Frustration with the “Why DO” question. Advice?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I’m sorry, but I’m actually a huge fan of OMM. I think it’s underrated. Western medicine strongly undervalues tactile treatment modalities in part due to the legacy of Victorian morality. We see the impact of that morality simply doing practical exams for other medicine-adjacent disciplines like nursing or prehospital EMT/paramedic training.

In clinical therapy for PTSD, talk therapy is strongly favored (in terms of prestige or insurance coverage) over somatic therapies like acupuncture or EMDR despite the proven efficacies of the latter two treatments. Western therapists are strongly discouraged from touching their patients unless there is some perceived diagnostic need to do so, and certainly allopathic physicians are discouraged from touching their patients as a form of treatment. This difference is really cultural in nature and I am really interested in OMM in part because I think it can be integrated into other treatment paradigms.

Tactile treatment modalities can regulate the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. A modified form of OMM can be used to stimulate the vagus nerve to mitigate ventricular tachycardia — a dangerous cardiac arrhythmia that can lead to death if not controlled immediately. It can also soothe the patient and regulate their emotions and senses, which is important when trying to make a differential diagnosis between the ubiquitous “anxiety” or perhaps a dangerous neurologic complication of some other physiological condition like Lyme, which is frequently confused for a somatic condition by allopathic doctors.

If some allopathic physicians would rather not have “soothing patients” be part of their job description — well — I want it to be part of mine, because I am someone who hopes to specialize in treating PTSD.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think most people are in favor of many OMM principles. Its just certain parts, such as cranio sacral therapy that I hear many DOs and MDs criticize. I think as long as the therapy can be evaluated via the scientific method, and it proves useful, its good to go.
 
I think most people are in favor of many OMM principles. Its just certain parts, such as cranio sacral therapy that I hear many DOs and MDs criticize. I think as long as the therapy can be evaluated via the scientific method, and it proves useful, its good to go.

I’m in favor of Osteopathic principles—like the tenets. What doctor wouldn’t agree with those? Anyone that understands biology would know that the body self-regulates (#2) and that structure and function are interrelated (#3). Viewing patient health as body/mind/spirit (#1) is holistic patient-centered care. Combining these ideas as a healthcare provider makes sense (#4).

It’s just OMM/OMT that I don’t love. I don’t hate it either, it’s just a big time drain for something so specific. I just think it should be a GME specialization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top