.d. go for it because in the political environment of medicine an m.d. degree will allow you to jump through the hoops better than that of a d.o. degree.

Having said that I'm happy and proud to be going to a d.o. school and I'm excited to have the opportunity to see patients and to practice medicine in the future.

 

[goooooober]

I must respectfully disagree with the last post. This crap about DOs being discriminated against by MDs may have been true 50 years ago. Today, although some MDs don't like DOs, the vast majority could not care less. Don't get me wrong, there is a tremendous amount of politics involved in medicine, but it is the same for both MDs and DOs. Kissing ass for politics will only get you so far. If you prove yourself to be good you will be accepted regardless of whether you are MD or DO. If you begin your medical career giving into political pressure, be prepared for a disatisfying career full of decisions made for you by others. Go where you want, work your ass off, become the best, not the best you can be, but the very best and make people respect you. If you are great, there might be one person that will stand in your way, but 10 others will be there to give you a chance. And please, all of you kids, grow up. You all sound like bunch of insecure, acne infested teenagers.

 

[brianjc]

It's funny how you begin with being respectful, and then resort to name calling at the end!

 

[bck]

This debate, I expect, shall rage eternal. However, I feel that I must put in my own two cents. I have grown up in a family filled with physicians. My grandfather and two of my uncles were D.O.s. Another of my uncles and his wife are M.D.s. After spending much time with them, and growing up listening to them, and their heated debates I have formed a somewhat ridged opinion on the matter. The difference between Osteopaths and Allopaths lies not in the didactic education. It lies not in the clinical education, and although the Osteopaths learn a great deal more about the musculoskeletal system during their OMT training, this contrary to popular belief is not what separates the two. We could argue for decades without tire about the effectiveness of OMT. Yet, as mentioned in other replies, there has not been sufficient empirical evidence to support many of the claims. I will no doubt; use OMT in my own practice, for my personal experience in its effectiveness has swayed my opinion. As for funding there can be no argument. Allopathic institutions and organizations obviously have much deeper pockets due most likely to the sheer number of allopathic physicians licensed in the US today. Then there is the stigma that still lingers with the ignorant that D.O.s are not as well trained as M.D.s. As much as I would like say it no longer exists, it does, and those who believe it propagate it. So why with all this said would I still choose DO over MD? The answer is simple; Love. Of all the physicians I have known and shadowed, of all the schools (allopathic and osteopathic) I have visited and interviewed with I found only one branch of medicine to be infused with the people whom I desperately crave to learn from and emulate. It is not a difference in education that makes osteopathic schools the better choice in my case. It is in the people, and their radiating openness and sincerity. I traveled to many schools in the interview process and chose the one that felt like home. OSU-COM inspired me. Not through architecture (although very beautiful) but through the people and students I met there. When I left after my interview and got into my car for my drive back to Kansas City I had to take a moment and dream of what this school could help me to be. I am confident that in choosing (and having the good fortune of being chosen by) OSU-COM that I have placed myself in the exact right place to grow and learn to be the most caring, well educated physician I am capable of. For all of you out there still searching for a school I have one suggestion for you. Find a home, a school where the people and the atmosphere inspire to not only study harder, but to be a better human being. Then and only then can you choose your school. For me DO is in my blood. My grandfather was the most selfless giving physician I have ever known. It was his philosophy, and I choose to make it mine. What makes a physician is not the letters next to his/her name. It is in the desire to eradicate pain and suffering, while advancing the methods and knowledge that allow us to do so. To do this and to do it for each and every patient with love and sincerity is what makes a physician.

 

[Plinko]

I am of the same thinking as Brianjc. As a DO student with several physicians in my family (MD and DO) I feel I am pretty well acqainted with many of the sentiments stated here. The major dividing line that no one seems to recognize is between the two separate ideologies of how things are and how things should be. Yes, DOs are as capable as their MD counterparts in just about every way imaginable. And yes, ideally a premed should choose the school where she/he will be happiest. In a perfect world this is how things should be. HOWEVER, the world is far from perfect, and as wrong as it may be, discrimination still exists towards DOs; albeit the prejudice is diminishing every passing year. This is the way things are. Of course, as a DO student I strongly believe such discrimination is unfounded. It is the haughtly close-minded MDs out there--mostly in the minority these days--that are keeping it alive. The cold hard facts though dictate that some of these individuals will invariably be making decisions about the quality of my training when I apply for residency slots. There are certain pathways in medicine that I will have virtually no chance to pursue (e.g. plastic surgery) should I want to go in that direction. As such, I would have to advise anyone with a choice between a MD and DO degree that is still ambivalent about what specialty they wish for themselves to go with a MD program. My decision was largely financial, as I received acceptances from private MD schools whereas my current school (DO) is state funded with dirt cheap tuition. I watched my father struggle with medical school loans well into mid-life and I vowed that would not happen to me. Being that I don't want a specialty for myself such as neurosurgery, plastic surgery, etc. I don't have any regrets as of yet. I can only hope that does not change.

