INTELLIGENT INPUT WANTED ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[Newdoc2002]

Adrian, I will personally attack you because you seem to get so much pleasure from attacking any and everyone (including their opinions) in the threads you roam.

1. I am convinced that you must have registered under bhoover, Andrianshoe and various other people so that you maintain such exciting posts. Since you are such an intelligent medical doctor you should be able to give yourself a quick DSM-IV Axis diagnosis and recommend a treatment plan.

2. I hope you are really a medical graduate so that when you start your internship you won't have anytime to post on this board. Your posts are more appropriate on the Princeton Review web site discussions.

3. I will pray this evening that you will develop a life away from your computer. Maybe even get some friends, no not cyberfriends.

4. Good luck on finding out that your views are not the only views that are right. The very fact that you rarely give validity to anyone's opinion is proof to your prejudice. The sooner you figure this out, the better physician you will be.

And finally, don't pick apart this post and quote three or four words attacking each statement with your brilliant logic. If you are going to appear to use formal rules of logic then follow them. Your weak attempt at argumentation and advocacy is laughable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mj]

Originally posted by dlbruch:
I wonder- what is it exactly that you feel you must defend yourself against? Does it really threaten you that someone calls you name or puts you down?...

we should be able to disagree without the name-calling and insults...My intention is to encourage each individual to stick to discussing the issues and stop attacking each other or other points of view...I see someone?s point of view as an extension of themselves and so attacking their ideas IS attacking them.

DL --

Can you please reconcile these statements for me, as they seem contradictory? On one hand you seem to say that it shouldn't bother anyone if they are personally attacked on the other you seem to say that personal attacks are uncalled for.

Also, in your first reply to me you said you support constructive criticism of another?s idea. Now you seem to be saying "others points of view" are a part of them and therefore not open for that criticism.

Confused on your stance

mj

 

[RollTide]

Hmmmm...I wish I had not ignored this thread for the past weeks, it seems to be the only interesting thing going on in here lately.

I will attempt to restore this thread to the orginal topic by refuting some of what Shoe said on the previous page:

"besides less than ten percent of osteopathic physicians continue to use manipulation once out of school, so......back to there being no difference again."

That is incorrect, you should go back and read the study. If we are refering to the same study (1995 study of 1055 osteopathic family physicians), the data supported your assumptions but your numbers are wrong. It showed that only 6.2 percent used OMT on more than half of their patients, this is contrary to your statement saying that most did not use it at all. This does not imply that osteopathic physicians are not using OMT, rather it shows that they are using OMT when it is appropriate, rather than using it for all illnesses like in the early years. The study showed that less than one-third of those surveyed used it on fewer than 5 percent of their patients. So, two-thirds of those surveyed used OMT somewhat regularly on patients where this treatment was indicated. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in a family practice setting can understand why manipulation is not indicated in most patients(URIs, UTIs,ect. ect.). I would hope that Shoe understands that when it is indicated , it CAN be a valuble tool in the treatment of certain illnesses. A tool that can not be utilized by all physicains because of training.

I welcome all insults, criticisms, and comments, even those of Shoe. I enjoy Dr. Shoemaker's ranting and encourage all of you to read carefully into his comments because you will usually find something worth remembering( a Pearl if you will).

Disclaimer: My above comments include all threads except those dealing with a University located in South Florida, In those threads you will find NO pearls.

 

[dlbruch]

MJ- I do think that people are naturally ?bothered? by personal insults to some degree or another, myself included. I think the greater threat of insults on this type of forum, however, is that they contribute to a hostile environment where people feel less freedom, or more vulnerability, to share their opinions and beliefs. For these reasons, and others, I do think they uncalled-for.

I do think, though, that as professionals (or pre-professionals) and as adults we should be willing to walk away from these types of abuse rather than retaliate, which never contributes to more open discussion in my opinion.

