if DO = MD then why to have twe separate schools?

[Dr JPH]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Practicing DOs and MDs have for the most part have become one and the same in todays market. But yet, there is still that fundamental difference(history, OMM/T, philosophy) that seperates the two fields.

What is the "Osteopathoic Philosophy"?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

There is a huge market for OMM if one knows how to market themselves.

Cha-ching!

 

[EastWestN2grt]

although many DOs have different opinions on this issue, it is clear that they all want to be treated equally as MDs. however, the one's that rabidly assert their professional independence from the AMA and the allopathic community seem to want an impossible situation: Separate but equal.

Osteopathic medicine has done quite well maintaining professional independence from the AMA over the past 100+ years. DOs have remained seperate and equal without becoming a stepchild of the AMA, and our profession continues to strengthen.

It has always traditionally been the allopathic communty that has tried to alienate and keep themselves seperate from, what not very long ago the AMA classified as 'cultist medicine' aka osteopathic med.

In fact it was the AMA that essentially shot themselves in the foot during the DO fiasco in California in the 1960s. By allowing practicing DOs to switch degrees to MD, the AMA literally showed to the American public, and more importantly to the US government that they believed DOs were equal to MDs. This literally opened the military, govt funding, etc to the osteopathic profession. All previously monopolized by allopathic medicine.

 

[Dr JPH]

Osteopathic medicine has done quite well maintaining professional independence from the AMA over the past 100+ years. DOs have remained seperate and equal without becoming a stepchild of the AMA, and our profession continues to strengthen.

It has always traditionally been the allopathic communty that has tried to alienate and keep themselves seperate from, what not very long ago the AMA classified as 'cultist medicine' aka osteopathic med.

In fact it was the AMA that essentially shot themselves in the foot during the DO fiasco in California in the 1960s. By allowing practicing DOs to switch degrees to MD, the AMA literally showed to the American public, and more importantly to the US government that they believed DOs were equal to MDs. This literally opened the military, govt funding, etc to the osteopathic profession. All previously monopolized by allopathic medicine.

Your facts are a bit misconstrued.

The California "fiasco" as you call it, didnt prove anything to anyone. In fact, the California MD legislature was trying to amalgamate DOs in an effort to end the teaching and practice of osteopathic medicine in that state. They werent trying to show that DOs were equal...and even after the new MD degrees were handed out to the DOs who chose to pay the fee, they were still barred from practicing in many allopathic hospitals. It didnt open any doors for DOs at all.

WWII and the need for physicians at home could be considered a transition point, but not the California legislation.

And you are also wrong when you say that the AMA and MDs are the ones keeping DOs out. It is, in fact, the AOA that is maintaining its independance despite the welcome from the allopathic community.

DOs can apply for ACGME residencies.
DOs can work at allopathic hospitals.
DOs can teach in MD schools.

The AOA turns its back on many DOs who pursue allopathic training AND they refuse to let MDs into AOA approved residency programs.

Who is shunning who?

Sorry my friend, you are way off base.

 

[scpod]

The AOA turns its back on many DOs who pursue allopathic training AND they refuse to let MDs into AOA approved residency programs.

Did you notice in the last issue of The DO that they mentioned a move to let allopathic graduates into DO residencies and allow MD's to direct GME for osteopathic positions? Might never happen...but I'm sensing some changes coming.

 

[Dr JPH]

Did you notice in the last issue of The DO that they mentioned a move to let allopathic graduates into DO residencies and allow MD's to direct GME for osteopathic positions? Might never happen...but I'm sensing some changes coming.

I did read it but I am not impressed.

This has been thrown around for years from all corners of the DO community.

Im not going to hold my breath. The strongest osteopathic programs are working towards gainign dual accredidation. If the AOA wont wake up and make the change, the best DO programs in the country will simply adapt as necessary.

 

[DrMom]

Your facts are a bit misconstrued.

The California "fiasco" as you call it, didnt prove anything to anyone. In fact, the California MD legislature was trying to amalgamate DOs in an effort to end the teaching and practice of osteopathic medicine in that state. They werent trying to show that DOs were equal...and even after the new MD degrees were handed out to the DOs who chose to pay the fee, they were still barred from practicing in many allopathic hospitals. It didnt open any doors for DOs at all.

Agree and disagree. When CA offered DOs the option of changing to MD, it definitely made it clear that the two degrees were equivalent. It didn't, however, change the discrimination.

I did read it but I am not impressed.

This has been thrown around for years from all corners of the DO community.

Im not going to hold my breath. The strongest osteopathic programs are working towards gainign dual accredidation. If the AOA wont wake up and make the change, the best DO programs in the country will simply adapt as necessary.

Yep. This has been thrown around within the AOA for a while but nothing has actually happened. Agree on the dual-accreditation.

 

[EastWestN2grt]

Your facts are a bit misconstrued.

The California "fiasco" as you call it, didnt prove anything to anyone. In fact, the California MD legislature was trying to amalgamate DOs in an effort to end the teaching and practice of osteopathic medicine in that state. They werent trying to show that DOs were equal...and even after the new MD degrees were handed out to the DOs who chose to pay the fee, they were still barred from practicing in many allopathic hospitals. It didnt open any doors for DOs at all.

WWII and the need for physicians at home could be considered a transition point, but not the California legislation.

And you are also wrong when you say that the AMA and MDs are the ones keeping DOs out. It is, in fact, the AOA that is maintaining its independance despite the welcome from the allopathic community.

DOs can apply for ACGME residencies.
DOs can work at allopathic hospitals.
DOs can teach in MD schools.

The AOA turns its back on many DOs who pursue allopathic training AND they refuse to let MDs into AOA approved residency programs.

Who is shunning who?

Sorry my friend, you are way off base.

I never implied that the AMA was trying to give equal ground to DOs in California, their intentions were not noble in the least bit they were simply trying to end competition. The same tactic used today when a larger company tries to buy out a smaller upstart company. DOs were an infringement on the territory of the AMA, coupling this fact with the ego driven desire by the Cali AOA and a majority of its members(2000 of 2500 who voted yes to Prop. 22) to 'gain' the MD degree than you create the perfect situation for the California 'fiasco' in 1962. Fiasco because this historic moment could have seriously crippled the profession. Remember the CA AOA was the largest state AOA organization at the time, and California at this time was at the forefront of moving Osteo med towards more technology and specialization.

