- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,555
- Reaction score
- 15
Personally, I'm for keeping the degrees separate.
I really hate when pre-meds start getting panicked over things like residency without even getting into school. I am a huge fan of concentrating on the next step, i.e. getting into medical school and then worrying about the step after that. Hospitals know that there is a huge physician shortage looming and imho they will address this with the AGME, AOA, and AMA. Just my .02.
thanks for the comment and for your service in Iraq.
You speak about Hospitals, the AGME the AOA and AMA as if you are not a part of them. I think we need to see the world as something we influence directly, not just react to.
When you actually start medical school you will soon realize the "philosophy" is largely BS and the additional training you receive is at expense of other things and is questionable at best. Yes, my school taught us some OMT, when actually researching it alot of it was essentially worthless. We also got really really poor micro training.
There is only so much time and adding something generally comes at the expense of something else. So, no I don't thing MD + more is what our training is, nor do I think we deserve an MD title + DO. I think that is insulting and misleading.
Again we are either different or the same, we are not a hybrid that is better and above and beyond.
More and more what I actually realize is that out experiences are a product of our own effort and desire. The experience you are having is not the same for anyone else, though there will be certain shared generalities. A school will have a philosophy, but whether you adopt it, modify it, or call it BS is up to each individual. As a DO you can adopt the general DO philosophies and personalize them to your own practice...no one is stoping you.
As for your education, Im sorry it was poor in certain areas, but we are talking big picture here, not single school. Look at TCOM, DMU, CCOM, KCUMB and many other outstanding DO programs that have rigorous academic training...these are virtually the same as many other MD programs and this trend will continue until entrance stats of some DO schools will be same or higher than some MD schools. Its inevitable.
So from your last paragraph, since you don't think DO is MD + more, it sounds like you think it MD - something. So, you would keep it different and believe that DO is at least slightly inferior training? I guess you can have that opinion, but I disagree. Im also not sure how MD/DO is misleading or who it insults, so feel free to elaborate if you'd like.
MD/DO is not the only issue nor the only solution. It seems pretty good to me, but I have enjoyed everyones responses and ideas so far.
Are we really Doctors of Osteopathy, or do we treat the whole person? Are we on the same level as DC, DNP, DPT, DPM? Do we want to be unambiguously recognized and be free to practice medicine across the world as our peers with MDs are and do?
I also like the idea of keeping the DO degree in theory, but as the training becomes increasingly similar to MDs(if it isn't already), isn't this the more misleading idea?
Nothing ever stays the same, everything changes. And those who are prepared for change and anticipate it are the one who will get to help create what that change will be.
Last edited: