Frustrated...(Please someone share these)

[shttthttle]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

 

[bbgirl]

I was thinking the same thing when I read an earlier message. If you don't want to be a DO, then don't apply to the school. Leave these spaces for those that understand and appreciate the true meaning and practice of patient care. I used to want to be an MD until I worked with a DO. I have many people come ask me why I chose to go DO. Then after thinking about it, I've had several people realize that their doctors were DO's. They chose their doc's for elements of experience and personal care and attention. Most people's criticisms come from misunderstandings.

 

[mshheaddoc]

While I understand your pain, I additionally chalk it up to ignorance. Some people want MD because they know they want to specialize. As a DO, sometimes that can be harder but maybe that makes the challenge more fun.

They aren't really hurting the career path as they still become doctors, but maybe it enlightens them as they go through school and realize there are very few differences. For the majority of practicing physicians ... pre-meds are the only ones who see MD/DO. Yes some top tier programs may not accept DO's. Oh well. I think some of the people who want to go to medical school truly are there. They are willing to do anything for that dream.

Although it takes away spots to those who truly want to attend that particular school, that is life. Its never fair. Don't expect special priviledges if you struggle for equal rights. This is a teaching time and time again in history.

 

[PlasticMan]

Wow, bitter haters! 😛 I will be starting at a DO school in the fall b/c I did not get into an MD school. I want to be a surgeon, so I applied both MD and DO. I would have gone MD over DO simply b/c it is slightly easier for an MD to get into plastics.

 

[Kuba]

I disagree. People apply to both schools to have more options. I can be a great physician as a DO or as an MD. Life can be a little easier as an MD, an that is why some people choose MD schools first. It has nothing to do with disgracing the osteopathic profession.

 

[strawberryfield]

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

Some people just want to be physicians... MD or DO. I personally applied to both to increase my chances of going somewhere this fall. I don't believe I am taking a spot away from someone or "kicking dirt" in anyone's face, if the DO schools I was accepted to didn't think I really wanted to be a DO or would make a good doctor, they would not have admitted me.
Adcoms know some people apply DO only as a backup, that is just the way the game is played. sorry. I guess this is why all schools have waitlists! 🙄

 

[strawberryfield]

Wow, bitter haters! 😛 I will be starting at a DO school in the fall b/c I did not get into an MD school. I want to be a surgeon, so I applied both MD and DO. I would have gone MD over DO simply b/c it is slightly easier for an MD to get into plastics.

maybe easier, but you'll still get the chance as DO!
I am also (distantly...at this point) conteplating surgery (maybe plastics)

 

[DrBowtie]

With the legal equality of DO's and MD's what did you expect?

They are slowly converging paths.

 

[PlasticMan]

maybe easier, but you'll still get the chance as DO!
I am also (distantly...at this point) conteplating surgery (maybe plastics)

👍

 

[do-ca]

Wow, bitter haters! 😛 I will be starting at a DO school in the fall b/c I did not get into an MD school. I want to be a surgeon, so I applied both MD and DO. I would have gone MD over DO simply b/c it is slightly easier for an MD to get into plastics.

Just FYI and I'm sure you know many already, but there is a Plastic Surgeon in Beverly Hills down the hall from my allergist that is a DO.

More power to ya'!

 

[PlasticMan]

Just FYI and I'm sure you know many already, but there is a Plastic Surgeon in Beverly Hills down the hall from my allergist that is a DO.

More power to ya'!

Giddyup! 😎

 

[shttthttle]

I agree that is easier to get into DO schools
I agree that it is more difficult to get the best residencies (although connections will always be stronger then education)

However, I have not heard one good argument for why it is OK to use DO schools as a back up for MD schools. Osteopathic medicine, as a career, has a set of principles for which all practitioners should believe and utilize when diagnosing. I don’t feel the argument “the adcom accepted me so it is ok” is valid. Just because someone is on the admissions committee doesn’t mean that they are a person who can know or discover the true intentions of any candidate. In fact, during my interviews I was rarely asked about the DO philosophy and how I feel about it. In my opinion, the adcom’s responsibility is to find the candidates who are most likely to succeed, not the “truest” believers…that is the responsibility of the candidate.

When we graduate from osteopathic school we will have a piece of the future of osteopathic medicine in our hands. However, I do not want someone who cares or knows little, if any, for/of the philosophy. I believe the perpetuation of the career and of the osteopathic physician’s medical philosophy is too important for the apathetic soul…it differentiates our profession from the MD’s and it is what gives us the strength and energy to become more and more of a presence in the medical community.

Shttthttle
- as an aside, and for anyone wondering…shttthttle stands for: shot at the title with the vowels removed except for the e at the end…yeah, I am really awesome

 

[strawberryfield]

I don’t feel the argument “the adcom accepted me so it is ok” is valid. Just because someone is on the admissions committee doesn’t mean that they are a person who can know or discover the true intentions of any candidate.

Well, fine, but the ADCOM is the gatekeeper and no matter how much you want to practice osteopathic medicine, you've got to get through them first via whatever they want to judge you on...

In my opinion, the adcom’s responsibility is to find the candidates who are most likely to succeed, not the “truest” believers…that is the responsibility of the candidate.