I have written, and continue to believe that criticism of ideas is constructive to discussion if it is done with respect and a degree of humility. To say that someone?s opinion or argument is stupid is as insulting, in my opinion, as calling someone stupid. On the other hand, disagreeing and stating an opposing point of view can be healthy to the discussion and often will help the person see where their ideas need expanding. Insults and attacks only serve to polarize parties who disagree.

 

[mj]

Ah, feel the love Shoe...your faithful sidekick Rolltide has returned to defend your honor. I was wondering when he was going to show up, as he usually tied to your hip.

Now hopefully you aren't going to be so overwhelmed with flattery that you actually let him get away with that preposterous interpretation of those numbers.

mj

 

[mj]

Originally posted by dlbruch:
I have written, and continue to believe that criticism of ideas is constructive to discussion if it is done with respect and a degree of humility. To say that someone?s opinion or argument is stupid is as insulting, in my opinion, as calling someone stupid.

DL,

You seem to be saying that it's ok to be critical as long as it's done in a way you would approve of, a way YOU don't perceive as hurtful. I'm troubled by that because peoples interpretation of the written word can and are so varried. I write what I write in good conscience. If someone is offended by what I write I hope they inquire to its meaning instead of just ASSUMING I meant it hurtfully or attacking.

You seem to want to put the onus of responsibilty on the person writing. While I agree with that to a point, I think it EQUALLY "contribute(s) to a hostile environment where people feel less freedom, or more vulnerability, to share their opinions and beliefs" if they have to worry about what they write not being given the benefit of the doubt. The reader shares responsibility in keeping the a hostile free environment.

mj

 

[dlbruch]

MJ- I agree that how a reader interprets tone may cause he or she to perceive hostility that is not intended. Come on, though, are you going to argue that the posts I refered to are not intended to be insulting or condescending? In the case of this forum, the only environment that exists for everyone is what is written on the board, so I addressed only what was written. Certainly, there may be cases of misunderstanding, but I challenge you to argue that this may be such a case.

 

[dlbruch]

MJ- I am unclear on which part of my original point you disagree with. Do you not think that there should be a level of conduct (ie courtesy, politeness, professionalism) on this board? Or do you agree that there should be a level of conduct and disagree that Dr. Shoe has operated below that level?

If you simply disagree with where I, personally, have drawn the line for appropriate conduct, I encourage you to share you own opinion. I don't claim to be the judge of what is or is not acceptable. I do, however, feel compelled to speak up when I think conduct consistently dips below where I think the level should be. I invite you to disagree offer your personal perspective. Maybe I will learn something from some constructive criticism.

 

[DO1DAY]

Adrian- I know you must be awaiting an illogical response from me sometime or another, however, I don't feel your responses are worthy of my time and effort, I would rather spend it on people I care about. Life is short- enjoy every minute of it...

 

[drusso]

I saw the following post on the AOA bulletin board and thought that it qualified as "intelligent input":

Topic: MD's Billing for OMT
From: Edw Jorgensen, DO [email protected]
Date: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:37 PM


I have been practicing OMT of approx 14 years now and have trained several MDs basic OMT physiology and techniques.... many of these physician are honestly better than many DOs that I know in doing OMT. OMT is really very
easy to understand and do and is not only for DOs! That may be sacrilidge to many, but the "equality" and "unity" of American physician is here! It is time to share these very simple concepts & techniques. MDs are now for the most part allowing equal footing in essentially all of medicine. Most MDs that
I encounter want to learn about OMT.... they too (sometimes more than DOs) want to provide good care to their patients and KNOW the good from OMT. Many MDs refer their tougher OMT Patients to me that they were not successful with. Most experienced physicians are actually easier to teach OMT to than med students!

The physicians have a core of knowledge and experience that tells them what makes sense in patient care.

Tooo often DOs who are the nay sayers of teaching OMT to MDs, make OMT sooo complicated that I wonder if they understand what they are talking about or doing...... keeping it simple the patient, the MD AND the DO can understand somatic dysfunction and OMT...