The opening of doors for DOs occurred DIRECTLY as a result of California. In the legislative arena, the AMA could no longer argue inferiority of the DO degree, since their actions in Cali legitimized the point the AOA and DOs had been trying to make ie. MDs and DOs are equal, yet seperate. 5 years later in 1967, DOs got the right to practice medicine in the military. WWII ended in 1945. Prop 22 was the impetus that allowed DOs to practice military medicine. Im sure though the success of DOs practicing at home (while many MDs were serving in WWII) probably helped a bit.

My point is not that the AMA is keeping DOs out today, my point was historically it has been the AMA oppossed to amalgamation. But dont think for a second that the AMA has the noble intention of protecting the DO profession. Im sure their interest is with their MD grads, we are a tolerated step child. As our profession continues to grow though, im sure the AMA will have something to say down the road. I do agree that the AOA should open residencies to allopathic students, just as the AMA has done with DOs. There is no harm to cooperation among professions--its always a good thing.

With that said, I continue to stand by my assertion that the DO profession stay independent. I am not closed to the idea of a name change, if this is what the majority of the profession wants, but I personally prefer the initials DO to MD (but I am very non-conformist). About a year ago, in a similar discussion, someone came up with the idea of MD-Osteopathic, MD-Allopathic. I could live with this.

 

[CommanderRiker]

About a year ago, in a similar discussion, someone came up with the idea of MD-Osteopathic, MD-Allopathic. I could live with this.

Riker checking in.

To be honest, this argument is moot because there aren't going to be any name changes for M.D., ever. And the D.O. initials won't be changing for the next 20 years at least.

Riker out.

 

[Static Line]

Riker checking in.

And the D.O. initials won't be changing for the next 20 years at least.

Riker out.

And you arbitrarily choose 20 years, why?

 

[Dr JPH]

And you arbitrarily choose 20 years, why?

He is getting that number from the same place he gets all of his comments. Somewhere near the anal verge.

 

[Dr2Bee]

That's because its really... DO ≈ MD. Slight difference in philosophies.

 

[CommanderRiker]

And you arbitrarily choose 20 years, why?

Because my simple fellow, that's how long it will be before the current middle-aged generation of M.D.s and D.O.s retires. 😀

 

[Static Line]

With that said, I continue to stand by my assertion that the DO profession stay independent. I am not closed to the idea of a name change, if this is what the majority of the profession wants

I like the idea of mutual cooperation with allopaths. I routinely saw mutual cooperation everyday at work before I came to school but that cooperation doesn't include giving up our identity. On the battlefield this is called surrender. Remember, some of us actually had good, competitive stats and aren't using osteopthic school as a back up plan. It was prefered over an allopathic institution (nothing wrong with allo institutions either.) The only reason some people can't identify with that line of reasoning is, well, their stats can't identify with that, and they just hate to absolutely admit they weren't competitive to begin with. Some allopaths may still discriminate against osteopaths but the inferiority complex by many DO's comes from within, not from someone else.

DO's with inferiority complexes will always feel inferior no matter what topic is. If it's not the DO name it will be something else.

 

[Static Line]

Because my simple fellow, that's how long it will be before the current middle-aged generation of M.D.s and D.O.s retires. 😀

Well my simple fellow. This current young generation in my class is so busy bitching and bellyaching about DO residencies that they happily run off to allo residencies. Many of them are cutting themselves off from future leadership positions by doing so, therefore the people you believe will be your savior, and give you your name change, just F_ _ked you instead.

Pass the KY please.

 

[white_n_nerdy]

Static line,
I am trying to put you in a better mood. How many jumps do you have?

 

[Static Line]

Static line,
I am trying to put you in a better mood. How many jumps do you have?

I am in a great mood unless you ask my wife.

I have enough jumps that my cherry was busted long ago, my back hurts, my knees hurt, (but not more than my a$$ after 2 years of med school) and I look forward to the day I can do it again.

Airborne! 👍

 

[white_n_nerdy]

I am in a great mood unless you ask my wife.

I have enough jumps that my cherry was busted long ago, my back hurts, my knees hurt, (but not more than my a$$ after 2 years of med school) and I look forward to the day I can do it again.

Airborne! 👍

All the way my brother, all the way.

 

[gtleeee]

Your facts are a bit misconstrued.

The California "fiasco" as you call it, didnt prove anything to anyone. In fact, the California MD legislature was trying to amalgamate DOs in an effort to end the teaching and practice of osteopathic medicine in that state. They werent trying to show that DOs were equal...and even after the new MD degrees were handed out to the DOs who chose to pay the fee, they were still barred from practicing in many allopathic hospitals. It didnt open any doors for DOs at all.

WWII and the need for physicians at home could be considered a transition point, but not the California legislation.

And you are also wrong when you say that the AMA and MDs are the ones keeping DOs out. It is, in fact, the AOA that is maintaining its independance despite the welcome from the allopathic community.

DOs can apply for ACGME residencies.
DOs can work at allopathic hospitals.
DOs can teach in MD schools.

The AOA turns its back on many DOs who pursue allopathic training AND they refuse to let MDs into AOA approved residency programs.

Who is shunning who?

Sorry my friend, you are way off base.

Actually, in reference to the California referendum, EastWest is quite correct. As most medical historians/sociologists point out (concerning the California D.O. absorption), the fact that the CMA obviously considered the D.O. degree equivalent enough to the M.D. so that a 65.00 fee was enough to convert one to the other, gave a de facto message to the rest of the Medical establishment (M.D.), that D.O. education was indeed roughly equal to that provided by the medical colleges (M.D.) of the United States. The "cultist" label (by the AMA) that had so infuriated D.O.'s until that time was officially abandoned by the AMA in 1965. This was in no small measure due to what had occurred in California. The California events were a tremendous boost (and cited so), to D.O.'s wishing to serve as medical officers in the armed forces, finally signed into law by Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense), in 1966. In essence, the legitimacy conferred by the California absorption into the CMA (California Medical Association) of most of the membership of the COA (California Osteopathic Association), was a boon to the Osteopathic Profession throughout the country. This "side effect" was never intended by the CMA, which at the time which sought to eliminate a competitor outside their control and negate the influence of a group comprised of individuals whom the California M.D.'s perceived as second class medical practitioners. This remarkable event was at the time "big news" throughout the U.S. Proof of this is borne out by an archival news search of American newspapers for 1961-1962.