This "responsibility" would involve people having to take themselves very seriously, which I think might apply in the pre-med years, but slowly fades as they join the reality of the world of real medicine. The lines between MD/DO ARE BLURRED. (hence post above about licensing), the distinction is becoming less. People need doctors and most don't give a flying f*ck about about the letters behind their names if they are good doctors

 

[shttthttle]

This "responsibility" would involve people having to take themselves very seriously, which I think might apply in the pre-med years, but slowly fades as they join the reality of the world of real medicine. The lines between MD/DO ARE BLURRED. (hence post above about licensing), the distinction is becoming less. People need doctors and most don't give a flying f*ck about about the letters behind their names if they are good doctors

Sorry that you believe people taking themselves seriously fades during. I believe life should taken seriously, as well as your profession and your career. I don't think that any graduate of any type of medical school would tell an employer they don't take themselves seriously.

People do need good doctors. If you truly believe in a philosophy you can be a great doctor, however, if you have no beliefs at all...why do you do what you do? Or more importantly, if you don't agree with the philosophy of what you represent, why represent it? Would you practice Christianity in a Muslim Temple or vice versa?

 

[DragonWell]

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

I sympathize with your frustration, but, if you've read The DO's, then you know that the history of Osteopathic Medicine is synonymous with both change and controversy. Even while Still was still alive there were forward thinking DOs pushing the profession to incorporate emerging medications like vaccines. If the osteopathic profession had clung only to the "founding father's" vision, osteopathic medicine would look much more like chiropracty or naturopathy, and much less like the effective system of total medical care which it is today.

The danger of tradition is it's tendency at times to turn into dogma, and the only cure is change. It's frustrating at times, and sure to spawn heated debate (just check the Osteopathic forum 😉 ), but IMO, is also a large part of why Osteopathic Medicine has enjoyed so much growth and success. When osteopathic medicine was conceived, it was in opposition to an allopathic medical system which relied on calomel and killed as many patients as it helped. Today, many people apply to both because many of these differences have disappeared.

 

[strawberryfield]

Sorry that you believe people taking themselves seriously fades during. I believe life should taken seriously, as well as your profession and your career. I don't think that any graduate of any type of medical school would tell an employer they don't take themselves seriously.

People do need good doctors. If you truly believe in a philosophy you can be a great doctor, however, if you have no beliefs at all...why do you do what you do? Or more importantly, if you don't agree with the philosophy of what you represent, why represent it? Would you practice Christianity in a Muslim Temple or vice versa?

All I mean by the taking "themselves very seriously" comment is that most people learn medicine, then they learn how medicine is practiced in the real world and change their philosophy, as above poster stated, there is constantly change in the medical field, if you "take yourself too seriously" and are not willing to adapt, you will become frustrated very easily with the system and others. I think most people in the med profession have to relax sometimes to survive the "seriousness" of medicine and live through it to keep wanting to do it day after day... part of this is accepting misconceptions and adapting, finding the "way of medicine" that works for you. I don't know if you can do this before being in med school, therefore I think a lot of people when going in to it as a pre-med have some "idea" of how medicine should be practiced but that changes when you hit reality...

You can still believe in medicine as an art and healing. I know a lot of allo and osteo docs that subscribe to eastern medicine (accupuncture) in addition to some homeopathic remedies. You take what you learn and you make it your own within reason

 

[shttthttle]

Great points! I agree that change is a very necessary to medicine and life in general.

My whole frustration stems from the fact that my first choice is someone's backup plan. Which I then infer that people who use osteopathic medicine as a backup don't believe it is as good as allopathic. However, a thread like that would be out of here in a second. Thats it.

 

[strawberryfield]

Great points! I agree that change is a very necessary to medicine and life in general.

My whole frustration stems from the fact that my first choice is someone's backup plan. Which I then infer that people who use osteopathic medicine as a backup don't believe it is as good as allopathic. However, a thread like that would be out of here in a second. Thats it.

I do hold both allo and osteo with high regard (otherwise I would not have applied to both). I understand your frustration... I am sure that my 1st choice school (Penn State) is probably someone's backup plan (...i.e. maybe they are holding out for Yale or something ridiculous like that) and I am waitlisted, just hoping for the chance to go there! 😉

But I'm sure this is true everywhere, of people currently holding a spot at all med schools. I know it's not fair and it sucks! 😡

 

[sayoc]

Well said

I sympathize with your frustration, but, if you've read The DO's, then you know that the history of Osteopathic Medicine is synonymous with both change and controversy. Even while Still was still alive there were forward thinking DOs pushing the profession to incorporate emerging medications like vaccines. If the osteopathic profession had clung only to the "founding father's" vision, osteopathic medicine would look much more like chiropracty or naturopathy, and much less like the effective system of total medical care which it is today.

The danger of tradition is it's tendency at times to turn into dogma, and the only cure is change. It's frustrating at times, and sure to spawn heated debate (just check the Osteopathic forum 😉 ), but IMO, is also a large part of why Osteopathic Medicine has enjoyed so much growth and success. When osteopathic medicine was conceived, it was in opposition to an allopathic medical system which relied on calomel and killed as many patients as it helped. Today, many people apply to both because many of these differences have disappeared.

 

[yasha83]

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

While I respect your opinion, and the obvious passion you seem to have for the osteopathic profession, I cannot condone or agree with your statements. There have been many steps taken in recent years to get the D.O degree on equal footing with M.D in all aspects. One of the gaps between the two right now happens to be publicity. This is the reason Osteopathic schools have lower admission standards than the average U.S allo medical school. The truth is most people are not aware with the option of the osteopathic profession. By preventing the acceptance of those who supposedly "sully" the profession obtaining degrees via osteopthic medical schools you are cutting down on exposure for the entire profession. The more students graduate the more doctors there will be, and the word about D.O's will get out much faster. This will lead to more D.O applicants and in turn, D.O schools will raise admissions criteria, eliminating yet another obstacle between the two professions. Eventually this should pull the two degrees even closer. The means may not be ideal, but the ends are exactly wat the profession needs right now. This can be done without sacrificing the D.O philosophy.
Yes, I personally applied to D.O schools as backups to M.D schools, initially. However, when I did so I committed myself fully to this and did as much research as possible. I shadowed my family (D.O) physician, interned at hospitals and did online and literary research on the D.O degree. Many aspects of the philosophy appealed to me personally (focus on the whole patient, musculo-skeletal approach, etc.), and I grew to accept this as my future calling. I have tremendious respect for the profession and hope to see it grow and succeed even more. Technically, if one takes your over-simplified view, I will be attending a D.O school because I did not get into my top couple M.D choices. This is too black and white and I am sure there are many out there with similar beliefs/situations. I do not see myself as kicking dirt in the face of the venerable Mr. Still nor do I consider the degree second rate. The fact that I applied under different circumstances than yourself ( i.e. exclusively D.O since the beginning) is only a function of the fact that I was not exposed to this option until later in my collegiate education. This circles back to the issue I brought up in the previous paragraph, and can change in the future. I have read The D.O's and am very informed about the profession and will enthusiastically defend my belief in the philosophy to anyone, un-informed pre-M.D's and over-zealous future D.O's alike. I believe you have the good of the profession in mind but are approaching it unrealistically (the need for more exposure) and a bit close-mindedly. The worth and passion of an osteopath cannot be judged by how one gets there but how one goes about the job of providing care. Again, I respect your opinion, I just ahve my own views on the subject and do not intend anything personal in what I have said.

 

[scpod]

My whole frustration stems from the fact that my first choice is someone's backup plan. Which I then infer that people who use osteopathic medicine as a backup don't believe it is as good as allopathic.

I'm not sure if that is entirely true. If it was, their backup would more likely be the Caribean schools who, in general, have lower standards than DO schools. They do, however, confer the MD degree. I believe that many of them feel that the education may be as good, but are afraid of the "stigma" which may have been associated with the DO degree in the past.

Many pre-meds in this country still have no idea that the DO degree exists because their pre-med advisors still don't have a clue. I spent quite a bit of time "educating" the new pre-med advisor at my own school when the old one retired. Sure, he has a PhD in Pysiology, but he'd never met a DO in his life until I intoduced him to one. Since that time, he has begun counseling his students on the merits of DOs and there will be a record number from my alma mater filling out AACOMAS applications this year. As far as we know, I was the first from my university to ever do so. The two state MD programs had a virtual lock on every school in the state. They picked their favorites and the rest went on to teach Biology in some backwoods corner of the state.

I'd venture a guess and say that most people in this country have still never even heard of the DO degree. Most of those that have heard of it don't know what it is. Yet, when they need a doctor, I'll bet that most of them don't care about the initials behind the name either.

I don't care if somebody uses DO as a backup because there are a lot of people who might not qualify for an MD school, based solely on GPA and/or MCAT, but will still make good doctors. I'd rather have those people in a DO school learning what medicine is than at an elitist institution learning snobbery.

 

[shttthttle]

I have two problems with the previous responses:

First, Yasha, although we will have many more DO's...what does it matter if people do not utilize the DO philosophy in their practice? I for one don't want to be a look alike MD. The DO philosophy is what makes it unique and why I chose this career path. I did not choose it because eventually I want to MDs and DOs to do the same thing. In your response you said something about DOs becoming closer to MDs without sacrificing the philosophy, could you explain that?

Second, I agree that people don't really care about the initials after the name; I never knew my sports med. doc was a DO until college. However, our publicity is concern when we have two people with the same initials that have a different philosophy on medicine (ala not the DO philosophy but with the DO letters) and people notice it. I whole-heartedly believe that DOs and MDs should be recognized as being different. We SHOULD have a different philosophy/approach then MDs...thats why we are DOs.

For the people who have never heard of DO or whose advisors have no knowledge, thats sad, but it happens. However, our true ideas and philosophies will not be known if we continue to have people graduate that don't care about them. I guarentee there will be people in our OMT classes that believe the stuff they are doing is total crap...do think those people should be in a DO school? Thoughts?

 

[scpod]

I guarentee there will be people in our OMT classes that believe the stuff they are doing is total crap...do think those people should be in a DO school? Thoughts?