It all boils down to 3 things:

1. For all American physicians to be accepted world wide, they have to have the same basic body of knowledge, understanding and skills. Segregation maintains segregation and there is no unity.
2. Somatic Dysfunction is essentially slightly misplaced harder tissues resting on softer tissues causing a change in physiology, function, sensation and/or pain. Skilled physicians can often restore normal function.
3. Sharing encourages Sharing. The mentality of "my toys" that many DOs have about OMM/OMT/OPP or what ever does not bring about acceptance of the DO. Do you think that Dr Still went out into the wilderness of Kirksville because he wanted to? Rather it was the "my toys, my way" MDs of that day, that drove him out there.... Well Dr Still HAS WON!!! It may have taken 100+ years... but the majority MDs that I run into want to understand too....

Like your mother should have told you..... share your toys and you will have a friend.

Edw Jorgensen, DO

[This message has been edited by drusso (edited 06-14-2000).]

 

[babytrey99]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

What was the initial question anyway?

 

[mj]

DL

I?m probably operating on situational ethics at this point here. I?m not agreeing or disagreeing yet, rather exploring the thought.

I really had a hard time reconciling the hate mail I got after the gay/lesbian NP discussions calling me a ?queer lover who would rather see people who belonged here dying on the streets? among other gems most of which I can?t post because of the language and violent suggestions. I like to think I have thick skin, that I believe in the high road, but that was really disturbing to me.

What does that have to do with any of this: If the point had been made to me in a nicer way would I have found it any less disturbing? Did the person have any less right to say what they said just because I was disturbed by it? Why do writers owe us anything? It is within their right to speak what they want and in the manner they choose. If I don?t like it, I can always change the channel.

It would be great if everyone operated up to your standard. Unfortunately that doesn?t happen and probably more importantly, not everyone sees perceives the same way. I can think I?m being polite and you think I?m a raving lunatic.

Shoe posted 9 times in this thread before he threw any insult and only then after being provoked. Are the post where he isn?t insulting but brutally logical condescending? Not to me and I don?t think he means them that way, so I don?t take them offensively. It?s just his style. Either ignore him or they argue at your own risk. When I do choose to argue, he has always been respectful, ALWAYS conceded when I beat him on point, and has defended my honor against would be mud throws on numerous occasions.

DO1Day and Babytrey were mad because they couldn?t figure out how to get past the intensity of his thought to get to his logic. At that point they did the only thing they knew how, threw mud.

Do I think he had a right to throw the mud back? I don?t know. I get more logically offended by it than anything. The conversation can go nowhere but down from there and a point that might have eventually gotten across is lost forever. I think he is smarter than that.

But I gotta tell ya, I?m gettin awfully sick of being the good little pacifist all the time. If people go there and get what they deserve, maybe next time they won?t go there.

My disagreement with your line drawing is that you don?t seem to be drawing it equally. You said you didn?t speak out against Do1day and Babytrey because you haven?t observed the behavior as a pattern. They should either behave all the time or it doesn?t matter. Scold them all or don?t scold any of them. I think that thinking muddies the waters and perpetuates the acceptance of mediocrity.

Or better yet. Scold the offenders first. And then maybe the reactionaries among us won?t feel so compelled to take matters into their own hands, but instead feel like the community they are operating in supports their taking the high road.

As harsh of a statement as I initially thought it was, Shoe was right when he said ?pacifism is great until your child gets raped?. Most of us have our line where we will push back. I?ve recently discovered mine is closer than I thought it was. I don?t think I am in any position to tell someone else what their line should be.

mj

PS. Sorry this was so long winded.

 

[dlbruch]

MJ-
I understand your being upset by what was said and how you were attacked regarding your posts in the gay/lesbian and NP discussions. I don?t understand, though, what point they were trying to make other than that they don?t like your ideas or you. Of course, if their problem is not with the validity of your argument, but with you as a person and your personal opinion, their response is going to be a personal attack. If they simply disagreed with your position, they could express that politely.