Grevitz points all this out in his book "The D.O.s", which is as definitive and incisive a source as one can find on the history of Osteopathic Medicine. Here Grevitz shows that this decision on the part of the CMA and COA had the unintended (and largely unanticipated) effect of increasing the perceived status of D.O. education throughout the United States. It is difficult to precisely measure the effects of sociological events such as what occurred between the CMA and the COA in the early 1960's. That there were significant long range effects for American D.O.s, and that indirectly (and to a considerable degree) they were to the advancement of American Osteopathy, is something that few individuals who are "savy" about American medical history care to dispute.


Hazelton, while one must admire your zeal in promoting the Osteopathic Profession, inaccurate and intemperate statements do little to further your cause. Careful research before posting and a check of the "antagonistic meter" is advice you can go to the bank on in the future.

 

[Animus]

Hazelton, while one must admire your zeal in promoting the Osteopathic Profession, inaccurate and intemperate statements do little to further your cause. Careful research before posting and a check of the "antagonistic meter" is advice you can go to the bank on in the future.

Alright you talk about careful research and then spell Norman GEVITZ's name wrong on several occasions. Sorry the irony here had to be brought up.

 

[Static Line]

The California events were a tremendous boost (and cited so), to D.O.'s wishing to serve as medical officers in the armed forces, finally signed into law by Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense), in 1966.

Well since we are going to dissect this post I have something to add. Only the US President or a State Governor can sign something into law (or a legislature who overrides a veto). The SOD was only a govt bureaucrat that recinded a regulation in this case.

 

[Dr JPH]

Hazelton, while one must admire your zeal in promoting the Osteopathic Profession, inaccurate and intemperate statements do little to further your cause. Careful research before posting and a check of the "antagonistic meter" is advice you can go to the bank on in the future.

Fantastic summary of Gevitzs book. I read it too. I even know how to spell his name.

If the California debacle was the catalyst for change, why is it that states started granting full practice rights to DOs many years before that?

And if California recognized DOs equal to MDs after the $65 buyout, then why did they prevent the granting of any new medical licenses to DOs?...at least until the Supreme Court stepped in more than 10 years later.

The California issue may have helped in getting DOs accepted as medical officers in the armed services, but thats not what began to change public opinion.

Rather, it was the approval and opening of osteopathic hospitals and residency programs that grew out of necessity from WWII. (1944-1947 when this all began to unfold) Also, DOs began working in allopathic hospitals before the merger took place...so someone, somewhere recognized equality before California did.

There are 2 schools of thought on the California merger...those who feel it was an attempt to destroy osteopathy and those who feel it was an admission of equality. Well, California prevented new DO degrees from being granted until 1974 (one point for me) and they also limited the new MD licenses to practice in California (2 points for me), also the new MD degree still had to be used along with the DO degree so that it could be recognized which "MD" degrees were bought and which were earned (3 points). Finally, the new MD degree didnt come with automatic hospital privelages...you still had to petition for those and guess what, many were denied because the new MD degree was looked at as nothing more than a title (4 points for me) and not an indication that you had completed appropriate medical training in California.

Now go and speak to the DOs who lived through this, both those who paid the $65 and those who didnt. Just because a sociologist wrote about it doenst make it true.

My facts are accurate, and I can talk about this topic beyond what I read in one book. But I do give you credit for typing all of that out so it didnt *look* like plagiarism. I challenge you to learn more about osteopathic medicine, learn the real history and speak to people who lived through it. Gevitz and Google arent great resources for what really took place.

 

[gtleeee]

Fantastic summary of Gevitzs book. I read it too. I even know how to spell his name.

If the California debacle was the catalyst for change, why is it that states started granting full practice rights to DOs many years before that?

And if California recognized DOs equal to MDs after the $65 buyout, then why did they prevent the granting of any new medical licenses to DOs?...at least until the Supreme Court stepped in more than 10 years later.

The California issue may have helped in getting DOs accepted as medical officers in the armed services, but thats not what began to change public opinion.

Rather, it was the approval and opening of osteopathic hospitals and residency programs that grew out of necessity from WWII. (1944-1947 when this all began to unfold) Also, DOs began working in allopathic hospitals before the merger took place...so someone, somewhere recognized equality before California did.

There are 2 schools of thought on the California merger...those who feel it was an attempt to destroy osteopathy and those who feel it was an admission of equality. Well, California prevented new DO degrees from being granted until 1974 (one point for me) and they also limited the new MD licenses to practice in California (2 points for me), also the new MD degree still had to be used along with the DO degree so that it could be recognized which "MD" degrees were bought and which were earned (3 points). Finally, the new MD degree didnt come with automatic hospital privelages...you still had to petition for those and guess what, many were denied because the new MD degree was looked at as nothing more than a title (4 points for me) and not an indication that you had completed appropriate medical training in California.

Now go and speak to the DOs who lived through this, both those who paid the $65 and those who didnt. Just because a sociologist wrote about it doenst make it true.

My facts are accurate, and I can talk about this topic beyond what I read in one book. But I do give you credit for typing all of that out so it didnt *look* like plagiarism. I challenge you to learn more about osteopathic medicine, learn the real history and speak to people who lived through it. Gevitz and Google arent great resources for what really took place.