Yes, of course they should. I went to college and received a BS in Biology for it. I was required to take classes in music, art, speech, history, and a whole host of others that don't directly relate to that degree in Biology. I didn't necessarily like taking all those courses; yet, they gave me additional tools to use and made me a more well-rounded student.

Requiring OMT is a good thing for DO schools because it does separate them somewhat from allopathic schools. It really doesn't matter whether the students like taking the class or not. Most people won't use much OMT in their career, but it gives them an additional tool to use (if they choose to) and makes them a more well-rounded physician.

You can sit around and discuss the DO philosophy all day if you want to, but the truth is that being a physician is about healing. There are many different lenses through which you can approach the art of healing. Each physician, regardless of the initials after his/her name, looks at things differently. The DO or MD that follows their signature is not what makes them a good doctor. The school they go to is not what makes them a good doctor. The philosophy they follow is not what makes them a good doctor. What does? It is the ability to alter the lens through which they view each patient to better suit the patient's individual needs. Those people who can separate the art of healing from the science of healing make the best doctors, regardless of whether they are DOs or MDs. I think that the real thing that makes DO schools different is that they inherently attract more of those people who can separate the two. It's not the school, then, that makes the difference; it's the people.

 

[shttthttle]

Yes, of course they should. I went to college and received a BS in Biology for it. I was required to take classes in music, art, speech, history, and a whole host of others that don't directly relate to that degree in Biology. I didn't necessarily like taking all those courses; yet, they gave me additional tools to use and made me a more well-rounded student.

Thats why your undergraduate degree is not a professional degree.

Requiring OMT is a good thing for DO schools because it does separate them somewhat from allopathic schools. It really doesn't matter whether the students like taking the class or not. Most people won't use much OMT in their career, but it gives them an additional tool to use (if they choose to) and makes them a more well-rounded physician.

Yes, OMT is a good thing. However, if someone doesn't like OMT they won't use it as a tool. Plus, OMT is the major difference for DO schools...why DO if you don't like/believe OMT?

As for the rest of your post, you are very eloquent. So my response: Yes being a physician is about healing. Being a DO is about healing with a certain philosophy. We are not "a group of people who couldn't make it into MD school, but have great personalities and thats why we are DO's"...

I agree with your thoughts on seperating art and science, and I agree that DO's attract more of those types...why? I would say its the philosophy...and I think it goes back to your more tools thought....but if they were that attracted to DO would they only use it as a backup?

 

[scpod]

....but if they were that attracted to DO would they only use it as a backup?

Pressure...from peers, from friends, from families, etc. to get that MD degree. Most people are very ignorant of what a DO is. There are a hundred posts on SDN from pre-meds who say they want to go DO, but they can't because of the pressure. I'd like to think that most of these people are young, and because of that are more easily influenced by those around them.

There are certain types of people who tend to end up at DO schools, but there isn't any scientific evidence to tell us why. We can make guesses, though. For instance, it has been said that DO schools are more "non-trad friendly", since they tend to take more folks who are older. Perhaps, though, those non-trads are just less likely to be influenced by the ignorant peers, friends, and families that surround them.

The lucky ones are the pre-meds who grow up with an osteopathic physician because they can truly make a decision based on a "lifetime" of study. Unfortunately, they are a small minority. The majority must make a decision based on a very small amount of evidence. The "pressure" is often more than enough to overwhelm that very small amount of evidence. Take the group of people that enter DO school who don't like OMT from the outset. Many will eventually realize that going DO, even though it was a "backup", is the very best thing that ever happened to them. Others will always feel shame because they could'nt get that MD degree that Dad always wanted them to have.

That's where the part about individuals comes into play. Based on looking at someone or his stats, you can't tell which of those two categories s/he is going to fall into. But, depriving the one who will eventually appreciate the DO philosophy, simply because he doesn't like OMT at the beginning, may be depriving the world of a very good physician later on-- something that we simply can't afford to do.

 

[jbone]

Pressure...from peers, from friends, from families, etc. to get that MD degree. Most people are very ignorant of what a DO is. There are a hundred posts on SDN from pre-meds who say they want to go DO, but they can't because of the pressure. I'd like to think that most of these people are young, and because of that are more easily influenced by those around them.

There are certain types of people who tend to end up at DO schools, but there isn't any scientific evidence to tell us why. We can make guesses, though. For instance, it has been said that DO schools are more "non-trad friendly", since they tend to take more folks who are older. Perhaps, though, those non-trads are just less likely to be influenced by the ignorant peers, friends, and families that surround them.

The lucky ones are the pre-meds who grow up with an osteopathic physician because they can truly make a decision based on a "lifetime" of study. Unfortunately, they are a small minority. The majority must make a decision based on a very small amount of evidence. The "pressure" is often more than enough to overwhelm that very small amount of evidence. Take the group of people that enter DO school who don't like OMT from the outset. Many will eventually realize that going DO, even though it was a "backup", is the very best thing that ever happened to them. Others will always feel shame because they could'nt get that MD degree that Dad always wanted them to have.