I recognize that not everyone agrees with my standard and many won?t operate under it, but I tend to believe that we all share a sense of what is polite, respectful, and dignified that is far less misunderstood than you seem to imply. I think the problem is that we find ways to justify deviating from this, not that we don?t agree on what it is or misunderstand each other.

What I found condescending about Dr. Shoe?s post was not his disagreement or opposing position. It was specifically using phrases like ?little girl? and ?your mommy?. He presumably chose these words to imply that her ideas are childish and that she doesn?t understand the issue as well as he does.

I apologize if I seemed to draw the lines of my position unequally. I can see how that may have been implied by my not confronting the others who were doing the same things that I pointed out to Shoe. The reason I directed my comments to Shoe is that he is a ?major? player on this board who post on a variety of topic and who has much to offer. An improvement in his conduct, in my opinion, could have a significant effect on this board as a whole. The others involved are ?minor? players, in my opinion, and so I did not feel compelled to direct my comments to them. I do believe, though, that the standard also applies to them and they should conduct themselves with respect and dignity. I admit that I may have clouded the issue by not addressing them as well, and I am sorry for that.

I am not sure why pacifism has been put on trial here. I don?t claim to be a pacifist and don?t argue that others should be. My position is that we should have an attitude of ?turning the other cheek? rather than ?an eye for an eye?. I recognize that Shoe endured abuse and exercised self-control for a while before returning attacks. I mean to encourage him to redirect the discussion to civility in cases such as this rather than returning fire. It seems like the argument against pacifism has been used in the extreme (rape) to justify actions on this board. I don?t think the logic holds here. I think that what happens on this board, and any attack on a person here, has little personal consequence and at most is only mildly personally threatening. So the argument that Shoe needed to defend himself on this board does not hold up.

Like I said above, I don?t mean to tell everyone where the lines should be drawn. I have my opinion, others have theirs. I was originally hoping that confronting Dr. Shoe would redirect him to the issues and encourage him to leave the personal attacks to those who have nothing more of value to share. It seems that Shoe feels completely justified in his conduct and sees no need to alter it. It seems that we just disagree.

I didn?t mean to present a manifesto in raising this issue, but obviously I do feel strongly about it. I appreciate how you and Dr. Shoe have been willing to discuss the issue at hand without losing the respect and dignity that we share as people and future (or present) physicians. Peace (woops, there I sounded like a pacifist!)

 

[mj]

DL,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Try as I might, I still get lost in the apparent contradiction that ?any attack on a person here, has little personal consequence and at most is only mildly personally threatening? but ?that there should be a level of conduct (ie courtesy, politeness, professionalism) on this board? that prevents ?an eye for an eye?. If the consequences are so low, why does it matter if people behave?

Whoever sent me that mail did have a point, that gays don?t belong on the planet, people who support their freedom of action don?t either and that I am a hypocrite for my stand on NPs. No matter how nicely someone presents that, it?s going to tick me off. The fact that they did it in such a personal manner, even making comments about my children was pretty disturbing. But in the end I suppose I still support their right to have said it. The fact that I would have liked them to say it nicer seems irrelevant considering the thoughts propagated.

For now I think I?m going to have to accept that I have an unreconciled view on this issue. I don?t think Shoe changing his attitude on mud throwers will improve the board that much and might send the message that inflammatory behavior is OK. I will settle for being content celebrating and hiding behind his militance on mine others behalf while seemingly taking the high road.

In Shoe?s eyes that probably makes me weak, in yours probably a hypocrite?but I think I can live with both of those. After all, it is just a forum

mj

 

[dlbruch]

MJ-
I thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

To clarify- I think the consequences to the individual are minimal, but the consequences to the discussion and the free sharing of ideas is potentially great. But what I have a bigger problem with is the lack of respect for others that this verbal aggression implies. There is a reason we have a sense of "common decency" and professionalism- it is about how people deserve to be or should be treated regardless of whether or not there are personal consequences. And for the record, I don't think that someone being rude or unprofessional to me first justifies me being the same way back to them. If I choose to be unprofessional, I have to take full responsiblity for it myself.