 

[Margaret2007]

I am attending MSUCOM this year and am planning to make research part of my carear. OMT research may be taking baby steps right now, but great things take time. DOs have had a lot to overcome to establish themselves; including the widespread public impression that we are inferior to MDs. We are not, ofcourse. Embracing manipulative techniques in addition to traditional treatment makes us even stronger as physicians. As DOs we'll face discrimination, but like any minority we will have to stand up for what we believe in and push ahead. If doors are closed we have to at least try to break the barrier, rather than just conform to the system that put it there.

Just my opinion.

P.S. I only applied to MD programs as backups to DO, and "lower admissions standards" were not a factor in the least.

 

[doctorperez]

Originally posted by Plinko
There are certain pathways in medicine that I will have virtually no chance to pursue (e.g. plastic surgery) should I want to go in that direction. As such, I would have to advise anyone with a choice between a MD and DO degree that is still ambivalent about what specialty they wish for themselves to go with a MD program.

Plinko the web is filled with websites of DOs plastic surgeons whom have studies in both osteopathic and allopathic plastic surgery residencies, what makes you hold the belief you would have no chance to pursue such a pathway?

 

[hippocrates2006]

Originally posted by doctorperez
Plinko the web is filled with websites of DOs plastic surgeons whom have studies in both osteopathic and allopathic plastic surgery residencies, what makes you hold the belief you would have no chance to pursue such a pathway?

You Guys must have turned down Mexican or Carribean MD programs.. Otherwise I would say u got knocked in the head a few too many times as a child. Or too many 24 packs of Fosters lager.........

 

[doctorperez]

Originally posted by hippocrates2006
You Guys must have turned down Mexican or Carribean MD programs.. Otherwise I would say u got knocked in the head a few too many times as a child. Or too many 24 packs of Fosters lager.........

Doctorperez quickly approaches the wounded thread, reads the comments above, raises the head and points at the first person in sight and says: YOU, CALL THE TROLL PATROL!...
(to be continued) 😎

 

[Plinko]

Docperez

I suppose I should qualify my remark by saying that nothing is impossible. However, having many friends that are surigical residents, as well as a few surgeons in my family, I have had several conversations with people I consider to be "in the know" on this topic. I think if you look at the residencies of the people you see to be DO plastic surgeons on the web you will see that they did a standard five year general surgery residency (or ENT, or the like) and then reapplied (essentially backtracking their education) to plastic surgery residencies. The standard plastic surgery residency is six years (three general surgery and three plastic surgery). The vast majority of these programs are allopathic and run by the old school MDs that still have substantial prejudice against DOs. My friend and family connections did include though that there are subspecialties within the realm of plastic surgery (e.g. hand surgery) that are more open to DOs. I can't direct you to any website that will confirm these assertions. However, I can't deny their validity being that they are coming from multiple people with a combined sixty years of surgical experience. Like anything though I suppose it's who you talk to. I suppose these people could be wrong. Until I hear different though I would have to say that my feeling is that plastic surgery is a specialty that is rather closed off to me. If you have some documentation that refutes what I've heard please pass it along.

I should also add that I live in Texas, which is why I might be biased. I don't know if you've seen the movie "Breast Men" but Houston (Baylor) is sort of viewed as the birthplace of modern day plastic surgery. There is a real boy's club mentality when it comes to this particular specialty in Texas, and invariably the first thing on the list of criteria for acceptance into the club is a MD. Maybe things are different elsewhere.

 

[Plinko]

"You Guys must have turned down Mexican or Carribean MD programs.. Otherwise I would say u got knocked in the head a few too many times as a child. Or too many 24 packs of Fosters lager........."

