difference between Osteopathic and allopathic?
Started by sailence
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Well maybe you should search harder....
Nobody "told" me what a DO was, I researched it... Anyways I don't even know why I'm replying to this post...
You've been alive long enough to know that Wiki and Google are among the best inventions ever to exist within humanity..lol
Just because there's a possibility that you're not trolling here: http://www.osteopathic.org/
OP, I agree that if you do a search, you will find plenty of discussion on this issue. Also, feel free to peruse the Pre-Osteopathic Forum on SDN.
In addition, everyone, please keep this post in mind:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=133066
Thanks.
In addition, everyone, please keep this post in mind:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=133066
Thanks.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Since I honestly had no idea that DOs existed up until 2 years ago, I can see the OP's confusion.
DOs are Doctors of Osteopathy. They're who're trained just like MDs in the United States.
They are more rare in certain areas. California, for example, does not have as many as other states and certainly the Bay Area has fewer than Sacramento.
In the United States, they're granted full practicing rights and are treated like MDs under the law. Their responsibilities are more restricted in other nations, however, where they are less common.
They take different licensing exams but can compete for traditional allopathic residencies such as derm.
DOs are Doctors of Osteopathy. They're who're trained just like MDs in the United States.
They are more rare in certain areas. California, for example, does not have as many as other states and certainly the Bay Area has fewer than Sacramento.
In the United States, they're granted full practicing rights and are treated like MDs under the law. Their responsibilities are more restricted in other nations, however, where they are less common.
They take different licensing exams but can compete for traditional allopathic residencies such as derm.
Check out those links ... but in general OP just head over to the pre-osteo forums and learn!!👍
Ive asked around people...even a DO student.
I know DO has a holistic approach to medicine and they also focus on preventive medicine
Ive heard that DOs actually even have more coursework than MDs but a lot of the curriculum is similar but DOs have a few additional courses
Most DOs go into primary care and about 40% get into the same residencies as MDs.
Some DOs are also in manual manipulation, but not all.
Those are the few of things I have found out as far I know....hope that helps
I know DO has a holistic approach to medicine and they also focus on preventive medicine
Ive heard that DOs actually even have more coursework than MDs but a lot of the curriculum is similar but DOs have a few additional courses
Most DOs go into primary care and about 40% get into the same residencies as MDs.
Some DOs are also in manual manipulation, but not all.
Those are the few of things I have found out as far I know....hope that helps
The term "allopathic" was actually coined by, Samuel Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy (minuscule dosage cures disease), mostly as a derogatory title. His basic premise was "by similar things is a disease produced by similar things will it be cured", or "let like be cured with like." So he called himself a homeopath. Homeo = like, "pathos" = suffering. He considered this in contrast to what physicans were doing, as he understood it, conventional physicians were "allo" = different, "pathos" = suffering, since their treatments counteracted or suppressed symptoms.
Not quite clear why the term has stuck, it's pretty meaningless, describing what "traditional" physicians (MDs) do about as well as the word osteopath describes what DOs do. And yet it is used to head the MD forum on SDN. Why not just use MD and DO?
http://www.medicineword.com/allopath.shtml
In reality, DOs have spent the last 20 years or so becoming mainstream (i.e. eliminating non-evidence based methods from their practices, getting state licensure, etc.) and they currently practice the same medicine as MDs.
Not quite clear why the term has stuck, it's pretty meaningless, describing what "traditional" physicians (MDs) do about as well as the word osteopath describes what DOs do. And yet it is used to head the MD forum on SDN. Why not just use MD and DO?
http://www.medicineword.com/allopath.shtml
In reality, DOs have spent the last 20 years or so becoming mainstream (i.e. eliminating non-evidence based methods from their practices, getting state licensure, etc.) and they currently practice the same medicine as MDs.
DO's typically use voodoo more than MD's
Lies, all lies, no one competes with us MDs-to-be on the voodoo scale.
I sacrificed a hemostat and some gloves before my last anatomy exam. Really...
In practice, there isn't much difference anymore. In my opinion, both are more similar than they are different. Nevertheless, there is an interesting historical divide between the two, which I invite you to research via Gevitz, who wrote a great historical piece called, "The DOs."
The most cited difference is, of course, DOs are trained in OMM/OMT, in addition to everything else.
The most cited difference is, of course, DOs are trained in OMM/OMT, in addition to everything else.
Jack Daniel
In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
All good points--
However, CA actually is the fifth largest state (tied with FL) for # of active DOs.
http://www.osteopathic.org/pdf/ost_factsheet.pdf
And, for internationally-trained DOs, the scope of practice is restricted to manual medicine. But, US-trained DOs often have full practice rights in other countries.
DOs are Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine.
The two are quite interchangeable...
In high school I shadowed an ER doc who was a DO (I looked up some stuff about him online beforehand), but on his labcoat it said "Firstname Lastname, MD" instead of DO.
In high school I shadowed an ER doc who was a DO (I looked up some stuff about him online beforehand), but on his labcoat it said "Firstname Lastname, MD" instead of DO.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
doesn't sound exactly kosher to me. If you didn't get an MD, you're not an MD, even if they still practice the same medicine in the ER. Maybe he was a DO with MD envy.
I Don't blame him though. I would probably get tired of explaining to people what a DO is, too. "Osteopath...it means 'bone-suffering'...no, I don't work on bones...once upon a time there was this guy from Missouri who claimed he could shake babies and heal them, the MDs wouldn't take him, so he started his own school..." every day. sheish.
I Don't blame him though. I would probably get tired of explaining to people what a DO is, too. "Osteopath...it means 'bone-suffering'...no, I don't work on bones...once upon a time there was this guy from Missouri who claimed he could shake babies and heal them, the MDs wouldn't take him, so he started his own school..." every day. sheish.
When the Flexner Report came out, the AOA decided to hold DO schools to the same standards as MD schools. Since then, the two "types" of medicine have converged. There is little difference between the two, if any.
DO's get OMM training, and maybe 1 in 10 of them actually use it.
DO's get OMM training, and maybe 1 in 10 of them actually use it.
chiropractors were DOs who wanted to remain old school. They did not approve of the AOA going mainstream. There was a big fight and they split up. Now chiropractors are like the radical wing.
Looking at the difficulty of medical school admission, I sometimes wish that the Flexner Report never came out.
The Flexner Report basically eliminated quackery from mainstream medicine. Before that, you'd have some dude running a med school out of his house, teaching the healing powers of snake oil. There were so many branches of medicine that you'd have docs using treatments with no basis in reality whatsoever.
That's not to say we know everything about medicine there is to know, and I have no doubt that in 20 years, we will look back on things we do today and think "I can't believe we actually did that to treat ______", and 20 years from then, we'll do the same thing. But at least what we do now has its basis in science (for the most part), and has been shown to work, and we know why 99% of the time.
As for difficulty of admissions? THat's a tough one. As a non-trad, I am having trouble getting even a sniff from some places that I would have gotten into easily if I had my act together from day one. I know I'm smart enough for Baylor or UT-Southwestern, or whatever, but at the same time, I am glad they are selective.
Does that mean that I can't be a better doctor than people who graduate from there, even if I go to DO school? Nope. Since the Flexner report has standardized medical education, my education will be whatever I make of it, wherever I go. I'm just going to have to work harder for credibility once I get out than someone who went to a big-name school.
That's not to say we know everything about medicine there is to know, and I have no doubt that in 20 years, we will look back on things we do today and think "I can't believe we actually did that to treat ______", and 20 years from then, we'll do the same thing. But at least what we do now has its basis in science (for the most part), and has been shown to work, and we know why 99% of the time.
As for difficulty of admissions? THat's a tough one. As a non-trad, I am having trouble getting even a sniff from some places that I would have gotten into easily if I had my act together from day one. I know I'm smart enough for Baylor or UT-Southwestern, or whatever, but at the same time, I am glad they are selective.
Does that mean that I can't be a better doctor than people who graduate from there, even if I go to DO school? Nope. Since the Flexner report has standardized medical education, my education will be whatever I make of it, wherever I go. I'm just going to have to work harder for credibility once I get out than someone who went to a big-name school.
I can see how you might think that, but it is not entirely true. The foundational theories between the two are essentially different.
But the founders of chiropractic were all DOs.
In like 1890. Flexner Report was 1910. Before that, a chiropractor was just as good as most MD's, DO's, naturopaths, etc...