I am sorry again to hear that you were treated badly. I know that some people have ideas that we find disturbing and personally challenging- and that they are unpleasant. But I, too, believe in their right to express those ideas within a standard of respectful conduct.

I respect you for your honesty in being undecided here, and I respect Shoe for boldly expressing his views in spite of criticism and attack. I hope this discussion will encourage you to be bold in expressing you views in future. Thanks for challenging me to express myself clearly- it has help me understand better why I was irritated enough to bring it up in the first place.

 

[DO1DAY]

MJ- I'm not mad at all

Just another fun discussion- there's no way I would let a discussion like this get me mad- I enjoy a good argument once in awhile!! No grudges held here! I also know much more than just "throwing mud" around! I was just trying to make the point that everyone should share their views, but try not to be nasty about it- and don't misinterpret this to say that I am perfect either!!

 

[babytrey99]

Hey everyone! I agree with the previous post when he/she wrote "I was just trying to make the point that everyone should share their views, but try not to be nasty about it". EXACTLY! I am not angry, I have too much joy in my heart to be angry at silly stuff like this, was I offended that someone wrote a post that read like a personal attack on me, not my views? You betcha! I am indeed a person who finds life to be a thrilling journey and I try to repect all af God's creatures, but I will defend myself and fight back verbally when I read a verbal attack on myself. I do not believe in flight according to Darwin.
I hold no ill will towards anyone, especially Shoe, he gave some great advice to me in the topic "How damning are Community College classes". He and I simply do not agree on the issues that were raised here. It would be a boring world if everyone agreed.
I think a general topic could be how society on the web has become more aggressive in the chat rooms. It is too easy to hide behind names without identities.I highly doubt a lot of these posts would have been a spoken word if we were all face to face. It's scary and I am as guilty as the next person.
Vaya con dios and let's all just get along!

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

oh shut the hell up already.

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

mj, lets not even WASTE time refuting this OMT thread by rolltide,
Clearly, I said that MOST DOS (90%) don't use OMT.

I didnt say DO FAMILY PRACTIONERS, I said DOS, and this holds across the board if anyone cares to do the research.

I will give one grain of experience here:
at WPB we STUDENTS were told...."always fill out a OMT history and physical sheet, because if you students don't fill it out, the accrediting body will think we dont do any OMT here, since none of the doctors are going to fill out these forms because they dont do OMT."
true story. and from discussions with students at other hospitals, this is the NORM rather than the exception at osteopathic training sites.

 

[mj]

DO and Baby,

Well that's too bad. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with by ascribing anger to you. But that's the way you behave when you aren't angry...WOW.

But I'm sssoooo glad you both have seen the light and now just want everyone to play nice instead of STARTING slugfest you undoubtedly will never win.

Oh, and don?t worry DO, I would never say you are perfect.

Sorry Shoe, now I'll shut the hell up about it.

mj

 

[babytrey99]

Adrian my friend,
You have 296 posts since March, I have 14 since May, and I need to "shut the hell up already"?
Did you give up caffeine recently? Viagra keeping you down? Fighting any urges to go postal?

Take care, see you around other topics!

 

[mj]

ya, you're right Shoe...not worth the time. I thought you might have let all Rolltides sugar coating cloud your judgement, though. I should have known better. It was great comic releif, though, wasn't it. My favorite part of Rolltide's post was where he did creative math and turned 1/3 using omt on less than 5% into 2/3 using it all the time. That was a marvel of logic...They really let him into med school with logic like that...well, then again it was just a certain university in Southern Florida that anyone who's read any of your post knows is nothing to write home about

lol Rolltide

mj

[This message has been edited by mj (edited 06-15-2000).]

