I'm good at long answers, so let me give you the short(ish) one first. Osteopathic principles and philosophy is its own thing. That is why the class is OPP not OMM. The techniques are great, but our use of them, and of all our therapeutic interventions, are most beneficial when they are being provided with an appreciation for the principles and philosophy behind them. If you can do a thing that works, but you don't understand the *why* behind its efficacy, or how it is better than another option, etc... then you are just a technician, not a physician. Osteopathy is a model, a system through which you can filter the complexity of the problem of seeking health. There are other models, other ways of approaching the same problems, but this one is the one that osteopathic medical schools teach.
The longer answer: As far as techniques alone go, there is a lot of overlap with other disciplines, like physical therapy. The differences in the actual techniques may be slight matters of style for the most part. Why not just be a physical therapist then? Because you want a wider scope beyond just manual medicine. The model of OPP tells us that focusing on just one aspect of health to the exclusion of the others is a recipe for treating problems rather than patients. That "treat the whole patient" thing is kind of cliche, but it is pretty much central to what the osteopathic model is all about. My version:
- The human being is a unit, of body, mind, and maybe spirit, if you believe in that sort of thing.
- A living body wants to be well, and it will try to regulate and heal itself.
- Structure and function are two sides of the same coin. Changing one changes the other, invariably. (If not always predictably!)
- All rational treatment requires an appreciation of the first three.
If someone explicitly believes and practices medicine with those principles in mind, then they are practicing osteopathic medicine, whatever school they went to and whatever letters after their name, even if they never use a single manipulative medical technique. (Though why on earth someone wouldn't want to have those handy tools available for use, I can't fathom.)
I don't know what "traditional medicine" means. Chiropractic was developed by a guy who studied briefly with A.T. Still, who spent a couple weeks, picked up a couple of things, and then "invented" a style of manual medicine. I've cared for a lot of patients who were seriously injured by chiropractors, so that colors my opinions about them, and that is about all I care to say here.
Some of my professors are into acupuncture, but I have yet to be convinced that it is more than just placebo effect. I find it frustrating that it gets as much attention as it does in our OPP lectures (occasional mentions,) because I think that dilutes the quality of what OMM does have to offer. (I'm also not yet convinced that cranial is a thing, at least in adults.)