Static Line is quite correct. A slip in editing produced Grevitz instead of the correct Gevitz. Also Robert McNamara directed the Medical departments of the 3 services to accept D.O.s as medical officers, he did not "sign" it into law. To my mind minor points, but correct at any rate. Hazelton, if some one had written a post such as my previous one in this thread which mentioned "Gtleeee" the very first thing I would have done would have been to check the guy's posting history to see just who it was. It's painfully obvious that you did not bother before writing a lengthily reply. If you had bothered with this obvious task you would have seen (in my posts) that I have a long history (almost a century) of family involvement in Osteopathy not to mention having been a D.O. for almost a quarter of a century. The history of Osteopathic Medicine in America has been one of my foremost hobbies since I was in College. I grew up surrounded by the fascinating history of Osteopathy.

Instead of a cursory check of whom you were addressing you inferred that my statements were lifted (plagiarized) out of Gevitz's book and that what little I knew about Osteopathic Medicine was the result of a "Google search". I suggest you give yourself a few more years out of school before you purport to "know everything". I don't suggest that I do, as in evidence by 2 errors in my previous post. I would also suggest that you do some basic "homework" before leveling the contemptuous charge of plagiarism at some one.

I don't need to talk to people about the California event. I had already begun when you were still in preschool. As a medical student in 1981 at the Pacific Hospital of Long Beach I met and talked to plenty of M.Ds who had originally held a D.O. degree. Not to mention the fact that I now practice Osteopathic Medicine in the state of California. Another interesting fact that could have been gleaned from a 60 second check of my SDN profile.

In reference to the California merger being a "catalyst of change". This was certainly not in regards to full practice rights for D.O.s,(already obtained in most states at that time) but rather one of acceptance into the post graduate infrastructure, hospital medical staffs and medical societies of our M.D. brethren. Granted (as per mixed hospital staffs) this had already begun in some county (taxpayer sustained) hospitals. Check out the landmark "Audrain County" case in Missouri in 1950. I knew (when I practiced in Northeastern Missouri) some older D.O.s who had been involved in this court decision concerning D.O. staff privileges at Audrain County hospital. The impetus for institutional acceptance by the M.D.'s really swung into gear in the 8 years following California in 1962.

As for new D.O. licensing in California in the decade following 1962, of course there were no new licenses. The whole idea of the CMA work in absorbing D.O.s to begin with was to eliminate Osteopathy in California. As I have stated before the positive effects (for D.O.s) of this initiative were completely unintended by the CMA. The CMA was certainly not interested in anything but the elimination of Osteopathy in Calfornia.

An "old guy" like me lurks with an occasional post on SDN precisely so that incorrect statements about Osteopathic Medicine and it's history are rebutted. Until you write a definitive history of Osteopathic Medicine after you are through with your post graduate work in our chosen field, I believe I will content myself with sources such as Norman Gevitz as well as my own not inconsiderable experience. You boldly tell me you can talk about the Osteopathic experience beyond "one book." Well my friend, I will suggest that so can I.

 

[MaximusD]

Static Line is quite correct. A slip in editing produced Grevitz instead of the correct Gevitz. Also Robert McNamara directed the Medical departments of the 3 services to accept D.O.s as medical officers, he did not "sign" it into law. To my mind minor points, but correct at any rate. Hazelton, if some one had written a post such as my previous one in this thread which mentioned "Gtleeee" the very first thing I would have done would have been to check the guy's posting history to see just who it was. It's painfully obvious that you did not bother before writing a lengthily reply. If you had bothered with this obvious task you would have seen (in my posts) that I have a long history (almost a century) of family involvement in Osteopathy not to mention having been a D.O. for almost a quarter of a century. The history of Osteopathic Medicine in America has been one of my foremost hobbies since I was in College. I grew up surrounded by the fascinating history of Osteopathy.

Instead of a cursory check of whom you were addressing you inferred that my statements were lifted (plagiarized) out of Gevitz's book and that what little I knew about Osteopathic Medicine was the result of a "Google search". I suggest you give yourself a few more years out of school before you purport to "know everything". I don't suggest that I do, as in evidence by 2 errors in my previous post. I would also suggest that you do some basic "homework" before leveling the contemptuous charge of plagiarism at some one.

I don't need to talk to people about the California event. I had already begun when you were still in preschool. As a medical student in 1981 at the Pacific Hospital of Long Beach I met and talked to plenty of M.Ds who had originally held a D.O. degree. Not to mention the fact that I now practice Osteopathic Medicine in the state of California. Another interesting fact that could have been gleaned from a 60 second check of my SDN profile.

In reference to the California merger being a "catalyst of change". This was certainly not in regards to full practice rights for D.O.s,(already obtained in most states at that time) but rather one of acceptance into the post graduate infrastructure, hospital medical staffs and medical societies of our M.D. brethren. Granted (as per mixed hospital staffs) this had already begun in some county (taxpayer sustained) hospitals. Check out the landmark "Audrain County" case in Missouri in 1950. I knew (when I practiced in Northeastern Missouri) some older D.O.s who had been involved in this court decision concerning D.O. staff privileges at Audrain County hospital. The impetus for institutional acceptance by the M.D.'s really swung into gear in the 8 years following California in 1962.

As for new D.O. licensing in California in the decade following 1962, of course there were no new licenses. The whole idea of the CMA work in absorbing D.O.s to begin with was to eliminate Osteopathy in California. As I have stated before the positive effects (for D.O.s) of this initiative were completely unintended by the CMA. The CMA was certainly not interested in anything but the elimination of Osteopathy in Calfornia.

An "old guy" like me lurks with an occasional post on SDN precisely so that incorrect statements about Osteopathic Medicine and it's history are rebutted. Until you write a definitive history of Osteopathic Medicine after you are through with your post graduate work in our chosen field, I believe I will content myself with sources such as Norman Gevitz as well as my own not inconsiderable experience. You boldly tell me you can talk about the Osteopathic experience beyond "one book." Well my friend, I will suggest that so can I.

😱

Would not have expected your experience by looking at your initial post. It seems as though your grammatical and rhetorical skills gain momentum as you type... nonetheless, I am sure that JP thought you were the normal run-of-the-mill premed spouting information without any more basis than a cursory reading of Gevitz.