That's where the part about individuals comes into play. Based on looking at someone or his stats, you can't tell which of those two categories s/he is going to fall into. But, depriving the one who will eventually appreciate the DO philosophy, simply because he doesn't like OMT at the beginning, may be depriving the world of a very good physician later on-- something that we simply can't afford to do.

Freakin post of the month. Thank you. 👍 👍

 

[sayoc]

Keep in mind that most schools also functioned as a business institution.

I agree that is easier to get into DO schools
I agree that it is more difficult to get the best residencies (although connections will always be stronger then education)

However, I have not heard one good argument for why it is OK to use DO schools as a back up for MD schools. Osteopathic medicine, as a career, has a set of principles for which all practitioners should believe and utilize when diagnosing. I don’t feel the argument “the adcom accepted me so it is ok” is valid. Just because someone is on the admissions committee doesn’t mean that they are a person who can know or discover the true intentions of any candidate. In fact, during my interviews I was rarely asked about the DO philosophy and how I feel about it. In my opinion, the adcom’s responsibility is to find the candidates who are most likely to succeed, not the “truest” believers…that is the responsibility of the candidate.

When we graduate from osteopathic school we will have a piece of the future of osteopathic medicine in our hands. However, I do not want someone who cares or knows little, if any, for/of the philosophy. I believe the perpetuation of the career and of the osteopathic physician’s medical philosophy is too important for the apathetic soul…it differentiates our profession from the MD’s and it is what gives us the strength and energy to become more and more of a presence in the medical community.

Shttthttle
- as an aside, and for anyone wondering…shttthttle stands for: shot at the title with the vowels removed except for the e at the end…yeah, I am really awesome

 

[nvshelat]

I'm going to DO school "as a backup". Why? Better choice of residencies. You can't get upset at people choosing DO schools as a backup plan when their residency options clearly aren't as good as MD schools. Better residencies will come with time, but that time isn't now.

I'm sure the AOA knows that many of their students chose DO b/c they couldn't get into MD. IMO, their strategy should be to harp more on OMM as a way of differentiating themselves from allopathic schools.

 

[Raven Feather]

Thats why your undergraduate degree is not a professional degree.



Yes, OMT is a good thing. However, if someone doesn't like OMT they won't use it as a tool. Plus, OMT is the major difference for DO schools...why DO if you don't like/believe OMT?

As for the rest of your post, you are very eloquent. So my response: Yes being a physician is about healing. Being a DO is about healing with a certain philosophy. We are not "a group of people who couldn't make it into MD school, but have great personalities and thats why we are DO's"...

I agree with your thoughts on seperating art and science, and I agree that DO's attract more of those types...why? I would say its the philosophy...and I think it goes back to your more tools thought....but if they were that attracted to DO would they only use it as a backup?

Even if one doesn't use OMT, would you agree that they will still benefit from the diagnostic tools (eg, palpatory skills), that they are taught that is unique to the DO profession?

Many fields in medicine is such that OMT would rarely, if at all be used. Examples are pathology, urology, opthalmology, dermatology etc. So then should potential DO students who want to go into these fields exclude themselves from applying to DO schools? Food for thought.

 

[ChEdog]

Well maybe I'm a backslider, but I applied to both allo and osteo schools for one reason. I wanted to maximize my chances of being accepted and starting this journey now instead of putting it off another year. Having said that, I will be a DO, and I am excited. Will I use OMM in practice? I don't know. I'll make that decision once I have learned the procedures.

In one of my DO interviews I was asked if I applied MD also. I told the interviewer the statement I wrote above. When asked about the DO approach to medicine, I said I was eager to learn. I also believe that to some extent individuals will develop their own approach(ie, bed side manner, critical thinking, handling pressure) with proper experience reguardless of the initials behind their name.

I did not apply DO as a back up, but as an equal. However, I do not fault those who do. Most people just want to become the best physician they can be, whichever road they take.

 

[shttthttle]

I agree with many of the sentiments on this thread.

I apologize for not accurately articulating my feelings in my previous posts. The real problem that frusterates me, is when people will apply to DO schools without knowing anything about them except that they are another type of doctor who does many of the same things as an MD.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[clement]

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

Actually, I see your point and agree with you to an extent. However, as someone who originally was going MD (and who still might) I don't see why there has to be this need to sharpen the separation between DO and MD with posts like these. Yes, DOs are a minority in some ways who do end up having to explain what the DO stands for to a mass of ignorance, at any given point in time, like it or not, you will be asked...But I think it's great that people can reach a level of knowledge (about DOs) where they can apply to both types of schools simultaneously. In my case, I DIDN'T KNOW what DOs were until one day my MD school friend asked me what I was planning on going into...Upon answering "family practice," I found out, for the very first time, what a DO IS. My DO mentor, who teaches at an MD school, tells me stories ALL the time of how his students are fascinated by the DO approach, and how they are so caught up in symptom/disease, symptom/disease mode that it really busts their morale as up and coming physicians.

