difference between Osteopathic and allopathic?

Getting into Med School is Hard? Not with BeMo.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
S

sailence

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I've done a search and it seems like Osetopathic or DO schools? whats DO mean? I've learned they are almost the same thing but.... I dont figure it out some stuff I find contradict the others.
Members don't see this ad.
 
sailence said:
I've done a search and it seems like Osetopathic or DO schools? whats DO mean? I've learned they are almost the same thing but.... I dont figure it out some stuff I find contradict the others.
Click to expand...

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/
 
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.
 
Check out those links ... but in general OP just head over to the pre-osteo forums and learn!!:thumbup:
 
Thanks, as mentioned in my post I did some research, but some post were contradicting each other.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
koko_eats said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
koko_eats said:
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.
Click to expand...

DOs are Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hmm....this appears to be a civil discussion about MD's and DO's. This good will has gone on for far too long for my liking.



"DO's are like MD's but with lower stats!!!!!!one11!!!!!1!one!!!!1!!!!!"



*cackles evilly to self*
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
TexasTriathlete said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kthanksbye said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Kthanksbye said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
TexasTriathlete said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kthanksbye said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Meatwad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yeah....sellouts with lower stats!!!one!!11!!!one!!!


firecan.jpg
 
i believe he is fueling the fire....:hardy:
 
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.
 
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 ... :rolleyes: Then again he was a PhD so he's not a real doctor anyway :smuggrin:
 
Kthanksbye said:
But the founders of chiropractic were all DOs.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Tired said:
DOs are just like MDs except less talented and intelligent.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mshheaddoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Nasem said:
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
Click to expand...

DO.
 
Is DO school longer than MD school since they learn OMM?
 
Why was DO even "invented" ? Why not just add more MD schools? It would prevetned a lot of confusion and wrong discrimination about DOs.
 
foreverLaur said:
Why was DO even "invented" ? Why not just add more MD schools? It would prevetned a lot of confusion and wrong discrimination about DOs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

S
Difference between PTE and CTE Deadline
Replies
11
Views
424
everythingis onfire
everythingis onfire
P
Help deciding between non-clinical and clinical volunteering!
Replies
11
Views
499
quintapov
Q
D
difference between adversity and challenge essays
Replies
4
Views
752
LizzyM
LizzyM
P
How do adcoms make the difference between good, bad, and excellent clinical experience
Replies
2
Views
678
LizzyM
LizzyM
D
Why do schools differentiate between BCPM and AO?
Replies
4
Views
592
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
Top