I would also point out that while you may have lived it, there are many sociopolitical occurences beyond the scope of your experience. For that reason, it is important to cite and read outside resources aside from those directly involved/affected by the situation. As a result, your personal anecdotal experience, while an excellent source, is only supplemental to a full and thorough literature review.

That said, I, for one, appreciate your input on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to interject your real-world experience in our relatively inexperienced discussion.👍

 

[Dr JPH]

Static Line is quite correct. A slip in editing produced Grevitz instead of the correct Gevitz. Also Robert McNamara directed the Medical departments of the 3 services to accept D.O.s as medical officers, he did not "sign" it into law. To my mind minor points, but correct at any rate. Hazelton, if some one had written a post such as my previous one in this thread which mentioned "Gtleeee" the very first thing I would have done would have been to check the guy's posting history to see just who it was. It's painfully obvious that you did not bother before writing a lengthily reply. If you had bothered with this obvious task you would have seen (in my posts) that I have a long history (almost a century) of family involvement in Osteopathy not to mention having been a D.O. for almost a quarter of a century. The history of Osteopathic Medicine in America has been one of my foremost hobbies since I was in College. I grew up surrounded by the fascinating history of Osteopathy.

Instead of a cursory check of whom you were addressing you inferred that my statements were lifted (plagiarized) out of Gevitz's book and that what little I knew about Osteopathic Medicine was the result of a "Google search". I suggest you give yourself a few more years out of school before you purport to "know everything". I don't suggest that I do, as in evidence by 2 errors in my previous post. I would also suggest that you do some basic "homework" before leveling the contemptuous charge of plagiarism at some one.

I don't need to talk to people about the California event. I had already begun when you were still in preschool. As a medical student in 1981 at the Pacific Hospital of Long Beach I met and talked to plenty of M.Ds who had originally held a D.O. degree. Not to mention the fact that I now practice Osteopathic Medicine in the state of California. Another interesting fact that could have been gleaned from a 60 second check of my SDN profile.

In reference to the California merger being a "catalyst of change". This was certainly not in regards to full practice rights for D.O.s,(already obtained in most states at that time) but rather one of acceptance into the post graduate infrastructure, hospital medical staffs and medical societies of our M.D. brethren. Granted (as per mixed hospital staffs) this had already begun in some county (taxpayer sustained) hospitals. Check out the landmark "Audrain County" case in Missouri in 1950. I knew (when I practiced in Northeastern Missouri) some older D.O.s who had been involved in this court decision concerning D.O. staff privileges at Audrain County hospital. The impetus for institutional acceptance by the M.D.'s really swung into gear in the 8 years following California in 1962.

As for new D.O. licensing in California in the decade following 1962, of course there were no new licenses. The whole idea of the CMA work in absorbing D.O.s to begin with was to eliminate Osteopathy in California. As I have stated before the positive effects (for D.O.s) of this initiative were completely unintended by the CMA. The CMA was certainly not interested in anything but the elimination of Osteopathy in Calfornia.

An "old guy" like me lurks with an occasional post on SDN precisely so that incorrect statements about Osteopathic Medicine and it's history are rebutted. Until you write a definitive history of Osteopathic Medicine after you are through with your post graduate work in our chosen field, I believe I will content myself with sources such as Norman Gevitz as well as my own not inconsiderable experience. You boldly tell me you can talk about the Osteopathic experience beyond "one book." Well my friend, I will suggest that so can I.

This entire post is aimed at justifying your experience, but you dont clarify all of your initial points...and you agree with me on several points. ???

 

[Dr JPH]

I am sure that JP thought you were the normal run-of-the-mill premed spouting information without any more basis than a cursory reading of Gevitz.

Thats has nothing to do with it. Incorrect is incorrect regardless of who says it.

Max, dont be so quick to get on your knees because the coat in front of you is longer than your own.

 

[Creightonite]

Go JD, we don't want you.

Sorry, do not care.

 

[Creightonite]

here what i got fomr DMU's page:

-D.O.s practice a "whole person" approach to medicine. Instead of just treating specific symptoms or illnesses, they regard your body as integrated whole.
-Osteopathic physicians focus on preventive health care.
-D.O.s receive extra training in the musculoskeletal system -- your body's interconnected system of nerves, muscles and bones that make up two-thirds of its body mass. This training provides osteopathic physicians with a better understanding of the ways that an injury or illness in one part of your body can affect another.
-Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is incorporated in the training and practice of osteopathic physicians. With OMT, osteopathic physicians use their hands to diagnose injury and illness and to encourage your body's natural tendency toward good health. By combining all available medical procedures with OMT, D.O.s offer their patients the most comprehensive care available in medicine today.

-------------


Allo schools do not have have OMT (those OMT course are available after graduation... But the rest of things are the same in MD and DO. So an MD can easily become a so called "MDO"). I just do not want to learn OMT stuff instead of focusing on the the more traditional med school material.

I really do not understand why DO is less competetive than MD. Evne after a slight grade enhancement with AACOMAS (after course retakes, the new grades substitutes the old grade), DO applicants averages are lower than MD's. If DO is as similar to MD, then their stats should be equal to MD.

I think I am asking some hard questions here. Some people are getting angree perhaps maybe because they do not know the answers, but all those questions are valid.

 

[DragonWell]

Allo schools do not have have OMT (those OMT course are available after graduation... But the rest of things are the same in MD and DO. So an MD can easily become a so called "MDO"). I just do not want to learn OMT stuff instead of focusing on the the more traditional med school material.

Don't want to learn OMM? Here is a simple solution. Don't go to a DO school.

I really do not understand why DO is less competetive than MD. Evne after a slight grade enhancement with AACOMAS (after course retakes, the new grades substitutes the old grade), DO applicants averages are lower than MD's. If DO is as similar to MD, then their stats should be equal to MD.

I don't follow your logic at all - it is just a fact of life that schools vary in their competitiveness and this is reflected in their applicant pools. Why "should" applicants to different schools which teach the same material be expected to have identical stats? This is like saying that since students at Harvard and Carribean med schools both earn an MD degree, the applicant pool "should" be the same. Obviously, schools have different reputations, offer their students different opportunities, are located in different geographical areas, have different rates of tuition, etc. all of which factor into the competitiveness of the school and its applicants.