 

[omaralt]

hey guys,

i'm not md or do, i'm actually dmd, but i've always wondered about this. why would somebody go to do over md? the way i see it, with md, you have a lot more opportunities after you graduate, or am i seeing it wrong? go md, and then if you want to become a family doc or whatever, you can pretty much do whatever you want. if you're really into opp/omm, take some CE courses in it, there are many different ways that you can learn it.

the way i see it is that the majority of ppl apply to both, go to md if they get in, and use do as a back up. this is what i've seen from the majority of my friends. and that makes sense?

omar

 

[scpod]

...i'm actually dmd...why would somebody go to do over md?

While you spent your time over in DMD world this question was beaten to death, time and time again. This would be a perfect time for you to make use of the search feature.

 

[LUBDUBB]

hey guys,

i'm not md or do, i'm actually dmd, but i've always wondered about this. why would somebody go to do over md? the way i see it, with md, you have a lot more opportunities after you graduate, or am i seeing it wrong? go md, and then if you want to become a family doc or whatever, you can pretty much do whatever you want. if you're really into opp/omm, take some CE courses in it, there are many different ways that you can learn it.

the way i see it is that the majority of ppl apply to both, go to md if they get in, and use do as a back up. this is what i've seen from the majority of my friends. and that makes sense?

omar

The old aim of osteopathy was to distinguish itself from and tie up the loose ends of allopathic medicine.

The new aim, IMHO, is to blur the lines between MD/DO in a manner analagous to the DMD/DDS distinction.

Shhtthettl,
ppl do what they wanna do, you can't fault them for having motivations different than your own. I see your point though - your motivations are pure and your strong beliefs in osteopathy will def be a credit to the DO profession.

Myself, I have tried for 2 cycles to get into MD schools with no success. To me the DO route would be a "back up", and for that reason I have not applied to DO schools, because at this point, I would not be happy going to my backup plan. If you go to DO, you gotta be happy with your decision.

 

[Raven Feather]

hey guys,

i'm not md or do, i'm actually dmd, but i've always wondered about this. why would somebody go to do over md? the way i see it, with md, you have a lot more opportunities after you graduate, or am i seeing it wrong? go md, and then if you want to become a family doc or whatever, you can pretty much do whatever you want. if you're really into opp/omm, take some CE courses in it, there are many different ways that you can learn it.

the way i see it is that the majority of ppl apply to both, go to md if they get in, and use do as a back up. this is what i've seen from the majority of my friends. and that makes sense?

omar

What is a DMD?

 

[PlasticMan]

What is a DMD?

Doctor of dental medicine.

 

[yanky5]

I get really frustrated when people attend osteopathic schools only because they were not accepted into a MD school. I feel as though people who apply to DO schools only as a backup plan only perpetuate the idea that DO's are second rate. Therefore, they are not only hurting their chosen career path, but also others who believe in the DO philosophy. After reading, The DO's, I feel that people who use osteopathic medical school as a backup are kicking dirt in our "founding fathers" face, and have no respect for the struggles that previous DO's have fought against...a true tragedy.

I hope more people share these feelings.

I get really frustrated when naive people like you give us this crap. 95 percent of people attened DO schools as a backup option. That's what I did. Also, there is really not much of a difference than DO and MD. Don't buy too much into that crap they tell you. When you actually attend a DO school, you see that a DO = MD+ OMM. And most of the time, only an internist or family practice doc would ever use OMM after school. While you do have an extra useful skill that MD's don't have, MD's have advantages too like more time spent on studying medicine (OMM cuts your study time). So, don't buy into all this founding father crap. I would go MD if I got in because they have more opportunities.

 

[PhDtoDO]

Hey,

I did a similar thing to you(someone above), I applied to DO and MD schools to ensure that I get into one school somewhere. But, I also go to both MDs and DOs as we have both at my primary care clinic. I spoke with my main DO about the differences a long time ago which lead me to think I would like it. But, as a future academic scientist, I thought the traditional MD route would be better for my career. I am also a big fan of chiropractics and thought or planned to try and do an elective rotation with a chiropractor or at a DO school/clinic.

I also have a best friend who's a first year at a DO school in Florida, and another friend who did what I did, applied both and am going to a DO school. She got into Touro too but decided to go to Florida...two geographicly different friends are now going to meet and chum!

I didn't really know enough about osteopathic medicine until I went on interviews. I WAS TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY. Not only were all my major fears relieved, but the atmosphere was totally different....DO schools on one side and MDs on another.

I really wouldn't have applied to more than my state MD school if I had known how well I fit with Osteopathic philosophy.

As much as I think you have a valid point, you are ahead of the game for choosing, truly choosing the osteopathic route, it does not necessarily lessen my convictions or the validity of my choice to attend a DO school.

I, as a scientist, am a needed and welcomed addition to the osteopathic field. The field, as a whole is working very hard to integrate and recruit researchers to strenghten an obvious weakness (perhaps too harsh of a word) in their academic resume.

So, try not to be too bitter when you get to school and find out that half of your classmates applied and didn't get into MD schools. Better to encourage pride and conviction in our chosen or 'backup' area of medicine. Ultimately when you look around, you and the other 'half' ARE looking at the future of osteopathic medicine.

Just my opinion,

Sarah
TUCOM 2010

 

[shttthttle]

Sarah, this is off subject, but I really liked how you structured your post. I was a little lost in the middle, but you really closed the circle. Nice work.

