DO MD degree

Thanks for the perspective. I live in a state with public MD and DO schools. I chose to only apply to the osteopathic school (for a variety of reasons). I have heard about the MD/DO-California-1960's thing, but only from a DO perspective (portrayed as persecution). I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

May I ask why, if you were fully accepted and were happy with your degree, you chose to be among those who accepted the change, rather than stand alongside your colleagues who fought to regain practice rights for DOs? I understand it must have been a tumultous time and the obviously easy route would be to accept the change, but today the obviously easy route for some of us would have been to attend an MD school, rather then endure the constant questioning and ridicule of our decision to be DOs (albeit mainly from pre-meds), so why, from your perspective, should we choose this path at all, when you opted to leave it when offered the opportunity?

I appreciate you offering your experience and expertise on these matters!! I am excited to converse with someone who has experienced both sides of this debate . . .

 

I am really interested in this topic and would like to learn more about it. Can you tell me more about the history surrounding the situation during the 1960's? Are there DO's in CA who switch over to MD to this day? Do they still have that option? It just seems so weird. Please tell us more.

 

The AOA is STILL weak and unwilling to listen to majority opinion. Several years ago, the president of the AOA spoke at our school. His arrogance and ignorance (regarding just about EVERY question put forth) was just embarrassing. At the time I was very pro-AOA, but I left that meeting with a very different prospective. It became crystal clear that the AOA has NO interest in furthering the osteopathic cause in any meaningful way (serious evidence based research in OMM, public education, improving the relationship between allopaths and osteopaths, etc.). This person left EVERYONE with the impression that he was nothing more than a bitter, poorly educated fool! NO WONDER WE HAVE MADE SO LITTLE PROGRESS! I can only imagine the impression he would leave on the powers that be at the AMA.

 

Rexx,

what does "amamgomate" mean?

 

Very interesting. The attempted merger in the 1960's in CA was really a wake-up call for the osteopathic profession. I've always wanted to get the perspective of someone who was involved in the action to have a better understanding of the forces at work. Maybe you'll share with us more on the topic.

While I understand arguments about the "convenience" of such a merger at the time, it is undeniable the that California Medical Association sought "amalgamation" as a means of annihilation too. While many DO's had good relationships with many MD's (in fact the MD specialists depended upon the DO generalists for their bread and butter), the stance of organized allopathic medicine (the CMA and AMA) toward osteopathic medicine was hostile and antagonistic. Osteopathic physicians were simply deemed cultists and quacks. Period. I think for students today to have a full appreciation of the historical context in which this action occurred, they need to go back and read the old Morris Fishbein articles published in JAMA about the "osteopathic problem" and read the transcripts of the numerous hearings the AMA and state and county medical societies held about the "osteopathic problem." I've read these articles and transcripts as I fancy myself something of an osteopathic history buff. To read them today, it sounds almost Hilterian in scope. The AMA simply did not want DO's around anymore.

The merger, in classic "blowback" fashion for the AMA, did more to further the establishment of the osteopathic profession than the DO's at the time could have ever done on their own. It solidified the argument that osteopathic and allopathic medical training were on par and there was no compelling reason for professional discrimination based upon medical degree earned.

The crux of the argument, as I see it, comes down to this simple point: The osteopathic profession was founded as a reform movement in medicine. AT Still had a "big idea" about what the practice of medicine should be like. Yet today, manual medicine is really no big deal. A survey published a few years ago revealed that 20% (1 of 5) MD's had been to a chiropractor or massage therapist at some time in their life. PTs, OTs, athletic trainers, etc all incorporate aspects of manual medicine (and OMT) into their practice to varying degrees. So, if manual medicine is no longer "revolutionary", then what about the osteopathic approach to patient care is? Or, conversely, does the osteopathic profession still have anything unique to offer patients? Unless the osteopathic profession can demonstrate that it in fact does have something unique to offer patients, we become redundant. In the abscence of a truly unique osteopathic approach to patient care, there is simply no compelling reason for us to exist.

Each generation of osteopathic physicians has had it own particular battle to fight. Early generations fought battles for establishment, raising educational standards, professional parity, state and federal licensing, etc. Our generation of osteopathic physicians I think faces a different kind of battle. It is a battle for professional distinctiveness. What is different about this battle is that there is no clear enemy on the other side. The AMA, the insurance companies, the government, etc have all accepted MDs and DOs as equal. The battle for distinctiveness will involve fighting ourselves. If the osteopathic profession were a patient in psychotherapy, one could say it is facing deep existensial issues. We are either comprehensively trained physicians with a unique philosophy of patient care, or we're MDs with a different degree behind our name. Sadly, I see too many osteopathic students just throwing in the towel already convinced that the osteopathic approach to patient care is meaningless. I think most of these students never really understood the approach in the first place.

Any thoughts?

 

You said that only 20% of MD's admitted to using a chiropractor, or some sort of manual medicine in a poll. My thought is that not many MD's would want to admit to this. The results of this poll may not be representative of reality. Other than that, I agree very much with everything you stated. You make several very good points.

 

I'm interested to know if the change of initials (DO to MD) which occured in California is still going on. Do some DO's still change their intials, or better yet can they by law change from DO to MD or was this a one time thing which occured in California?

Student247

 

you guys might be interested to know I started a thread on this topic in the osteopathic forum a few days ago-

DO/MD merger? what do you think?

and I'd very much to hear some of your responses there in the context of my question and some of the other posters. I cant really put my input though till finals are done

cheers,
bones

P.S. they are no longer giving MD's to DO students, nor do I think there are any plans to do so in the future.

 

Hello, I was wondering if anyone had any insight on the dual degree. I recently transferred from a US-MD school to a US-DO school, because my US-MD school went through some LCME trouble. I have taken both the usmle and comlex.

 

what an epic bump. you will graduate from a DO school conferring a DO degree.

 

Necro bump into wrong forum.... EPIC

 

View attachment 21315