I think I am asking some hard questions here. Some people are getting angree perhaps maybe because they do not know the answers, but all those questions are valid.

Just because a question is "valid" doesn't mean it's not pointless. Part of maturity is learning to recognize the difference.

IMO, I think the questions you're asking are actually quite obvious but you are trying hard to make them complex. It's like you expect someone to explain to you why we drive on the right side of the road in the states, but they drive on the left side in Britain. Why is this? Shouldn't we all drive on the same side? Well, maybe, but we don't. Grow up and move on. End of discussion.

No offense, but I think a little bit of critical thinking on your part would answer your questions much more effectively than anyone on this board can.

 

[nvshelat]

Well, I understood that DO and MD get the same lisensing to practice. Then the question is that why having two different kinds of of school if they essentially do that same thing. DO's concept "treat the whole patient, not just a disease" is not really made up by DO. Medicine as whole (including DOs and MDs) is designed to do this.

Having a brand new DO field just because of a couple manipulation classes does not really make sense, unless there are deeper reasons. Also, it sounds like that any MD can reach DO if they want to (just take those manipulation classes).

Also if they are similar like I think, why is MD is more competetive to get into than DO? I am afraid that if I go DO route i will limit myself to the future opportunities that MDs might have.

You already know the answer to this. It's because the people in charge of keeping them separate make money off of it and get to stay in power.

 

[kimberli2002]

At least I am looking somewhere right now. It is better than go through DO program and then be confronted with a fact that you you as a DO have limitations.

I'm not sure which limitations you are speaking of. If you are talking about decreased chances for residency spots then you are incorrect. As said before, people graduating with a DO degree are competitive for both allopathic residencies and osteopathic residencies (some of which go unfilled). And these residencies cover all specialties.

 

[Critical Mass]

You already know the answer to this. It's because the people in charge of keeping them separate make money off of it and get to stay in power.

That's what it's all about, money.

-Tony Montana, "Scarface"

 

[nlax30]

If the California debacle was the catalyst for change, why is it that states started granting full practice rights to DOs many years before that?

And if California recognized DOs equal to MDs after the $65 buyout, then why did they prevent the granting of any new medical licenses to DOs?...at least until the Supreme Court stepped in more than 10 years later.

The California issue may have helped in getting DOs accepted as medical officers in the armed services, but thats not what began to change public opinion.

I don't think anyone is saying that it was THE catalyst for change, just another important critical step along the path. And it wasn't that California prevented the granting of medical licenses to DOs, it was that the 1962 Osteopathic Act was meant to unify the two separate/parallel licensing bodies and called for the only osteopathic school in the state to start issuing MD degrees. So, in essence, the professions were to be merged and the osteopathic board would maintain jurisdiction over current DOs, and the DOs that wanted to become MDs would fall under the existing Medical Board.

It is an understatement to say that during the period from 1922 to 1962, the period when the Osteopathic Board granted physician and surgeon licenses to osteopaths, the Medical Board and the M.D.'s looked with less than great favor on the granting of licenses to osteopaths and continued the harassment of the latter and heartily favored the elimination of osteopaths altogether. The tension between the two groups led to the signing of an agreement in May 1961 between the California Medical Association and {Page 6 Cal.App.3d 723} the California Osteopathic Association. As stated in Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Assn., supra, 224 Cal.App.2d at page 397, this agreement was intended to unify "the separate organizations which have heretofore existed in parallel structure ... for the practice of medicine and surgery by persons who hold the degree of Doctor of Osteopathy and those who hold the degree of Doctor of Medicine." The parties were to use their best efforts to get the Legislature to provide that under ceratin circumstances a licensed osteopath, if he so desired, could be authorized to use the designation "M.D." The Osteopathic Board was to retain jurisdiction over licensed osteopaths, but if a "D.O." became an "M.D." the jurisdiction over him would be in the Medical Board. When the number of D.O.'s reached 40 or less, the Legislature might repeal the Osteopathic Act of 1922 and transfer all of the functions of the Osteopathic Board to the Medical Board.​

There are 2 schools of thought on the California merger...those who feel it was an attempt to destroy osteopathy and those who feel it was an admission of equality. Well, California prevented new DO degrees from being granted until 1974 (one point for me) and they also limited the new MD licenses to practice in California (2 points for me), also the new MD degree still had to be used along with the DO degree so that it could be recognized which "MD" degrees were bought and which were earned (3 points). Finally, the new MD degree didnt come with automatic hospital privelages...you still had to petition for those and guess what, many were denied because the new MD degree was looked at as nothing more than a title (4 points for me) and not an indication that you had completed appropriate medical training in California.

I don't think that these two schools of thought have to be mutually exclusive. I am certainly no historian on this topic but I can definitely step back and see how, overtly, the CMA would have viewed this as a chance to end osteopathy in California. But, it was an actual attempt to unify the two separate medical professions and set off numerous appeals and court decisions that took a look at the California medical licensing structure laws to eventually allow licensing of DOs.

One of the court of appeal decisions:
http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA3/6CA3d716.htm

Can lookup the California courts decisions here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/?

Kind of interesting reading some of the Appeals courts and Supreme Court decisions on these cases. Wasn't much time/effort spent on if Osteopathy was equal to Allopathy, that seemed to be understood by the courts fairly early on. But a lot of time was spent on determining who had rights to grant licenses to whom and under what conditions because that seemed to change a few times between 1912 and 1962.


***I'm not a lawyer and this is only from my cursory reading but it is very interesting to look at this part of the history since it definitely is not as simple as it seems to be made out to be, and that there's always multiple sides to an issue. ****

 

[gtleeee]

here what i got fomr DMU's page:

-D.O.s practice a "whole person" approach to medicine. Instead of just treating specific symptoms or illnesses, they regard your body as integrated whole.
-Osteopathic physicians focus on preventive health care.
-D.O.s receive extra training in the musculoskeletal system -- your body's interconnected system of nerves, muscles and bones that make up two-thirds of its body mass. This training provides osteopathic physicians with a better understanding of the ways that an injury or illness in one part of your body can affect another.
-Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is incorporated in the training and practice of osteopathic physicians. With OMT, osteopathic physicians use their hands to diagnose injury and illness and to encourage your body's natural tendency toward good health. By combining all available medical procedures with OMT, D.O.s offer their patients the most comprehensive care available in medicine today.