 

[RollTide]

MJ,

Maybe you should take a little time to read the surveys before jumping on Shoe's bandwagon

. And before critisizing anyone's choice of medical school, you should gather a couple of acceptances of your own. I have done this and chosen the school that I think offers what I am looking for.

John,

Would you please explain to me how 90% of D.O.s do not use OMT PERIOD when family practice physicians make up a large majority of current practicing D.O.s? And the surveys that have been done show that it is being used, just on a smaller percentage of patients than some people think it should be. It you have data that I do not, I would love to see it. Afterall, you have explained to me many times that my personal encounters with with D.O.s don't amount to a hill a beans. why should yours be any more valuable? Don't you think the data that is out there is valid? Do you agree that OMT is only usefull in treating some illnesses and that those illnesses make up a small fraction of the illnesses that a PCP will see in a given period of time?

 

[mj]

You're absolutely right Rolltide! Please accept my humble apologies. It is ludicrous of anyone to make statements, good or bad, about a school they haven?t yet attended.

But I wasn?t so much being critical of your choice in school as your logic, here. I simply don?t agree with the way you interpreted those numbers, the factual part of my post that you didn?t address. Your whole statement that OMT ?is only useful in treating some illnesses and that those illnesses make up a small fraction of the illnesses that a PCP will see? is the whole point of the argument here. Regardless of why it isn?t used for everything all the time, it isn?t, and therefore, isn?t a major difference between DOs and MDs. Throw in drussos post on MDs picking up OMT and that difference shrinks more.

I?m hardly on Shoe?s bandwagon though. I don?t think I quite understand how someone can for the last 4 months argue pretty incessantly that rotations at DO schools are drastically below the standards of MD schools and say educational philosophy is the same for both degree programs. I?m equally curious how he can say educational philosophies are the same when admission standards are so obviously different. While he may be correct in stating that the curricula are the same, the people that curriculum is taught to are fairly different. Logic would dictate that, in general, material on patient relations taught to the average 21 year old MD student that?s never really been outside the classroom will be received and integrated very differently than to the average 26+ year old DO student who has more experience from which to draw.

So you see Rolltide, I?m not exactly on Shoe?s bandwagon. I simply didn?t think your post helped the cause.

mj

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

Dear MJ and DlBRUCH....thank you for having the intelligence to understand:
1. who the "shut the hell up already" was addressed to.

2. recognizing its humourous intent

as for the others, well, we already knew they were *****s by their previous actions so further examples weren't needed.

As for "DATA"-
at NOVA-there is an approximate attendance at OMT labs of about 25%, over half of whom are trying to just get the grade, the other forty percent of whom are trying to LEARN...
how do i know this? i helped instruct the course for a month as a rotation and also from working with first, second, third and fourth years....so, 10% is a pretty rough approximation of those who are a: trying to learn omm, with the intent of using it.

I also have rotated with about ummmmmm 30 DOs in the past three years, three of which used OMM, the rest of which laughed hysterically at its mention....thus the rough 10% holds up there also.

I dont trust Rolltides info, because he struggles so hard to present a school he has never attended in such a positive light that it calls into question his judgement, his rolls colored glasses and lack of objectivity, this is why i dont bother responding to his posts.

also, his statement regarding the majority of DOs going into family practice is not true, most are going into PRIMARY CARE, but that encompasses ER, Pediatrics, OB/GYN and internal medicine as well as FP, thus quoting FP numbers are apples to oranges, since the MAJORITY of DOS DO NOT GO INTO FP.

 

[RollTide]

MJ,

Thanks for the clarification. I found your subtle and John's not-so-subtle claims about me not being a student quite humerous

. What will you guys do next month when I am a student? I can guess that I will then just be an uninformed first year student, but then again maybe Dr. Shoe will then become just a graduate who is out of touch with the current happenings of NSU

. And by the way, if you care to take the time to read through the surveys that are out there, you will find that my logic and my numbers come directly from these surveys. I NEVER said that a majority of D.O.s use OMT on ALL or MOST of their patients, I said that a majority of FPs use OMT in some capacity in their practice. These are not wild outrageous claims, I have taken this information from published studies, not from personal accounts. This does not mean that the studies are correct, but it is the best information we have to evaluate this issue. Another interesting point in all of this is that it appears that more recent graduates of osteopathic medical schools use OMT far less(or not at all) than graduates 10-20 years ago.