 

[Smackey]

I get really frustrated when naive people like you give us this crap. 95 percent of people attened DO schools as a backup option.

Thats funny, because lots of people get frustrated with people like you that give us this crap. But good work on making up a statistic and stating it as fact.

I along with many of my classmates got into BOTH types of school.

And most of the time, only an internist or family practice doc would ever use OMM after school.

Maybe actually using specific OMM techniques yes. But how about the superior diagnostic and palpapatory skills that you gain? Or the way a DO student so quickly learns comfort with touching patients?

MD's have advantages too like more time spent on studying medicine (OMM cuts your study time).

I would propose that OMM is the most useful thing about "medicine" that a student can learn in their first year of medical school. There is a reason top schools are promoting more patient contact your first two years and less memorizing of random biochem pathways. It's because one is "medicine" and the other is memorizing.

 

[Raven Feather]

Doctor of dental medicine.

Thanks, so then what does a DDS stand for? I mean, I know it is a dentist but....?

 

[strawberryfield]

Thanks, so then what does a DDS stand for? I mean, I know it is a dentist but....?

Doctor of Dental Surgery

what is the difference between DMD & DDS?

Here's what wikipedia says...
"In the past, the difference consisted of having a DMD train for a brief period with general medical students, while a DDS studied in a more surgery-focused program that continued during the summers of the four year graduate degree. These extra surgical clerkships equated to a six year clinic program. Thus DDS graduates could confidently practice oral and maxillofacial surgery at a specialty level until 1997 when the American Dental Association House of Delegates revised the definitions of specialties; at this time the two degrees were deemed equal."

 

[Raven Feather]

Doctor of Dental Surgery

what is the difference between DMD & DDS?

Here's what wikipedia says...
"In the past, the difference consisted of having a DMD train for a brief period with general medical students, while a DDS studied in a more surgery-focused program that continued during the summers of the four year graduate degree. These extra surgical clerkships equated to a six year clinic program. Thus DDS graduates could confidently practice oral and maxillofacial surgery at a specialty level until 1997 when the American Dental Association House of Delegates revised the definitions of specialties; at this time the two degrees were deemed equal."

Thanks, so sorta like the DO vs MD thing. Which is better?

 

[strawberryfield]

Thanks, so sorta like the DO vs MD thing. Which is better?

touche!

 

[bth7]

However, I have not heard one good argument for why it is OK to use DO schools as a back up for MD schools. Osteopathic medicine, as a career, has a set of principles for which all practitioners should believe and utilize when diagnosing.

This sounds awfully rigid to me. Saying that someone "should believe" anything feels really dogmatic. What a doctor "should do" is give the patient the best care possible. Not the best osteopathic or best allopathic care possible, just the best care. Luckily, osteopaths have a whole extra set of diagnostic and treatment modalities to offer their patients. But so do many MD's. I know an MD who offers Osteopathic Cranial Therapy to his patients. There are plenty of DO schools that don't even teach it. (Luckily, my school does, go Touro California!)

However, I do not want someone who cares or knows little, if any, for/of the philosophy. I believe the perpetuation of the career and of the osteopathic physician’s medical philosophy is too important for the apathetic soul…it differentiates our profession from the MD’s and it is what gives us the strength and energy to become more and more of a presence in the medical community.

People continue to see osteopathic principles as a barrier between DO's and MD's. They are spoken of as some precious, sentimentalized set of ideals that we should worship and protect from being watered-down by the evil MD's. I see this attitude propagated again and again by DO students and docs who are angry and frustrated by a world they are convinced is hostile towards them.

There are many, many MD's that believe in the exact same principles that osteopathy is based upon.

Our principles were not created to give us a certain image, to set us apart, or to create some kind of "osteopathic brand" that insurance companies and Middle America will buy. They were created to heal.

What has hurt osteopathy so much is the continuing insistence that to be a "true" osteopath one must create some kind of wall between oneself and allopathic docs. We need to tear down this wall and start being leaders in the medical field, not trying to stand apart from it.

It's time to put this debate to rest in the 1900's where it belongs. Let's start viewing ourselves as what we are, part of the same team as allopaths, nurses, surgeons, dentists, acupuncturists, physical therapists, nutritionists, and so forth. We all share the same purpose: helping people get well. We will work side by side allopaths our whole practice lives. With our osteopathic training, we are an invaluable part of that team.

Why do we spin again and again down this same philosophical vortex, satisfied by our own self-defined superiority, or whining at the difficulties of being the minority? Why do so many speak of police-ing ourselves to rid ourselves of the non-believers? And why should we continue this adolescent turf-war for another 100 years?

 

[PhDtoDO]

Sarah, this is off subject, but I really liked how you structured your post. I was a little lost in the middle, but you really closed the circle. Nice work.

Hey shtthttle...that's how my brain works.

I forgot to mention, I did get into my top choice, abeit my state school LSU...which is less than half the cost of Touro.

If you think that was funny, try listening to me tell a story (or two or three simultaneously) after a few glasses of wine...my friends think that's totally entertaining...I get lost in my own thoughts.