-------------


Allo schools do not have have OMT (those OMT course are available after graduation... But the rest of things are the same in MD and DO. So an MD can easily become a so called "MDO"). I just do not want to learn OMT stuff instead of focusing on the the more traditional med school material.

I really do not understand why DO is less competetive than MD. Evne after a slight grade enhancement with AACOMAS (after course retakes, the new grades substitutes the old grade), DO applicants averages are lower than MD's. If DO is as similar to MD, then their stats should be equal to MD.

I think I am asking some hard questions here. Some people are getting angree perhaps maybe because they do not know the answers, but all those questions are valid.

In all 50 states D.O.s have precisely the same scope of medical practice that their M.D. counterparts do. That is, an unlimited license for the practice of medicine. The majority of D.O. graduates do their residency work via ACGME programs and are board certified in their respective fields via same. As to your statement "If DO is as similar to MD, than their stats should be similar to MD." Well., if by similar you mean the jobs they do , and in what hospitals , there is more than a similarity here. D.O.s for the most part perform IDENTICAL work with IDENTICAL credentials (post graduate) in IDENTICAL institutions. If by this statement you infer its a offense against the logical process that the 2 have slightly different stats, well, learn early on that the world is an illogical place where things often just don't seem to "make perfect sense". The only thing"hard" about your questions and making sense of them is getting to the gist of just what you are trying to say secondary to the grammatical errors and sentence structure. Also, use the search function (advanced). Your "hard" questions are not new revelations but old nonsense that had been discussed 'to death" countless times over the years on SDN.

 

[MaximusD]

Thats has nothing to do with it. Incorrect is incorrect regardless of who says it.

Max, dont be so quick to get on your knees because the coat in front of you is longer than your own.

LOL I don't have a coat yet 😛

Good point though, you ass (the "get on your knees" comment).

 

[spicedmanna]

Allo schools do not have have OMT (those OMT course are available after graduation... But the rest of things are the same in MD and DO. So an MD can easily become a so called "MDO"). I just do not want to learn OMT stuff instead of focusing on the the more traditional med school material.

The picture I am getting is that you want to be an allopathic physician. If that is the path you wish to take in order to become a physician, then I suggest you walk it. The two pathways, allopathic and osteopathic, both lead you to the same forest, but the experience of the journey is slightly different. Pick the one that resonates with you best.

I really do not understand why DO is less competetive than MD. Evne after a slight grade enhancement with AACOMAS (after course retakes, the new grades substitutes the old grade), DO applicants averages are lower than MD's. If DO is as similar to MD, then their stats should be equal to MD.

I think your logic is flawed. In the US, DO's and MD's have identical practicing rights, there is no legal distinction and, for the most part, no practical distinction, except that a minority of DO's use OMM/OMT regularly. The manner in which a physician functions and practices, and his or her quality, appear to be largely path-independent. MCAT score and UGPA, while hugely important in the pre-medical world, are not the determining factors in physician quality. While the two values have modest correlations with medical school performance and board scores, they are not sufficiently robust to be meaninful outside of these modest predictions; they are primarily used in screening applicants during the medical school admissions process. After matriculation, there are other factors that much more determining.

Yes, the average statistics for an osteopathic matriculant are somewhat lower than the average statistics for an allopathic matriculant. So what? There doesn't appear to be an impact on clinical performance and physician quality. There is sufficient sensitivity present in the range of values that exist in the pool of osteopathic medical school applicants to be effective in the admissions process and producing competent medical students. These metrics appear to be serving their purpose for both allopathic and osteopathic medical schools.

I think I am asking some hard questions here. Some people are getting angree perhaps maybe because they do not know the answers, but all those questions are valid.

Your questions are not at all difficult; they just require elementary reasoning ability. People are simply tired of providing an answer to something that can be easily reasoned out and of providing answers to questions that have been asked many times. It is beating a dead horse to continue.

My assessment of your baseline perspective is that you have a number of prejudical precepts about osteopathic medicine and physicians. You appear to be clinging to them, despite the attempts of others to help you clear them and to broaden your perspective. I also hear couched anger behind your words. Taken together, it is my impression that you don't actually want to go down the osteopathic path. If that is indeed the case, then you would be best served by going down another, more desireable, path.

Good luck.

 

[max831]

As long as the topic of differences is up for discussion, let us never forget that the early history of Osteopathy included women and minorities (long before any allopathic institutions). As far as the stats thing goes, there are simply many more allopathic schools to average from. Schools like Harvard and Duke have students that tend to slant the stats and are hardly "average allo applicants." In addition, there are allo schools with lower entrance stats than osteo schools, and never assume that DO means inferior stats. We have someone in our (osteo) class who scored 98th percentile on the MCAT. Thanks for reading, and good luck in your pursuits.

 

[HarveyCushing]

As long as the topic of differences is up for discussion, let us never forget that the early history of Osteopathy included women and minorities (long before any allopathic institutions). As far as the stats thing goes, there are simply many more allopathic schools to average from. Schools like Harvard and Duke have students that tend to slant the stats and are hardly "average allo applicants." In addition, there are allo schools with lower entrance stats than osteo schools, and never assume that DO means inferior stats. We have someone in our (osteo) class who scored 98th percentile on the MCAT. Thanks for reading, and good luck in your pursuits.

👍 Very good post. Something that many pre-meds don't realize while applying to medical school. I wonder if pre-med advisors are to blame for some of this? I can only speak for my school, none of the pre-med advisors ever mentioned anything about Osteopathic medicine when they had meetings/presentations about medicine/getting into medical school. All the way up to my senior year, I only thought MD schools produced physicians. It wasn't until a masters student in the lab I worked in started talking about how he was starting med-school at an osteopathic medical school that I actually learned there were two routes of becoming a fully licensed physician. I guess it probably depends on the undergrad institution and the bias of pre-med advisors as too how much light DO's get.

