As much as I would like to read people argue whether MD or DO is better, I'm sure you guys are all tired of it. As for me, all I want to know is "what's the difference really." I've heard of some differences, which still make them practically identical. What are the Pros and Cons for both? Thanks
Differences
- Thread starter the prodogy
- Start date
Let me answer a question with a question.... whats the difference between a DO and a pre-DO? The DO knows how to use the search function and utilize the FAQ page stuck at the top of the pre-DO thread page 
This is way too broad of a topic thats been beat to death. Read through those and if you have any specific questions, we'd be more than happy to answer.
This is way too broad of a topic thats been beat to death. Read through those and if you have any specific questions, we'd be more than happy to answer.
Please do a search; this topic has been done to death. Also, please look at the stickies in this forum, I think the answer to your question lies there. These types of threads tend to degenerate rapidly into flame wars.
On that note, look at which type fits you best, numerically and personality-wise. In order to know that, you will need to do some research on the history of Osteopathic medicine. Check out www.osteopathic.org, for further details.
In practice, there is relatively no difference; both have the capacity to be excellent physicians. As it has been said, physicians practice to a standard of care. DO's have an extra modality, OMM, in which to diagnose and treat conditions. Historically, DO's have been patient-centered in their approach, but now pretty much all schools have caught on with this, as it just makes good common sense. Check out the tenets of Osteopathy for a quick summary of what the overt commitments are. Another interesting thing to note is that Osteopathic schools, as a whole, tend to turn out a lot of primary care physicians. In fact, one of the missions of some Osteopathic schools is to train doctors in primary care and to train them to work in medically-underserved areas. Nevertheless, many DO's do specialize, and there isn't a problem, in general, becoming a specialist, if desired.
The disadvantages to becoming a DO are that there are some extra hoops. Even though DO's have their own residencies, many will also choose to match in Allopathic residencies. Given this, many DO students elect to take the USMLE Step I in addition to their own test, the COMLEX, in order to aid their Allopathic residency match. There is some stigma associated with being a DO, reportedly, although this is really insignificant these days. However, since DO's comprise only about 6-7% of physicians, you may need to explain what a DO is. Most patients don't really care though, they just want a good physician, and I've never heard of a decent DO having trouble getting plenty of patients.
- Sep 13, 2005
- 9,731
- 25
- Status (Visible)
-
- Other Health Professions Student
The only difference: OMM
Pro: useful for musculoskeletal problems
Cons: questionable (at best) utility for just about everything else; most OMM advocates have a problem with EBM for the most part and you seldom see a large scale (n= >35) head to head comparison of OMM with standard therapies;
Pro: useful for musculoskeletal problems
Cons: questionable (at best) utility for just about everything else; most OMM advocates have a problem with EBM for the most part and you seldom see a large scale (n= >35) head to head comparison of OMM with standard therapies;
As an aside...I thought when I came to osteopathic medical school that when I graduated I would be able to tell you more about the differences between an osteopathic & allopathic medical education.
Funny thing is that (other than having to take OMM) the opposite has turned out to be true. I could now list more of the similarities than I can the differences in medical education.
The one difference I think we get screwed on (if you are taking the USMLE) is that we don't get quite enough straight Path (as much as I hated the class) & not nearly enough Molecular Bio. This is causing me to have to spend the 2 wks I have btwn COMLEX & USMLE to spend cramming as much of that stuff into my brain.
Funny thing is that (other than having to take OMM) the opposite has turned out to be true. I could now list more of the similarities than I can the differences in medical education.
The one difference I think we get screwed on (if you are taking the USMLE) is that we don't get quite enough straight Path (as much as I hated the class) & not nearly enough Molecular Bio. This is causing me to have to spend the 2 wks I have btwn COMLEX & USMLE to spend cramming as much of that stuff into my brain.
As an aside...I thought when I came to osteopathic medical school that when I graduated I would be able to tell you more about the differences between an osteopathic & allopathic medical education.
Funny thing is that (other than having to take OMM) the opposite has turned out to be true. I could now list more of the similarities than I can the differences in medical education.
The one difference I think we get screwed on (if you are taking the USMLE) is that we don't get quite enough straight Path (as much as I hated the class) & not nearly enough Molecular Bio. This is causing me to have to spend the 2 wks I have btwn COMLEX & USMLE to spend cramming as much of that stuff into my brain.
hmm, maybe my extensive coursework in Molecular Bio(my major) and all my molecular bio research will help.