Conversion of all DO degrees to MD, and ending separation of medicine

[homeboy]

, especially OMM, which in the hands of a good doctor has virtually zero risk of negative effects.

we don't look at treatments (osteopathic and others) only in terms of negative effects, we look at cost effectiveness too. if doing a rapid strep test on every sick person isn't going to hurt them, it doesn't mean we're going to do it because it's not warranted.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[J1515]

we don't look at treatments (osteopathic and others) only in terms of negative effects, we look at cost effectiveness too. if doing a rapid strep test on every sick person isn't going to hurt them, it doesn't mean we're going to do it because it's not warranted.

If their symptoms warrent a rapid strep test, you will do it. Sore throat and fever for 3+ days = rapid strep test. Cervical neck pain with stiffness = muscle energy. Come on, you're a year ahead of me, I shouldn't be explaining this stuff to you. Of course you're not going to perform OMM if it isn't warrented. Rib raising has a history of making some patients with URI symptoms feel better, with zero risk. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who comes in complaining of flu-like symptoms in addition to any other treatments an MD would do? I had a plain old stiff neck cured with ME the other day. Not a huge deal, but that's one less drug I had to put in my body and I was able to resume my normal activitiy of hunching over a book for the rest of the day.

 

[Dr JPH]

I like your strategy: throw, duck and run.

🙄

Ive put my myself out there countless times. I hardly think thats ducking and running. Saying the same thing over and over only for you to find new things to bitch about is a waste of my time.

You bash OMT
You bash how its billed
You bash the AOA
You bash the JAOA

Im sorry youre so upset about settling for a DO degree. Dont take it out on those of us who will become quite successful because of it.

 

[Dr JPH]

Come on, you're a year ahead of me, I shouldn't be explaining this stuff to you.

But you are far more intelligent.

And homeboy only claims to me MSIII

We dont know who he is, where he goes to school or what year he is.

Hiding behind annonimity. He can say anything, no matter how assinine, and sit back and wait for the crap to hit the fan. He gets off on it.

He has yet to produce an intelligent argument...or a productive one for that matter.

 

[bonesawz]

🙄

Ive put my myself out there countless times. I hardly think thats ducking and running. Saying the same thing over and over only for you to find new things to bitch about is a waste of my time.

You bash OMT
You bash how its billed
You bash the AOA
You bash the JAOA

Im sorry youre so upset about settling for a DO degree. Dont take it out on those of us who will become quite successful because of it.

I don't know if this is the case here, but I've noticed in many threads that those that question the current applications of OMM are accused of being bitter MD school rejects or they used DO as a backup and now they hate it.

I personally chose My DO school because after interviewing at a handful of MD and DO schools I could sense a difference in the people. I think a lot of students decision was based more on school preference than MD vs DO preference I went into it knowing I was signing up for the frustrating task of reassuring people I was a "real" doctor. Going back to the original post, I think a lot of people wonder why if the philosophy and teaching stay the same, and the caliber of people at DO schools stay the same, do the initials matter?
In my experience, the initials just mean the you are not automatically accepted as a "real" doctor in some places and have to ease doubting minds with your equally extensive education. You answer the original thought by saying the DO will make you more successful. Do you think this is true for many specialities? or just a few. To go back to Brany's thought. Consolidating initials won't change me or how I am taught, so why not? Seems like semantics to me.

 

[Dr JPH]

I don't know if this is the case here, but I've noticed in many threads that those that question the current applications of OMM are accused of being bitter MD school rejects or they used DO as a backup and now they hate it.

homeboy has taken it a step further

He bashes everything about the osteopathic profession.

He isnt just a "I dont believe in OMM" guy.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

If you say so. No use arguing with you. Better to just nod, smile and move on.

😀

"Just smile and wave boys, just smile and wave."

Although I think there should be an optional mechanism for the small minority of DO's who are in it simply because they didn't get into an allopathic program to list MD after there names so they don't have to the embarassment of explaining the difference (read as: shut the hell up already). I also think (regardless of the above option) that we should be licensed by the same boards and exams that allopathic physicians are, regardless of alleged differences in philosophy.....the OMT qualifications can be assessed by performance in those courses or in a stand alone examination for those DO's who actually give a rat's backside.

 

[bonesawz]

🙄

Ive put my myself out there countless times. I hardly think thats ducking and running. Saying the same thing over and over only for you to find new things to bitch about is a waste of my time.

You bash OMT
You bash how its billed
You bash the AOA
You bash the JAOA

Im sorry youre so upset about settling for a DO degree. Dont take it out on those of us who will become quite successful because of it.

I don't know if this is the case here, but I've noticed in many threads that those that question the current applications of OMM are accused of being bitter MD school rejects or they used DO as a backup and now they hate it.

I personally chose My DO school because after interviewing at a handful of MD and DO schools I could sense a difference in the people. I went into it knowing I was signing up for the frustrating task of reassuring people I was a "real" doctor. Going back to the original post, I think a lot of people wonder why if the philosophy and teaching stay the same, and the caliber of people at DO schools stay the same, do the initials matter?

You say the DO degree will make you more successful. Do you mean your training or do you mean the initials bring you more patients looking for those initial? Also, do you think it has the same potential in all specialities or specific ones you're thinking of?

 

[Northerner]

The problem (still) is this:

If you say DO=MD, DO's reject it because they're additionally trained in OMM. MD's reject it because we have different degrees, licensing boards, residencies, etc., and why offer equal ground to a group that claims it's got your education, and more, in light of the above differences?

If you say MD>DO, well...DO's reject it because they claim they're just as good as any MD. MD's reject it (the reasonable ones) because we're not out to show anyone up, and there's no reason not to share the field equally. Those MD's that believe MD>DO fixate on the above differences between the degrees, and see the DO degree as the non-MD degree program that has been the most successful at fighting for more and more practice rights.

You have to understand, while DO's have to deal with the annoying "what's an osteopath" confusion and have struggled to get equal footing, MD's have to deal with all peripheral caregivers and midlevel providers saying how slim the differences are between them and an MD. We have to deal with a shrinking monopoly on providing medical care; some things we're willing to concede, some we think only we should handle. Obviously, this varies person to person, organization to organization, region to region, state to state. But the bottom line is that while DO's may be outraged at "discrimination" against them, MD's are outraged that another medical degree has emerged and gained a hell of a lot of practice rights, seemingly trying to replace and one-up them. Understand, of course, there are right reasons and wrong reasons to feel this way, and both are represented in the collective sentiment.