Dyslexic and PROUD OF IT!

-PhDtoDO

 

[shttthttle]

bth7, your post is very well written.

I agree that the goals of ANY healthcare are to heal and care for people the best. I think that this goal is assumed. I don't think systems are born with the belief of giving someone mediocre healthcare. So what differentiates healthcare systems from each other? Philosophy.

Osteopathic medicine has four basic principles (taken from: Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine )

I. The body is a unit and the person is a unit of the body, mind, and spirt
II. The body is capable of self-regulation, selfing healing, and maintenance
III. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated
IV. Treatment is based on the understanding of the previous three principles

Now, I believe that anyone that applies to a DO school should know these principles; they are what our practice is based on. Does this sound dogmatic? Yes! Is this ok? Yes! Because it is the lifeblood of our healthcare system. I don't want DO's to become assimilated into allopathic practice; in fact, I would rather MD's become assimilated into DO practice. Why? Because, in my opinion, the current state of our practice and our philosophy is more open and more correct.

So why do I get frustrated when people just apply to DO schools as a backup? Because they have no idea what a DO is besides just another doctor. They have no understanding of our principles and practices that make us so successful. Yeah they will hear them in their classes...but will they just blow it off? Maybe, and thats where I have a problem. If less and less people utilize the DO principles, the ideas that make this healthcare system so great may be lost...a true shame!

 

[Wackie]

They have no understanding of our principles and practices that make us so successful. Yeah they will hear them in their classes...but will they just blow it off?

One thing to consider is the students are being trained to assess a patient a certain way and to treat them. So, unless you have an MD who decided to go to a DO school, I don't think it's that big of a problem. Sure you will have some that will roll their eyes at the philosophies. But I think many will resort to the training received from their DO school while treating patients since that's all they know (so to speak).
One thing is for certain, the letters after your name do not decide whether you are a good doctor or a bad one. The worst, unhelpful doctor I've ever been to was a DO. The best was an MD who was a family friend (ENT and I kick myself every day that I didn't ask to shadow him while he was still in practice). Where I volunteer right now, the DO's are much more approachable and friendly than the MD's. It all depends on the person, not the school so much.


As for DO schools being easier to get into...are they really? You're more likely to have your application looked at by a person. But, what is the ratio between the number of applications vs. the number of seats?
Often, the class size is half of what a typical allopathic class is. So perhaps they are not so easy to get into.

With the research I've done, I think DO is a nice fit for me. I think the holistic approach is more likely to take you to the root of the problem instead of fixing a sign or symptom of what the real problem is. My only concern is that I want to be able to practice outside of the country. I plan to work as a physician so that I can take a few weeks or month, whatever I'm allowed, and provide medical services to the poor or third world countries...sort of a medical mission trip. Osteopathic medicine, as I understand, is also better at teaching you to diagnose without the aid of X-rays, CT Scans, etc.
Unfortunately, DO's aren't recognized by many other countries. 🙁
This is a big deal to me, but I think I'd rather go DO and serve inside the US. However, not having to explain what an MD is can be attractive. Still, I lean towards DO.

I wonder what steps are being taken to correct the fact that a DO degree isn't widely recognized, or what steps need to be taken.

 

[yasha83]

This sounds awfully rigid to me. Saying that someone "should believe" anything feels really dogmatic. What a doctor "should do" is give the patient the best care possible. Not the best osteopathic or best allopathic care possible, just the best care. Luckily, osteopaths have a whole extra set of diagnostic and treatment modalities to offer their patients. But so do many MD's. I know an MD who offers Osteopathic Cranial Therapy to his patients. There are plenty of DO schools that don't even teach it. (Luckily, my school does, go Touro California!)



People continue to see osteopathic principles as a barrier between DO's and MD's. They are spoken of as some precious, sentimentalized set of ideals that we should worship and protect from being watered-down by the evil MD's. I see this attitude propagated again and again by DO students and docs who are angry and frustrated by a world they are convinced is hostile towards them.

There are many, many MD's that believe in the exact same principles that osteopathy is based upon.

Our principles were not created to give us a certain image, to set us apart, or to create some kind of "osteopathic brand" that insurance companies and Middle America will buy. They were created to heal.

What has hurt osteopathy so much is the continuing insistence that to be a "true" osteopath one must create some kind of wall between oneself and allopathic docs. We need to tear down this wall and start being leaders in the medical field, not trying to stand apart from it.

It's time to put this debate to rest in the 1900's where it belongs. Let's start viewing ourselves as what we are, part of the same team as allopaths, nurses, surgeons, dentists, acupuncturists, physical therapists, nutritionists, and so forth. We all share the same purpose: helping people get well. We will work side by side allopaths our whole practice lives. With our osteopathic training, we are an invaluable part of that team.

Why do we spin again and again down this same philosophical vortex, satisfied by our own self-defined superiority, or whining at the difficulties of being the minority? Why do so many speak of police-ing ourselves to rid ourselves of the non-believers? And why should we continue this adolescent turf-war for another 100 years?

Freakin' beatiful post; antiquated dogmatism and rhetoric can be as harmful as ignorance, it just disguises itself better.