Still was an MD.
I think you're being sarcastic, but I'm not removing the above line.
But I was referring to his ideas not being accepted by MD schools. I think he left Kansas for that reason.
Shaking babies was probably not the best way to word it.
But, it sounds almost as bad if I use the direct quote:
"He who so forgets God's teaching as to use drugs forfeits the respect of this school and its teachings. . . . I could twist a man one way and cure flux, fever, colds and the diseases of the climate; shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria; and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of the child's neck."
-- A.T. Still
"He who so forgets God's teaching as to use drugs forfeits the respect of this school and its teachings. . . . I could twist a man one way and cure flux, fever, colds and the diseases of the climate; shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria; and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of the child's neck."
-- A.T. Still
Haha, I know, I know. But then again, medicine was so rudimentary in the 1860's that it didn't matter who you were, you were most likely going to harm the patient more than help. Although, once the civil war rolled around medicine did take a giant leap.
Think about the kinds of "medicine" he may be talking about. The methods he references may not be legitimate either, but when he says "medicine", he's not talking about modern stuff that we have today, or even antibiotics. The crap they used for medicine back then was often completely worthless, or would do more harm than good. This is why he broke away from MD teachings.
Again, MDs then were noth the same as they are now. They usually didn't know what they were doing because medical education was so bad across the board.
Again, MDs then were noth the same as they are now. They usually didn't know what they were doing because medical education was so bad across the board.
One of Flexner's major problems with the old way of medical education was the for-profit schools. The AOA recently approved a new DO school in Colorado that is for-profit. Is this a bad thing for medicine? Probably. Is it bad for DOs? Definitely.
Flexner's report is still relevant today. Remember that medical schools exist not only to educate future physicians, but also to act as academic centers to further medical knowledge through research. For-profit schools are a spit-in-the-face to the ideals Flexner worked to make realities in American medical education.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Like you said, chiropractors wanted to remain old school; so how could they be radical? If anything, they are reactionary. Osteopathic medicine is the big "sell-out," here, using medication and surgery.
It all depends on your perspective. If you look at it from the point of view of the DOs, you're right. If you look at it from the point of view of the MDs, who were around before either of them, then the chiropractors are the radicals. But I guess either way you look at it, the DOs are still the sell-outs.
S
supernareg
DO's are fake doctors 😉
Yeah....sellouts with lower stats!!!one!!11!!!one!!!
what the hell is in that pic?
DO schools do seem to pander toward mediocrity in terms of stats.
And so do a lot of MD schools. The average age at DO schools is also higher, meaning they're taking a lot of non-trads. Meaning people who may have had other careers, and were not prepping for med school admission from the day they set foot on campus.
If DO students are inferior, you could argue that the education they are getting is superior, considering that they are competing for MD residencies.
Or you could just join reality and look at what is going on.
If DO students are inferior, you could argue that the education they are getting is superior, considering that they are competing for MD residencies.
Or you could just join reality and look at what is going on.
I suggest everyone should have a history of medicine lecture to clarify! 🙂 History in comparison has been quite interesting especially if you go all the way and compare how things have not really changed in medicine from when it first started.
Ok, as already stated, DO=MD in the US, DO=DC every where else since the US is the ONLY Doctor of OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE degree and elsewhere in the world they grant Doctor of osteopathy.
DO's in the US have the same practicing rights as MD's, including internationally for the most part. The gray area people are refering to are practicing in a particular country which many countries have restrictions on all practicing physicians from outside of their country (Like if you wanted to move to poland, france, germany, etc) so its not just DO's.
DO's have their own residencies and can also apply to MD residencies. Many residencys are becoming dually accredited by the AOA and ACGME (DO residency and MD residency accrediting bodies). Reason for dual accredidation is some states require an AOA intern year in order to practice, 5 states include PA, OK, WV, MI, and FL.
In short, MD's and DO's work together side by side in the real world with little differences. On here, its blown out of proportion. Yes there are some biases (ignorance is everywhere in this world) but those biases are becoming less and less. At the top institutions in the US you will find DO's. DO doesn't equal subpar doctor. No matter what your professors say - and I've had one recently that tried to tell us that ... 🙄 Then again he was a PhD so he's not a real doctor anyway
Ok, as already stated, DO=MD in the US, DO=DC every where else since the US is the ONLY Doctor of OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE degree and elsewhere in the world they grant Doctor of osteopathy.