No one's saying DO's shouldn't get these practice rights, but understand we do hear PA's talk about how slim the differences are to an MD, we do hear DPM's call themselves "physicians" and hear the slow transition from words like "podiatry school" to "podiatric medical school" and "podiatrist" to "podiatric physician". We hear chiropractors refer to chiropractor school as "medical school" or some hybrid derivation. We hear NP now called "Doctor" of NP, and hear about the things they want rights to do. We see all sorts of health professions having "white coat ceremonies" and see nurses wearing white coats. Everyone wears scrubs these days, and no one knows what all the letters after their name on the name badge mean anymore. We hear about most of these groups lobbying for more practice rights (and perhaps rightfully so, because if the educational advancement and clinical competency is there, why not) and wonder what even makes us physicians.....doctors.... anymore? What makes us special? ...anything? Are we so obsolete that our patients don't need us anymore? Don't want us? It's thoughts like that that get people so bitter about this topic. We invest (as do many health care professionals) so much time and energy and money and work and risk all because we thought we were doing something noble. We thought we were helping people. And to be honest, we thought we would be appreciated, respected, and valued. It's a pretty disappointing feeling to think after a while that people might not need or want your help, or that the MD degree we valued and respected so much ourselves is slowly decaying.

You have your insecurities, we have ours.

 

[FutureNavyDOc]

If their symptoms warrent a rapid strep test, you will do it. Sore throat and fever for 3+ days = rapid strep test. Cervical neck pain with stiffness = muscle energy.

Yep, I fondly remember the day I used ME on my pt with Meningitis. Man did that Muscle Energy get that N. meningitidis out of his CSF! Then I CV-4'ed him and watched the Neisseria march out his anus.

Rib raising has a history of making some patients with URI symptoms feel better, with zero risk. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who comes in complaining of flu-like symptoms in addition to any other treatments an MD would do?

Zero risk? Nothing has zero risk. The doctor who doesn't realize this is foolish. If the patient has a fractured rib and you displace it and cause a pneumothorax, I would consider that a risk. I'll be the first to admit that it's not a likely scenario, but it is possible, therefore there is a risk.

Not a huge deal, but that's one less drug I had to put in my body and I was able to resume my normal activitiy of hunching over a book for the rest of the day.

I would also recommend getting a book holder that allows you to read and study with good posture. This way you can prevent the problem which IMHO is a better idea than merely treating it when it occurs.

 

[Taus]

I would also recommend getting a book holder that allows you to read and study with good posture. This way you can prevent the problem which IMHO is a better idea than merely treating it when it occurs.

getting a book holder is one of the best investments I've made in a long time.....my neck and upper back actually don't feel like $hit after studying anymore....it may look kinda dorky but its well worth it IMO...

 

[homeboy]

If their symptoms warrent a rapid strep test, you will do it. Sore throat and fever for 3+ days = rapid strep test. Cervical neck pain with stiffness = muscle energy. Come on, you're a year ahead of me, I shouldn't be explaining this stuff to you. Of course you're not going to perform OMM if it isn't warrented. Rib raising has a history of making some patients with URI symptoms feel better, with zero risk. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who comes in complaining of flu-like symptoms in addition to any other treatments an MD would do? I had a plain old stiff neck cured with ME the other day. Not a huge deal, but that's one less drug I had to put in my body and I was able to resume my normal activitiy of hunching over a book for the rest of the day.

Don't worry, tough guy, I take your advice with a grain of salt...and FYI indications for a rapid strep test are a little more complicated and variable than "fever and ST for 3 days" . Swollen tonsils / nodes? Petechiae on the roof of the mouth? GI complaints? You use clinical judgement, not a textbook definition of "when to administer a rapid strep test." Many people don't have a fever, and can have any combination of those sx.

And JP, yes, I have been negative about the AOA and various aspects of the osteopathic profession, most of which I outlined in a thread I posted nearly a year ago: "A critical review of Osteopathy." That paper was the product of nearly a year of rough drafts and edits, and hopefully got some people to think about aspects of this profession that need revision.

Do I think the Osteopathic profession is worthless? No, of course not, and I'd be an idiot if I did. Do I care that I'm a DO versus and MD? No, but I do care about how my profession is portrayed by its leaders / loudest proponents.
1. Our current leadership is atrocious; the AOA pres would rather accept DO students with sub-standard scores that 'truly love osteopathic medicine' (not sure how you'd do that...) if it meant more enthusiasm about OMT, the AOA, etc...
2. I've posted infinite threads criticizing cranial as a dubious practice and backed them up with a few systemmatic reviews, logic and philosophical beliefs.
3. Yes, I've been critical of OMT, but mainly in so much as how / when it is employed, and how it is advertised by the profession. I'm not denying the advantage of our musculoskeletal education in terms of helping us understand clinical physiology / mechanics; I am denying the proclaimed effectiveness as being better than PT (or the argument that if someone's going to make money on manual medicine, it may as well be us).

People like JP and J15 dismiss any and all dissent in OMT as whining and bitching by supposed "MD rejects." Anyone who's applied to medical school knows it's a crapshoot, whether you're applying DO or MD; assuming people like me are "md rejects" is arrogant and stereotypical, and lamenting the absence of a 100% embrace of OMT by all DO students is unrealisitic and naive.

Very few practicing DOs incorporate any meaningful amount of OMT into their practice. Until the AOA takes a 21st century stance on medicine, swallows it's pride, and does some serious internal reviews, there's going to be conflict by those who remain a part of the debate (most people who feel like I do don't spend any effort and simply go allo).

 

[MDDOWhatever]

Oh bull crap.
There's nothing that OMT provides that a combination of chiro and PT couldn't.
And again, I'll mention that any MD has the POTENTIAL to learn and consequently bill for OMT if he / she so chooses.