 

[prettymonkey]

i am sooooo tired of explaining to people what a DO is and i am not even going to DO school. my boyfriend is. why don't people know what a DO is? i spoke to a lady the other day that thought that you need an MD before a DO and it's some sort of post med school fellowship. that was interesting. i don't even explain it anymore. i just say its the same thing as MD but with some extra lab/clinical/therapy stuff.

 

[apnea]

i told a lady in the walmart checkout line that i was going to medical school someday, and she said "Ohh, how nice, we need more MDs out there" so i told her that i was actually hoping to go the DO route if i could geographically swing it. She just laughed and said "Oh, ok, i thought you meant you were going to be a real doctor! haha!"

i wanted to stuff her gum in her eye. Stupid cow.

 

[scpod]

I wonder if pre-med advisors are to blame for some of this?

Of course. Do you know any pre-med advisors that have ever applied to, been accepted to, or attended a medical school? Most of them only know what they have been told or what they have read. But, you can have an effect on what they tell future pre-meds by helping to eduacate them.

 

[spicedmanna]

i told a lady in the walmart checkout line that i was going to medical school someday, and she said "Ohh, how nice, we need more MDs out there" so i told her that i was actually hoping to go the DO route if i could geographically swing it. She just laughed and said "Oh, ok, i thought you meant you were going to be a real doctor! haha!"

i wanted to stuff her gum in her eye. Stupid cow.

Hahaha...I have yet to have that scenario, but I can empathize with you on that one. Hopefully that's as far as it gets for me. I basically just tell folks that I am going to medical school and am considering primary care and leave it at that, unless there is a compelling reason to distinguish myself further. That's all most folks are really interested in anyway.

 

[prettymonkey]

i told a lady in the walmart checkout line that i was going to medical school someday, and she said "Ohh, how nice, we need more MDs out there" so i told her that i was actually hoping to go the DO route if i could geographically swing it. She just laughed and said "Oh, ok, i thought you meant you were going to be a real doctor! haha!"

i wanted to stuff her gum in her eye. Stupid cow.

that's horrible. what a witch. i have the problem that since it is not me that is going that people definitely feel more comfortable saying stupid things about DO. it's like umm hello i am talking about my boyfriend who i support and respect so that is really rude. whatever. it doesn't matter what stupid people think.

 

[scpod]

...it doesn't matter what stupid people think.

There's a difference between being "stupid" and simply being "ignorant." If you were to survey the majority of Americans, most of them wouldn't really know what a DO is because there are so few of them. Ironically, many of those same people will have been treated by a DO on several opportunities during their lifetimes and never even know it.

While SDN can be a great place for venting frustrations, it's not really fair to call people "stupid" in that situation. As hard as it may be, you are much better off trying to use it as a learning opportunity, rather than a chance to lash out.

 

[apnea]

There's a difference between being "stupid" and simply being "ignorant." If you were to survey the majority of Americans, most of them wouldn't really know what a DO is because there are so few of them. Ironically, many of those same people will have been treated by a DO on several opportunities during their lifetimes and never even know it.

While SDN can be a great place for venting frustrations, it's not really fair to call people "stupid" in that situation. As hard as it may be, you are much better off trying to use it as a learning opportunity, rather than a chance to lash out.

See, i'd normally buy into that. Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever.

This woman was stupid. As it turns out (some people just don't know when to shut up, sometimes people just don't care about your life or how you can relate it to theirs), her family's doctor is a DO.

 

[spicedmanna]

As hard as it may be, you are much better off trying to use it as a learning opportunity, rather than a chance to lash out.

Now, that is universally good advice. 👍

 

[nlax30]

Of course. Do you know any pre-med advisors that have ever applied to, been accepted to, or attended a medical school? Most of them only know what they have been told or what they have read. But, you can have an effect on what they tell future pre-meds by helping to eduacate them.

I definitely agree with this. 👍 Luckily, my pre-med advisor here at my large state university was absolute wonderful and that's really where I got my first initial exposure to the DO route.

Something you current pre-meds could look into is doing some sort of med school admissions information day/conference. We have a pretty healthy (no pun intended) pre-med honor society and each year we hold a one day "seminar" we called "Medical Schools Admissions Dean's Day" where we had representatives from all the Florida med schools (4MD and 2DO programs) come up and talked to students and held mini-classes in things such as essay writing, individual info sessions for each school, etc..

 

[HarveyCushing]

I definitely agree with this. 👍 Luckily, my pre-med advisor here at my large state university was absolute wonderful and that's really where I got my first initial exposure to the DO route.

Something you current pre-meds could look into is doing some sort of med school admissions information day/conference. We have a pretty healthy (no pun intended) pre-med honor society and each year we hold a one day "seminar" we called "Medical Schools Admissions Dean's Day" where we had representatives from all the Florida med schools (4MD and 2DO programs) come up and talked to students and held mini-classes in things such as essay writing, individual info sessions for each school, etc..

That is really cool 👍. I wish my undergrad had that. Seems like it would be a perfect format for pre-meds to have their questions answered rather than hearing heresay from their fellow classmates.

 

[nlax30]

That is really cool 👍. I wish my undergrad had that. Seems like it would be a perfect format for pre-meds to have their questions answered rather than hearing heresay from their fellow classmates.

It was definitely nice to here school-specific info directly from the school reps themselves, and in most cases we were able to have actual/current Deans come and hold info sessions themselves. There were students from around the state that would come up for it, but I don't think that near enough students made use of the opportunity as should have.

 

[Creightonite]

Hahaha...I have yet to have that scenario, but I can empathize with you on that one. Hopefully that's as far as it gets for me. I basically just tell folks that I am going to medical school and am considering primary care and leave it at that, unless there is a compelling reason to distinguish myself further. That's all most folks are really interested in anyway.

maybe she though it was OD. What I am afraid is how DOs will be treated by MD since DO stats are lower. Do DOs get looked down upon by MDs? At least at premed level it sounds that it is that way. It does sound on SDN and in premed world, students applying into MD program look down at DO students.