I thought SDN's policy for their users to use a non-pulbic email address when registering would do the trick. Obviously, they need to up their standard to only those individuals who can provide a medical school/university (btw, hippocrates2006, ITT Tech does not count) email address. The former standard is clearly not working.

 

[brianjc]

I'm a tech in the O.R. in my local hospital, and recently I spoke to a plastic surgeon (our only one) about his training. He related that there is a single track plastic surgery program that you apply for right out of med school. However, he said that the majority of plastic surgeons out there did some type of surgical residency first and then completed a second plastic surgery residency. This is because for most plastic residencies out there, they require that there applicants be a board eligible surgeon, i.e. ENT, Ortho, or General who has already completed their respective training programs. So that is why the majority of Plastics, D.O. and M.D. do dual residencies.

However, I do agree. If you want to do an allopathic plastic residency you are basically S.O.L. I would bet that most of the plastic D.O.'s out there did D.O. residencies. I think the most important thing a student must do before deciding to become an osteopath is to do their own research. If their parents, grandparents, and great grand parents were all plastic surgeons and the student wants to follow that tradition, well then they had better keep applying allopathic. If any future D.O. students are reading this please do your research. If you want to pursue some type of speciality, please understand you probably want to pursue an allopathic residency, and although your chances are good, you have to be a damn good student and often have to have better scores than your M.D. brothers and sisters that you are competing with.

 

[doctorperez]

Originally posted by Plinko
Docperez

I think if you look at the residencies of the people you see to be DO plastic surgeons on the web you will see that they did a standard five year general surgery residency (or ENT, or the like) and then reapplied (essentially backtracking their education) to plastic surgery residencies. The standard plastic surgery residency is six years (three general surgery and three plastic surgery). The vast majority of these programs are allopathic and run by the old school MDs that still have substantial prejudice against DOs. My friend and family connections did include though that there are subspecialties within the realm of plastic surgery (e.g. hand surgery) that are more open to DOs. I can't direct you to any website that will confirm these assertions. However, I can't deny their validity being that they are coming from multiple people with a combined sixty years of surgical experience. Like anything though I suppose it's who you talk to. I suppose these people could be wrong. Until I hear different though I would have to say that my feeling is that plastic surgery is a specialty that is rather closed off to me. If you have some documentation that refutes what I've heard please pass it along.

I should also add that I live in Texas, which is why I might be biased. I don't know if you've seen the movie "Breast Men" but Houston (Baylor) is sort of viewed as the birthplace of modern day plastic surgery. There is a real boy's club mentality when it comes to this particular specialty in Texas, and invariably the first thing on the list of criteria for acceptance into the club is a MD. Maybe things are different elsewhere.

Hi Plinko



Actually what you call backtracking is the norm for both allopaths and osteopaths interested in plastic surgery , 5 and 6 year programs are fairly new and known as integrated/coordinated - these are HIGHLY competitive residencies with about 2 to 3 spots offered per year at only a handful of sites. As you can see most are doing the independent program. In fact, it has been known that (both allopaths and osteopaths) are no longer very competitive for allopathic plastic surgery with just 3 years of a surgical residency [1]. Also see my source for a complete plastic surgery osteo. track in 6 years (not including internship, however article 41 of the AOA allows you to petition that year be counted with your residency time) [2]. There is also this one with 6 years all inclusive [3]

I have also seen many osteiopaths with combined allopathic and osteopathic residencies [4]

In fact, my mentor has made mention of a 5 year osteopathic plastic residency in phili - however, I do not have the sources yet.


Now plinko, even if it some osteopaths needed to "backtrack" it still means it is not impossible and actually very "reachable".


About being in Texas, I am sure there are prejudices against DOs somewhere...but you know what? that glass ceiling has to break some day. Osteopaths need osteopaths in all specialties to teach osteopathic students. So if it means working hard and appealing to the legal system to get a just treatment from prejudiced individuals then at the end the satisfaction will be greater than that which comes with having followed the easiest route.



SOURCES:


[1]

[2]

[3]

[3']

[4]
[4']

 

[daveyboy]

Great post doctorperez!!

The fact is that you see plenty of DO's in the competetive specialties. I did a search for DO spine specialists and CT surgeons and found plenty. The key to getting anything competetive is to be a competetive applicant.

With regards to whether you do an allopathic or osteopathic residency, I don't see why it is such a big deal. If you do an osteopathic residency you will still be able to join a good group and make a darn good living doing the exact same thing as a guy that went allopathic.