Can MD's bill for OMT if they learn it? Don't DO's have to be board certified, in order to bill for OMM? I always figured an MD could do OMM as part of a regular visit, when it was appropriate, but that insurance companies wouldn't reimburse an MD for such a treatment, so they'd have to just bill it as a regular visit or whatever.

Anybody know the deal on this one?

Maybe it would vary from area to area. For instance, I know that docs (MD or DO) who are not primary care, in most urban areas, will not be able to act as primary care docs if they want to be reimbursed by a lot of insurance companies, but that changes as you go into rural areas.

 

[MDDOWhatever]

Anyone who's applied to medical school knows it's a crapshoot, whether you're applying DO or MD; assuming people like me are "md rejects" is arrogant and stereotypical.

Sorry to be arrogant and stereotypical, but that quoted sentence by you honestly makes me want to know now. Are you an "MD reject?"

<braces self for flame war>

 

[DropkickMurphy]

1. Our current leadership is atrocious; the AOA pres would rather accept DO students with sub-standard scores that 'truly love osteopathic medicine' (not sure how you'd do that...) if it meant more enthusiasm about OMT, the AOA, etc...

So basically the osteopathic equivalent of the Hitler youth?

 

[dcratamt]

I dont do cranial. Never have.

Yikes!

 

[MDDOWhatever]

Is valuemd.com down?

OMG, LMFAO. That was really low... but f*cking hysterical.

I have to agree though. I really get so much more enjoyment from the DO threads on this site than the Allopathic ones. Makes me almost wish I had chosen osteopathic school instead so I could fight with all my classmates daily about the efficacy of cranial or whatever the OMM battle du jour might be.

As to the OP, I personally would have no problem with it whatsoever. I'd love to learn OMM as an adjunct musculoskeletal therapy someday, and there's no diff in my book whatsoever between a DO or MD other than the letters themselves.

A good doc is a good doc, and a quack is a quack.. and there are the full spectrum range between those two endpoints represented by both sides of the letters-after-the-name game. I do think it should be MD though, and it's not because that's "my" side but simply because it's what everyone knows already... it would be a lot easier to just do that than try and educate the masses on the (supposed) differences and what "DO" means, etc.

 

[Old_Mil]

Dont take it out on those of us who will become quite successful because of it.

In terms of health care dollars earned by DOs, it's important to remember that the overwhelming majority come from the practice of evidenced based allopathic medicine. People in the osteopathic community who fail to realize and respect this basic fact of life really have nothing valuable to contribute when it comes to a discussion on the future of the profession.

 

[J1515]

Yep, I fondly remember the day I used ME on my pt with Meningitis. Man did that Muscle Energy get that N. meningitidis out of his CSF! Then I CV-4'ed him and watched the Neisseria march out his anus.

I'm not responding to stupidity. I should've included my full medical history to sdn before the ME treatment.

Zero risk? Nothing has zero risk. The doctor who doesn't realize this is foolish. If the patient has a fractured rib and you displace it and cause a pneumothorax, I would consider that a risk. I'll be the first to admit that it's not a likely scenario, but it is possible, therefore there is a risk.

Sorry I eliminated the word "virtually" that I previously had before "no risk". There's also a risk of a patient taking an antibiotic and going into anaphylactic shock. There are contraindications for everything. A good doctor knows this.

I would also recommend getting a book holder that allows you to read and study with good posture. This way you can prevent the problem which IMHO is a better idea than merely treating it when it occurs.

I'm pretty sure it's a postural thing, regardless of reading or sitting in front of a computer. I naturally slouch when I sit. If you have any ideas how to get out of this bad habit, my ears (eyes) are open.

 

[Old_Mil]

Yep, I fondly remember the day I used ME on my pt with Meningitis. Man did that Muscle Energy get that N. meningitidis out of his CSF! Then I CV-4'ed him and watched the Neisseria march out his anus.

 

[homeboy]

Sorry to be arrogant and stereotypical, but that quoted sentence by you honestly makes me want to know now. Are you an "MD reject?"

<braces self for flame war>

I've gotten into this before, and don't want to branch into a whole 'nother thread, but few DO students apply only to osteopathic school (on your mark, get set, go! All the pre-med'ers that KNEW osteopathy fit their beliefs better and only applied DO, post your reply!...).
For the most part, these applicants didn't really care if they're a DO or an MD, so to increase their chances, applied both, and for whatever reason went DO: location, wait-lists, family...who doesn't know of a 4.0 student getting rejected / waitlisted at 1 school and accepted at another, and the 3.5 / 24 MCAT getting the full ride. Maybe if applying to med school was free, people would apply to them all...it's kinda of expensive...
the point is...there's TONS of reasons people don't / do get into medical school.
It's a cop-out to say, 'you're an MD school reject' and deny that med school admission is anything other than a crap shoot.
btw--I wouldn't have applied to DO school if i didn't want to go, or more accurately, didn't care if it got me to the same endpoint.

and yes, MDs can take a few hundred (believe it's around 300 or so) hours of CME credits and can legally employ / bill for OMT with the exact same ICD-9 codes.

 

[J1515]

FYI indications for a rapid strep test are a little more complicated and variable than "fever and ST for 3 days" . Swollen tonsils / nodes? Petechiae on the roof of the mouth? GI complaints? You use clinical judgement, not a textbook definition of "when to administer a rapid strep test." Many people don't have a fever, and can have any combination of those sx.

Nice job going off on a tangent and completely avoiding the point just as I thought you would. The point of this whole argument isn't what the clinical presentation of strep throat is, it's that if there is an indication for a treatment, you provide it. If there isn't an indication, then you don't. Simple. Someone who complains solely of acute stomach pains wouldn't get a rapid strep test right off the bat, just as a rational DO wouldn't perform counterstrain to the thoracic spine for someone with a URI. Now I expect you to look up certain conditions where stomach pains can lead to streptococcal infections of the throat instead of addressing the main point. Go ahead. For the record, bring your kid in to the dr with a fever and a sore throat and I guarantee you they'll do a strep test. Guarantee it.

1. Our current leadership is atrocious; the AOA pres would rather accept DO students with sub-standard scores that 'truly love osteopathic medicine' (not sure how you'd do that...) if it meant more enthusiasm about OMT, the AOA, etc...
2. I've posted infinite threads criticizing cranial as a dubious practice and backed them up with a few systemmatic reviews, logic and philosophical beliefs.