John,

You claim that you do not respond to my posts, then in the next paragraph you respond to my post. You usually do respond to my posts, you just neglect to answer any of the legitimate questions I ask. I will post some data below to refute your claims about the percent of current D.O.s in FP with understanding of the flaws in looking at this data. 1) This data includes students and residents who are not board certified, but this should not really matter because most of the specialty organizations allow student membership. 2) This is only AOA data, so we are neglecting to look at those who belong to ACGME/AMA specialty organizations.


Number of members of various osteopathic specialty organizations:

American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians
16,733(there are only 40,000 practicing D.O.s in the U.S., this is 42%)

American College of Osteopathic OB/GYN
795(2%)

American College of Osteopathic Internists
1500 (4%)

American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
365 (1%)

The numbers speak for themselves Dr. Shoe. Although EM is sometimes considered a PC field, rarely are their numbers used when publishing data about the number of students entering a primary care field, nor does the goverment consider EM to be a primary care specialty. I think if you look at the number of residency positions offered in each of the above primary care specialties, this data will also renforce my comments regarding FP. The AOA states that ~65% percent of osteopathic graduates are entering Primary care specialties, and whether you want to agree with me or not, a large majority of those are going into FP.

 

[RollTide]

Number of filled PGY2 spots in AOA approved Family practice residency programs.

792

This is not the number of available spots, but FILLED spots. Considering only around 2000 students graduate from osteopathic medical colleges each year, this is 40% of graduating students enetering FAMILY PRACTICE! This does not even include the large number who choose to do ACGME FP programs.So yes John, most(more than any other specialty) osteopathic students are choosing FP, including yourself I might add.

 

[mj]

Originally posted by RollTide:
Do you agree that OMT is only usefull in treating some illnesses and that those illnesses make up a small fraction of the illnesses that a PCP will see in a given period of time?

Do you not read what you post Rolltide! I'm starting to see why Shoe always gets so annoyed with you. You accuse him of skirting issues and then turn around and do the same thing. Maybe its time for a new roll model as Shoe seems to be rubbing off on you. lol

Your above statement is what I have issue with. Follow the logic, I'll try to go slow: You cannot say that PCPs only use OMT on "a small fraction of the illnesses that a PCP will see" and then claim that OMT is a substantial difference in practice compared to MDs -- the original point! The fact that PCPs have such few opportunities to use OMT makes it a moot point in the comparison.

And don't assume I haven't read the studies. I simply don't agree with your interpretation of them.

I'll give you the family practice numbers. Unfortunately, it's just not relevant to this discussion. Well, other than it lets you get a jab in at Shoe.

mj

 

[mj]

Adrianshoe,

Avoid Rolltide all you want, but I thought my questions to you were at least deserving of an answer, so I will repeat them and hope the great doctor Shewmaker finds me worthy of a reply lol

1. Please explain how you can for the last 4 months argue pretty incessantly that rotations at DO schools are drastically below the standards of MD schools and still say educational philosophy is the same for both degree programs.

2. Please explain how you can say that educational philosophies between MDs and DOs are the same when admission standards are so obviously different. While you may be correct in stating that the curricula are the same, the people that curriculum is taught to are fairly different. Logic would dictate that, in general, material on patient relations taught to the average 21 year old MD student that?s never really been outside the classroom will be received and integrated very differently than to the average 26+ year old DO student who has more experience from which to draw.