DO's in the US have the same practicing rights as MD's, including internationally for the most part. The gray area people are refering to are practicing in a particular country which many countries have restrictions on all practicing physicians from outside of their country (Like if you wanted to move to poland, france, germany, etc) so its not just DO's.
DO's have their own residencies and can also apply to MD residencies. Many residencys are becoming dually accredited by the AOA and ACGME (DO residency and MD residency accrediting bodies). Reason for dual accredidation is some states require an AOA intern year in order to practice, 5 states include PA, OK, WV, MI, and FL.
In short, MD's and DO's work together side by side in the real world with little differences. On here, its blown out of proportion. Yes there are some biases (ignorance is everywhere in this world) but those biases are becoming less and less. At the top institutions in the US you will find DO's. DO doesn't equal subpar doctor. No matter what your professors say - and I've had one recently that tried to tell us that ... 🙄 Then again he was a PhD so he's not a real doctor anyway
Actually, DD Palmer, founder of chiropractic, was briefly educated at the first osteopathic med school, but dropped out to form chiropractic. His son, BJ Palmer, basically felt he could make a lot of money by teaching a similar modality and exploit students for money. Eventually, chiro schools turned into means of profit generation. They are completely separate, and in the 1930's (or so) DOs fought tooth and nail for legislation to distinguish themselves as physicians, whereas chiros would be recognized as manipulators. This essentially granted chiros a niche that they had been looking for, thus allowing them to continue to thrive.
If you really want some legit info about osteopathic medicine, read "The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz. It's a quick read that is very informative.
Most DO schools when compared to MD schools have lower admission statistics. most. So this is a option for poeple with lower numbers along with Caribbean schools, which is not a bad thing. People try to sugar coat it this point. Ultimately, these poeple will likely have worked harder to compete with regular MD grads here in the US if they are wanting certain specialties.
But then you compare them to the Caribbean MD schools, the comparison becomes a little ambiguous. They seem a little closer to each other, but i dont know if i can trust any stats that come out of the islands. In general it seems that they are more similair in terms of numbers.
But ultimately, if you want to do family practice it wont matter because you will liekly be placed somewhere. But with certain specialties you will have a diffcult time matching if you are img or do. Now all this is irrelevant if your board scores suck regardless if you are md or do or img md. In the real world, as long as you are competent it wont matter what you hold.
im just curious if there is difference in salary for mds and dos if they are trained in the same specialty?
But then you compare them to the Caribbean MD schools, the comparison becomes a little ambiguous. They seem a little closer to each other, but i dont know if i can trust any stats that come out of the islands. In general it seems that they are more similair in terms of numbers.
But ultimately, if you want to do family practice it wont matter because you will liekly be placed somewhere. But with certain specialties you will have a diffcult time matching if you are img or do. Now all this is irrelevant if your board scores suck regardless if you are md or do or img md. In the real world, as long as you are competent it wont matter what you hold.
im just curious if there is difference in salary for mds and dos if they are trained in the same specialty?
Oh jeez, if its going down this path of MD vs DO's this thread WILL be closed. Just fair warning.
MDs make the same money as DOs and do the same specialties so to say that people go to MD schools for specialities is a falacy because plenty of DO's specialize. Just because someone has lower stats doesn't make them any less of a doctor. Stats aren't the only thing that matters in med school.
Considering he is a medical student I think it's safe to say he is being sarcastic.
It's usually just the sheltered type-A pre-meds with no people skills that spend their time taking shots at DO's.
You know....the ones that whack to their own MDapplicants profile...
Im curious, if someone had lower stats and basically had a hard time making it into US MD schools.... which option would be best, US DO school or Carrib MD? supposing the person is interested in a mid-level / lower end residency like internal medicine
DO.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
no, both are 2/2.
Why was DO even "invented" ? Why not just add more MD schools? It would prevetned a lot of confusion and wrong discrimination about DOs.
No, you learn that material on top of your basic sciences.
Look into the history of how DO's evolved and you'll see why and how it evoloved. It wasn't just to 'be different' it was to treat patients differently then just medicating them at the time when this happened.