I agree.

People like JP and J15 dismiss any and all dissent in OMT as whining and bitching by supposed "MD rejects." Anyone who's applied to medical school knows it's a crapshoot, whether you're applying DO or MD; assuming people like me are "md rejects" is arrogant and stereotypical, and lamenting the absence of a 100% embrace of OMT by all DO students is unrealisitic and naive.

You've just lost all credibility in my eyes. When did I ever call you an MD reject? When did I say you have to 100% embrace all of OMT? Some of it, including cranial, is total bs and worthless. Some of it with a rational theory behind it benefits patients. What is your problem with a DO billing for it? I'm not talking about an idiot claiming crainial or any other treatment for that matter will cure everything from GI problems to ED's. I'm talking about if someone comes in with a stiff neck or a contractured/spasming muscle you can treat that with OMM instead of telling them to take NSAIDs or sending them to a PT. What is the problem with that if you're good at it?

Editted for idiots who like to twist things around: stiff neck condition described above, with meningitis and every single other systemic disease r/o

 

[homeboy]

J15, I think you misunderstood me...I don't have a problem with people scheduling OMT visits and getting OMT...I'm not an anti-all-of-OMM person.

My point was that you shouldn't do the OMT relevant tx to every patient that comes in just because OMM tells you it's warranted.

You can do some sort of OMT on basically every patient that comes to you; if you're just throwing a tx on top of the visit for extra income, that's unethical.

I don't have a problem with pts coming in for specific pains and getting OMT done. I've done it myself on the rotations I've had.

btw...you can't guarantee me anything. my whole point with even bringing up the rapid strep test was that ancillary testing / tx is not always warranted. i never said 'fever and ST'...you or JP did. I said 'sick person.'

and another thing: experience doesn't correlate with intelligence, and doesn't give leverage when discussing matters of principle. yea, a 4th yr has more experience than me...big deal; doesn't mean he/she is 'smarter', just that he/she has had more time to practice some specific skills.

don't mistake quantity for quality.

 

[J1515]

You can do some sort of OMT on basically every patient that comes to you; if you're just throwing a tx on top of the visit for extra income, that's unethical.

Now we're getting somewhere. This I agree with. There are some OMT treatments that are so far out there it's ridiculous and probably seems almost silly to the patient. For example, the pedal pump for lymphatic tx. A slow jog from the parking lot to the medical office will accomplish the same thing. This is just my personal opinion. There are however treatments that are valid (in my rather inexperienced eyes).

btw...you can't guarantee me anything. my whole point with even bringing up the rapid strep test was that ancillary testing / tx is not always warranted. i never said 'fever and ST'...you or JP did. I said 'sick person.'

With my *experiences* as a patient and from the doctor's side, a fever and sore throat was always reason enough for a strep test. I've never once seen a doctor say "well he's had 101.3 fever for 2 days and a beet red throat upon examination, but no pettechiae so let's not bother with a strep test." The textbook might say otherwise, but in the real world doctors cover their asses. Of course you're not going to test everyone for strep without at least one or two symptoms leading you to believe it's a possibility. It's relatively noninvasive so why not play it safe.

and another thing: experience doesn't correlate with intelligence, and doesn't give leverage when discussing matters of principle. yea, a 4th yr has more experience than me...big deal; doesn't mean he/she is 'smarter', just that he/she has had more time to practice some specific skills.

don't mistake quantity for quality.

It's not about practicing skills or how smart you are. It's about what you've seen over the years. I would never tell a practicing physician what it's like to practice medicine, because obviously they've experienced it and I haven't. Doesn't mean they're smarter than me, per se. Similarily, it would be ridiculous for a premed to tell me or you what the workload of medical school is like.

 

[homeboy]

Now we're getting somewhere. This I agree with. There are some OMT treatments that are so far out there it's ridiculous and probably seems almost silly to the patient. For example, the pedal pump for lymphatic tx. A slow jog from the parking lot to the medical office will accomplish the same thing. This is just my personal opinion. There are however treatments that are valid (in my rather inexperienced eyes).



With my *experiences* as a patient and from the doctor's side, a fever and sore throat was always reason enough for a strep test. I've never once seen a doctor say "well he's had 101.3 fever for 2 days and a beet red throat upon examination, but no pettechiae so let's not bother with a strep test." The textbook might say otherwise, but in the real world doctors cover their asses. Of course you're not going to test everyone for strep without at least one or two symptoms leading you to believe it's a possibility. It's relatively noninvasive so why not play it safe.



It's not about practicing skills or how smart you are. It's about what you've seen over the years. I would never tell a practicing physician what it's like to practice medicine, because obviously they've experienced it and I haven't. Doesn't mean they're smarter than me, per se. Similarily, it would be ridiculous for a premed to tell me or you what the workload of medical school is like.

Ok, let's drop the stupid RST thing.
Anyway, I'm talking in general terms, not specifics of clinical practice of medicine.
All I was saying was that all the practice / experience in the world doesn't mean squat if your logic is flawed (again, not talking terms of mere clinical medicine, but rather general terms: ethics, principles, ideals, ... using cranial).

But...specific to medicine...if a doc has been in practice 20 yrs and still employs a rx / tx that has in renent years been disproven, his experience does not trump your knowledge (though I hesitate to use the word "knowledge," as all it seems to mean today is a massive collection of factoids. being a Dr. doesn't necessarily mean you're intelligent, it just means you're good at memorizing / learning / regurgitating tons of material. Though certainly some / many Drs are intelligent... But I digress.)

 

[Brany]

I truly appreciate all of your contributions in regards to this matter; however, I think we are not truly sticking to the main topic that this forum was intended to open discussions about. I believe the benefits of OMM to the physician's pocket and its significance to the high quality healthcare services that DO’s can offer to their patients should be discussed in a separate forum specifically targeting these concerns (as it has been previously by the thread that was kindly posted by homeboy titled as "a critical review of Osteopathy"). Again, I would like to reiterate my concern as mentioned previously to evaluate and discuss the pertinent factors that justifies the separation of medicine even though all the beneficial aspects of osteopathic medicine were incorporated into the whole world of medicine. Subsequently, all doctors and patients could universally benefit from these great aspects of medicine that osteopathy has contributed to medicine and the well-being of all patients. Or we could just maintain our mentality as our father AT Still in order to preserve our exclusive separate club with certain philosophies and skills, so the rest of the world in medicine will remain deprived from such benefits. Please focus on these criteria as you kindly contribute to this discussion.

 

[doc2010]

...we are not truly sticking to the main topic that this forum was intended to open discussions about. I believe the benefits of OMM to the physician's pocket and its significance to the high quality healthcare services that DO's can offer to their patients should be discussed in a separate forum specifically targeting these concerns.... Please focus on these criteria as you kindly contribute to this discussion.

Not gonna happen. Obviously, you are unaware of Newton's Fifth Law, which states:

The number of appeals by a poster to keep a thread on topic is directly proportional to the likelihood that OMM bashing is going to continue on in the thread, and is inversely proportional to the amount of time the poster has spent on SDN.

 

[Brany]

It's really unfortunate that we as future leaders of our communities can not withhold a simple discussion without disrespecting eachother or bashing the tratment modalities

 

[homeboy]

threads such as these always begin on topic but fade into the obscurity of rants back and forth between 2 or 3 opinionated students.

Basically, the antithesis of your argument is outlined in a new article in "The D.O." (Oct. 2006) by Dr. Morton Morris, AT Still revisited. Unfortunately, Dr. Morris feels the need to accentuate hypothetical differences (eg. the supposed "osteopathic principles") in the 2 professions in order to maintain osteopathy as legitimate, versus continue to progress on the current track.

The interesting thing is that Dr. Morris doesn't seem to put much weight on manipulation as a key difference, but emphasizes the 'core osteopathic principles', and that they need to be more thoroughly integrated into all of didactic and clinical education (never mind the fact that these osteopathic principles are common sense to any physician, MD or DO), and laments the fact that so many students train at allopathic institutions.

 

[czanetti]

While we are at it lets eliminate all minorities in every profession, hell lets go strait to cultures becuase that will make life sooo much better and so much easier. Let it be, its like arguing to try to convert a demacrat to a republican this discussion will go no where it never has and never will. There are differences between the two professions but there are more similarities than differences kinda like most religiouns in the world today does that mean that we should erase all minority religiouns becuase they share many of the same qualities as the majority, if you want an answer to that you can look at what has been going on in the middle east and the rest of the world for over a hundred years. There are religious wars, political wars, and health care wars all because people are to proud and forget that the solution will not be found if they are more concerned about proving there point than they are about the purpose of the profession.

 

[Brany]

While we are at it lets eliminate all minorities in every profession, hell lets go strait to cultures becuase that will make life sooo much better and so much easier. Let it be, its like arguing to try to convert a demacrat to a republican this discussion will go no where it never has and never will. There are differences between the two professions but there are more similarities than differences kinda like most religiouns in the world today does that mean that we should erase all minority religiouns becuase they share many of the same qualities as the majority, if you want an answer to that you can look at what has been going on in the middle east and the rest of the world for over a hundred years. There are religious wars, political wars, and health care wars all because people are to proud and forget that the solution will not be found if they are more concerned about proving there point than they are about the purpose of the profession.

Dear czanetti,
Thank you for your input pertaining to this discussion; however, I would greatly appreciate if you can further elaborate what you mean by "eliminating all minorities", who are the minorities and majorities? Are you insinuating that all the different medical modalities resemble to various cultural beliefs, ethnicities, political parties, and religious beliefs? I would say actually there has never been any wars in the filed of medicine that would be similar to the types of wars you mentioned happening in the Middle East. Do you know why? Because medicine is not as subjective as the other areas that you mentioned are; medicine on the other hand has been built upon the basic principals of science, and as you might be aware science is never subjective-based. In comparison, religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and many other things that we see humans constantly going into wars are due to the fact that some people can not tolerate subjective beliefs and aspects of life that differ from theirs. Medicine and all its contributors around the world in regardless of their cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, ethnicities, and the color of their skin have had unanimously one main major goal and that is to contribute to the well-being of all humans. Although, I appreciate the extent of your knowledge in politics and your cultural-awareness; nonetheless, your attempt to make similarities between scientific debates that are the basis of medicine and unresolved political/ religious issues can not be a valid argument. Furthermore, I should add that many of us chose this profession because of the benefits we could find beyond the games played in politics and many other professions, because of its clear objective goals, and because of the tools that we can learn to utilize objectively (meaning not based on what I believe it works, whereas what has been scientifically proven to work) in order to positively affect a human life.
Do you really think it is in the benefits of medicine and the well-being of patients if we as physicians start to “tolerate/ be open-minded” to various treatment modalities that physicians come up with based on their strong beliefs that this is a good treatment for patients?
You also mentioned these are two different professions? You’d be amazed to find out how similar these two degrees are once you start medical school, the only difference that I have observed as far as the training goes is the few hours of OMM lectures that we get every week, other than that I am seeking hard everyday to find something that would really distinguish us from all the other physicians around the world. If you know more please share with us.

 

[czanetti]

Dear Brany,

By different professions, I meant in the sense that there are differences in between them. Since you read in to my comment so much I thought you would realize that obviously not. I do appreciate your input on subjectivity although I thought that that would be implied it's a matter of you being able to see the bigger picture. It's called an analogy. I was using a GENERAL statement comparing differences between religions stating that although they both have many qualities that are the same there are differences between them. (to spell this out for you DO/MD share many things I common yet there are little differences between them)
When I was talking about minority and majority I was referencing percentages of DOs vs. MDs in society. There are fewer DOs than MDs. Just like in society we have minority religions and cultures.

Another thing I never mentioned that the reason why you/anyone went into medicine was for politics or anything else for that matter. I don't know where you got that from. Once again I being an optimist would expect people to go into medicine for humanitarian reasons but we would both be wrong if we truly believed that. Regardless going back to subjectivity I never stated anything regarding subjectivity because evidence is what science is founded on I knew that, you know that, why mention it. I was just merely making a point that there is no sense of arguing because it turns into people nit picking what others say to prove them wrong as oppose to realizing the main point. For example what you just did.

By the regarding the wars comment, maybe not wars as in the sense of using machine guns but political wars yes there has been, the DO/MD California merger would be case and point. The DO discrimination in its early years would be another, it's odd that I would use the word discrimination in a purely scientific world isn't it? But can you see where it can fit because you should know that medicine isn't all about science anymore sadly it intertwines politics, money, business and power.

If politics had no say explain why it took so long for the FDA to find out that Smoking caused cancer? You know what better yet I'll give you a book to read so you can better spend your time analyzing something worth while here is the link http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Wars-P...id=1163289386/ref=sr_11_1/102-3011683-7468917

- Speaking of objectivity lets look into why drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex entered the health care market here's another link to yet another book where you can further read into the faultiness of objectivity in a society where science is compromised at times. http://www.amazon.com/Overdosed-Ame..._bbs_sr_1/102-3011683-7468917?ie=UTF8&s=books

Also how many physicians do you think hold stock in a medical technology company? How about a pharmaceutical company? You can do the research on that along with how that effects there objectivity.

I relate the healthcare area to society at large because they are related. Don't read too much into it because you will lose the forest through the trees. Read these books then we can talk further about the effects of the cofactors in our current scientific community.

By the way when i said lets eliminate all minorities I was being a tad sarcastic

regarding distinctions here is another book to read http://www.amazon.com/Osteopathic-M...ef=sr_1_8/102-3011683-7468917?ie=UTF8&s=books

its really up to the individual to either uphold them or not

 

[czanetti]

Dear Brany,
If you really want to be enlightened about these distinctions then I would suggest that it would be impertinent of you to acknowledge that a nuanced medical education is indicative of a capitalist socitey; in order to attest to its permeditation. It's a ostentatious component to our society and it asserts to the american societal condition.

hehe

there is no need to be all proper when you are communicating on SDN dude
everyone here is capable of doing it but it just isn't done

were are societies leaders and we are capable of holding that responsibility but you also have to be able to loosen up.

 

[homeboy]

While we are at it lets eliminate all minorities in every profession, hell lets go strait to cultures becuase that will make life sooo much better and so much easier. Let it be, its like arguing to try to convert a demacrat to a republican this discussion will go no where it never has and never will. There are differences between the two professions but there are more similarities than differences kinda like most religiouns in the world today does that mean that we should erase all minority religiouns becuase they share many of the same qualities as the majority, if you want an answer to that you can look at what has been going on in the middle east and the rest of the world for over a hundred years. There are religious wars, political wars, and health care wars all because people are to proud and forget that the solution will not be found if they are more concerned about proving there point than they are about the purpose of the profession.

Unfortunately, you are right, but if there are some motivated individuals that happen to stay in the profession in order to change things, perhaps the future will be different...when the generation of DOs that currently runs the AOA passes on.

 

[docbill]

This is how I feel about the whole subject and all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWst0O8_nG4

 

[MDDOWhatever]

Dear Brany,

By different professions I meant in the sense that there are differences in between them since you read in to my comment so much I thought you would realize that obviously not. I do appreciate your input on subjectivness and your points although valid make no point to what I said my argument wasn't based on subjectivness because I thought that that would be implied its a matter of you being able to see the bigger picture and general relation. Its called an anology. I was using a GENERAL statement comparing differences between religiouns stateing that although they both have many qualities that are the same there are differences between them (to spell this out for you DO/MD share many many things yet there are little differences between them ex as you stated above) When I was talking about minority and majority I was referencing percentages of DOs vs. MDs in society just like in society we have minority religiouns and cultures. another thing I never mentioned that the reason why you/anyone went into medicine was for politics or anything else I don't know where you got that from. Once again I being an optimist would expect people to go into medicine for humanitarian reasons but we would both be wrong if we truly believed that. regardless I never stated anything regarding subjectiveness because evidence is what science is founded on I knew that you knew that why mention it. I was just merely making a point that there is no sense of arguing becuase it turns into poeple nit picking what others say to prove them wrong as oppose to realizing the main point. For example what you just did. And by the way maybe not wars as in the sense of using machine guns but political wars yes there has been, the DO/MD california merger would be case and point. The DO discrimination in its early years would be another its odd that I would use the word discrimination in a purly scientific world isn't it? But can you see where it can fit becuase you should know that medicine isn't all about science anymore sadly it intertwines politics, money, buisness and power. If politics had no say explain why it took so long for the FDA to find out that Smoking caused cancer,, you know what better yet I'll give you a book to read so you can better spend your time analyzing somthig worth while heres the link http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Wars-P...id=1163289386/ref=sr_11_1/102-3011683-7468917

and speaking of objectivity lets look into why drugs like vioxx and celebrex entered the health care market here's another link to yet another book where you can further read into the faultyness of objectivity in a society where science is comprimised at times. http://www.amazon.com/Overdosed-Ame..._bbs_sr_1/102-3011683-7468917?ie=UTF8&s=books

to add on that how many physicians do you think hold stock in a medical technology company? or better yet a pharmacuetical company? you can do the research on that and also how that effects there objectivity.

I relate the healthcare area to society at large becuase they are related. Don't read to much into it because you will lose the forest through the trees. Read these books then we can talk further about the effects of the cofactors in our current scientific community.

By the way when i said lets eliminate all minorities I was being a tad sarcastic

regarding distinctions here is another book to read http://www.amazon.com/Osteopathic-M...ef=sr_1_8/102-3011683-7468917?ie=UTF8&s=books

its really up to the individual to either uphold them or not

Dear Czanetti,

I don't like to criticize this normally, but in your case it really would make the difference between readable and unreadale.

There is a wonderful concept in the English language. It is called: Punctuation.

usually you find that when you have a lot of big ideas to share but then run all of your sentences together into a big long sentence pretty soon without any punctuation bad grammer and all lower case or all upper case and bad sepleelling to boot there is not way to tell what the hell you are talking about and pretty soon all the words starttoruntogetherintoonebigmessforthereader.

So usually anyone who you were trying to get your point across to, just pretty much gives up on whatever it is you are trying to say.

Thanks.

 

[czanetti]

Dear MDDOWhatever,

I am sorry I wrote that in 5 minutes in between a biochemistry study break. I fixed it up a little tell me what you think now. I do apologize but I think you can be understanding considering the situation. I did take English once but I speak mandarin much more better.😉 Thank you for introducing me to this punctuation that you talk of it is very interesting.

NO, Thank you 🙂

 

[Gunit2010]

I was thinking that since we know more...why not just have both MD and DO at the end? Doesnt that make the idea of getting a DO that much better...extending the amount of letters after our name? We are suppose to be everything that an MD is and now we have that and more...seems like a simple way to solve the issue.

 

[jason3278]

I am just an undergraduate applying to medical school next year. Here are my thoughts: RNs go to college and earn a degree in nursing. This degree is not called an RN, but an ASN, BSN, or MSN. The RN title comes only after passing certain licensing exams. Why not to the same thing for physicians. We all could still have our respective degrees (Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, and MBBS for foreign grads), but the title "MD" (or whatever) would only be granted upon passing all 3 steps of the COMLEX or USMLE. Any thoughts?

 

[Dr JPH]

If you want an MD degree go to an MD granting medical school.

Your patients could care less what the letters are...they just know you as their doctor.

 

[It'sElectric]

Your patients could care less what the letters are...they just know you as their doctor.

Thank you! It's so strange how worked up some people get over all of this. The reality is that your pts. (the ones that matter the most) either don't know or don't care where you got your degree. They're just glad you have the skills and ability to help them.

We seem to endlessly debate this subject here among the bubbled confines of SDN, and more and more I realize that it's just US having these conversations.

 

[Northerner]

I was thinking that since we know more...why not just have both MD and DO at the end? Doesnt that make the idea of getting a DO that much better...extending the amount of letters after our name? We are suppose to be everything that an MD is and now we have that and more...seems like a simple way to solve the issue.

Surely you're aware that you're not allowed to do that and why. Rest assured - you don't know more. That's the best way to leave it, that's the best way to avoid unnecessary flame wars.

Interesting poll results, though.

 

[PedzOhNine]

thank you JP - this was a breath of fresh air

MSII

 

[azdoc09]

Here's something interesting to me:

The osteopathic superpowers (AOA) inundate me monthly with 10 different articles, most of which include a quote from A.T. Still somewhere in the first paragraph, in the magazine "The DO". In this magazine, the AOA and its representatives speak relentlessly of the "DO difference" and how we need to give the AOA money so they can continue to do amazing things for DOs like make a national TV commercial promoting the "DO difference" and do even more amazing things for DO students like changing our use of MS to OMS (way to go team!). I think maybe the reason the AOA is trying so hard to assert a "DO difference" is because there really isn't much of a difference (if any) between MDs and 95% of DOs and the AOA needs a way of authenticating its existance in order to maintain control of an osteopathic profession that is, all but an increasingly small percentage, allopathic in both training and practice.

On this thread a certain poster has been accused of being MD school reject. Well I have another perspective, what if your school is actually the one promoting the MD philosophy (evidence-based medicine) over the DO philosophy. What if your school is actually an MD school reject? The reason I say this is because at my school the "Osteopathic principles" are eluded to about twice during first year and not mentioned again. Mention of OMT is 100% missing from every basic science class, moreover it is hardly ever eluded to in our second year clinical medicine classes (maybe that's because our clinical class staff is (if not an MD) all but one MD residency trained. An MD teaches our pharm course; our path class is team-taught by an MD and a DO, the DO's contempt for OMT is obvious by the look on her face whenever a student mentions it. Talk of OMT/Osteopathic principles is locked away in its little bubble that is the OMM lab. In absolutely every aspect of our medical education we are hammered with statistics and relentlessly told of the importance of evidence-based medicine, with the exception of our 3 hour bubble every week where we hear astonishing stories of almost Biblical proportions about DO heroes that can diagnose a patient with a concussion upon entering the exam room without so much as a hint of history or physical info (true omm faculty story by the way). Even our standardized patient exams that we do in second and third years are completely sans osteopathic examination. During second year omm class they tell us we have to learn a different (osteopathic) exam so that we can pass the comlex pe. So, basically we do MD exams for everything but the comlex pe. During our first and second years we go to a clinical preceptor every other week to get some pt. experience (I had an MD first year and a DO second year who told me he never uses omt). As far as third and fourth year rotations go, most are preceptor based with MDs or MD trained DOs, and the rest are MD hospital based with most having some DOs on staff. Yes, what if it is true that your school is actually an MD school under a DO school's accreditation (err clothing)? Based on my experience and in talking to others, I think a lot of the contempt for OMT is actually being inadvertently perpetuated or exacerbated by the DO schools, especially in the area of the huge hypocrisy that is evidence-based medicine and OMT. I guess we're supposed to cleanse our minds of things like p-values and kappa scores when we enter the confines of the omm lab.

So my question is what exactly is the "Osteopathic difference" other than lip service by the AOA? How am I different if I'm trained by MDs and MD trained DOs who don't personally show any difference. Am I really supposed to be a different physician because somebody dimmed the lights in the lecture hall during first year omm lecture, put up a picture of A.T. Still on the board, and read off the "Osteopathic principles" to me? Moreover, how does the AOA maintain that DOs are so different while at the same time relying on the allopathic world to train the majority of its graduates? Over 75% of the students at my school take the USMLE and well over 80% go to MD residency programs. Is my entire practice career supposed to be different simply by virtue of the fact that I went to a DO school where they told me in omm class that DOs are different?

Here's another issue, someone please riddle me this: Why is it that some DO schools award the Doctor of Osteopathy degree, while some DO schools award the degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (both being referred to as DO)? Isn't the degree abbreviation supposed to have something to do with the actual text of the degree? I can see Doctor of Osteopathy being called a DO, but shouldn't a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine be called DOM, MDO, or OMD (OMD, however, is already taken by the Doctors of Oriental Medicine)?

 

[Dr JPH]

I think maybe the reason the AOA is trying so hard to assert a "DO difference" is because there really isn't much of a difference (if any) between MDs and 95% of DOs

True.

what if your school is actually the one promoting the MD philosophy (evidence-based medicine) over the DO philosophy.

I didnt know the MD "philosophy" was evidence based medicine. 😕
I think DOs practice evidence based medicine as well. And, personally, I try to stay with OMT that has a strong research base behind it (although it isnt in JAMA or NEJM, so some naysayers on here discount it)

What if your school is actually an MD school reject? The reason I say this is because at my school the "Osteopathic principles" are eluded to about twice during first year and not mentioned again.

Not at my school.

Mention of OMT is 100% missing from every basic science class, moreover it is hardly ever eluded to in our second year clinical medicine classes (maybe that's because our clinical class staff is (if not an MD) all but one MD residency trained. An MD teaches our pharm course; our path class is team-taught by an MD and a DO, the DO's contempt for OMT is obvious by the look on her face whenever a student mentions it.

Again...must be your school.

Talk of OMT/Osteopathic principles is locked away in its little bubble that is the OMM lab. In absolutely every aspect of our medical education we are hammered with statistics and relentlessly told of the importance of evidence-based medicine, with the exception of our 3 hour bubble every week where we hear astonishing stories of almost Biblical proportions about DO heroes that can diagnose a patient with a concussion upon entering the exam room without so much as a hint of history or physical info (true omm faculty story by the way).

Sounds like your school is teaching dogma and religion, not osteopathic medicine.

Even our standardized patient exams that we do in second and third years are completely sans osteopathic examination.

Shouldnt be, considering the COMLEX II PE has OMT on it. Guess theyre not preparing you very well.

During second year omm class they tell us we have to learn a different (osteopathic) exam so that we can pass the comlex pe.

Interesting.

So, basically we do MD exams for everything but the comlex pe.

I never thought a "DO" exam was any different than an "MD" exam. I examine a patient the same way an MD would, but I add my structural exam to it...I dont omit anything.

During our first and second years we go to a clinical preceptor every other week to get some pt. experience (I had an MD first year and a DO second year who told me he never uses omt). As far as third and fourth year rotations go, most are preceptor based with MDs or MD trained DOs, and the rest are MD hospital based with most having some DOs on staff.

Depends on where you do your clerkships I suppose.

Yes, what if it is true that your school is actually an MD school under a DO school's accreditation (err clothing)?

Sounds like your school certainly is.

Based on my experience and in talking to others, I think a lot of the contempt for OMT is actually being inadvertently perpetuated or exacerbated by the DO schools, especially in the area of the huge hypocrisy that is evidence-based medicine and OMT. I guess we're supposed to cleanse our minds of things like p-values and kappa scores when we enter the confines of the omm lab.

Quite the opposite. Sounds like your schools isnt teaching things the way they should be (or could be) taught. Doesnt seem like youre getting any of the evidence based medicine. Also seems like your OMM department relies more on anectdotes and "magic" stories rather than OMT. If so, I can see your frustration.

Moreover, how does the AOA maintain that DOs are so different while at the same time relying on the allopathic world to train the majority of its graduates?

You hit a key point here. I have no answer because it stumps me as well. More $$ needs to be invested in AOA Post Grad education rather than opening a new school every 6 months.

Over 75% of the students at my school take the USMLE and well over 80% go to MD residency programs.

It is like that everywhere. Plain fact is that many allopathic programs are better than many osteopathic programs. There are a good number of exceptions, but on a whole the quality is skewed.

Is my entire practice career supposed to be different simply by virtue of the fact that I went to a DO school where they told me in omm class that DOs are different?

Unfortunately it looks like the experience you are having at your school is sending you in that direction. 🙁

Here's another issue, someone please riddle me this: Why is it that some DO schools award the Doctor of Osteopathy degree, while some DO schools award the degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (both being referred to as DO)? Isn't the degree abbreviation supposed to have something to do with the actual text of the degree?

Semantics. Doesnt matter

I can see Doctor of Osteopathy being called a DO, but shouldn't a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine be called DOM, MDO, or OMD (OMD, however, is already taken by the Doctors of Oriental Medicine)?

DMD or DDS = dentist
DVM or VMD = veterinarian
DO = doctor of osteopathic medicine

Adding more letters or changing the title wont change anything.

 

[homeboy]

one comment from az's post: i too am sick of the AT Still quotes. Seriously, do allo students begin every lecture, article and case study by quoting Hippocrates? no to constantly compare osteo to allo, but that's the only reference point we have so is going to be the default reference.
anyway, i don't quite get the facsination...every OMM lecture i had began with an AT quote...every article in "The DO" begins with an AT quote...Crosby and the Stros mention his wisdom and insight every chance they get. seriously, enough with using AT quotes as reference points and standards.
(sorry, just a gripe)

 

[Shinken]

WAAAH! WAAAH!

Really people. What's going to be next? People complaining that the Toyota Corporation's newsletter talks about Japanese cars, Toyota trucks, and the Japanese way of manufacturing? Why, Toyota should publish articles in their newsletters about GM and American cars!!! The nerve!

Is anybody surprised that the AOA supports osteopathic medicine? Is anybody surprised that The DO magazine publishes articles about *gasp!* DOs and osteopathic medicine? Frankly, I'm shocked. The AOA should be an organization where sailors gather together, and The DO should publish reviews on which sailing boats to buy.

 

[homeboy]

...seriously, i think before going to bed at night, these people kneel in front of their shrines and pray to him at night... "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of AT Still, Amen."

 

[homeboy]

WAAAH! WAAAH!

Really people. What's going to be next? People complaining that the Toyota Corporation's newsletter talks about Japanese cars, Toyota trucks, and the Japanese way of manufacturing? Why, Toyota should publish articles in their newsletters about GM and American cars!!! The nerve!

Is anybody surprised that the AOA supports osteopathic medicine? Is anybody surprised that The DO magazine publishes articles about *gasp!* DOs and osteopathic medicine? Frankly, I'm shocked. The AOA should be an organization where sailors gather together, and The DO should publish reviews on which sailing boats to buy.

Stinkin, my point was merely that referencing AT Still as the gold standard of "osteopathic wisdom" is getting rather old.

 

[Shinken]

do allo students begin every lecture, article and case study by quoting Hippocrates?

Actually, YES! If it's not Hyppocrates it's Osler or Rush or any other bleeder in history. When I received viewbooks from allopathic med schools, they ALL had some sort of quote from Hyppo, Osler or such. So the answer is yes.