Thank you oh great wise Dr. Shoe for your consideration. lol

mj

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

anyone who thinks 42% is a majority speaks for themselves i think, mj, thats why i dont waste time on him. Also what is 33% of 42%? about 14% i think, so thats close enough to my stated 10% of DOs use OMT for me....you do have to love it when HIS numbers and statements make my points for me, huh?

regarding your other statements:
There really isnt any discrepancy, the whole discussion was about DO schools teaching patient relations differently than MD schools....some poor readers began extrapolating this all over the place and missed the whole nature of the discussion.
I have yet to see a difference in the way that interns and residents and third/fourth year students are taught between MD/DO...simply put, there is no difference in how we are taught to treat patients during our PATIENT exposures.....a silly three credit course in first year isn't even relevant, since most people in first year ignore these stupid courses and study their basic sciences during this wasted time slot. its idiotic to even point to such courses as being a DIFFERENCE, since we all slept through such courses anyway....Pointing to OMT as a difference might be legit, except at Nova its not since only 30% of the people even go to the lab to learn the material, thus you end up with 33% of these actually using OMT and you are back to there being no real difference.

now if you want to argue that DO schools attract a difference audience by allowing looser scores, i might respond that they only do this because they so often are the SECOND CHOICE, thus they have traditionally HAD to lower their admissions standards, this is pretty much common knowledge,....so to look better on paper, they also have been willing to gamble on older students with higher scores to make up for their younger students with lower scores. THEN, they can point out how they are more attractive to the nontraditional students and use this as a selling point.
Does this affect how they TEACH courses, i havent seen that it does, it certainly didnt seem to make a difference when it MATTERS (IE clinicals) it may affect how the courses are RECIEVED, but that is a whole different topic.

 

[mj]

Originally posted by ADRIANSHOE:
it may affect how the courses are RECIEVED, but that is a whole different topic.

No it?s not. The original question was ?what part of the DO philosophy do you agree or disagree with the most?. drusso made the point that ?there does exist a wide spread perception that DO's are more patient-centered in their approach to medicine than some MD's are?. You immediately argued that wasn?t true because everyone is taught the same thing. The flip side to that argument is that, yes, same material, but it is RECEIVED differently because of the maturity and experience factor creating DOs who are more patient-centered. Your logic is only one sided and doesn't address the question.
They just let you get away with it because they were so busy arguing curriculum with you. Your point that DO schools are second choice attracting lower scores and seeking non trads as a marketing choice (which will undoubtedly get you beaten bloody by the die hard DOs) is irrelevant to the fact that the selection of said students creates a byproduct.

Secondly, how can you say that the issue of quality of rotations does not effect this discussion? Again, the initial question was agreement/disagreement on osteopathic philosophy. Osteopathy?s apparent lack of concern for the importance of clinical rotations as evidenced by their often poor organization and lack of paid attendings, seems to be a "glitch" in the philosophy. Your response to that is there is no difference, we are all taught the same which seemingly flies in the face of your grumbling over the past four months.

Instead of dealing with the contradiction you returned to your easy and comfortable argument responding to the asinine point that someone brought up about the class, to which I claimed no party in. Please address my questions on their own merits not the illogical spewings of others.

And ya, rolltides math was pretty funny, but you have to admire his threshold for abuse.

mj

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

point one: you are of course 100% correct...this is a legitimate argument, regardless of why the nontrads are attracted, they are still attracted, and thus one could argue that their approach to patients if it in fact is different is a necessary byproduct of the school's recruiting process, regardless of whether it was cynical or intentional...agreed....and it astounded me also that no one bothered to argue that teaching OMT inherently should teach better patient relations as you are spending time touching patients...there are PROBLEMS with this logic, but it is more close to truth than the previous nonsense.


let me clarify my "grumblings" as you put it.
I dont think i ever made my grumblings exclusive to the DO community, rather i have only "grumbled" about how i directly see medical education being flawed...the fact that i am in a DO track doesnt mean I wouldnt hold the same view if faced with a similar set of experiences in an MD setting, and in fact, i believe this is often the case in the MD setting as well, based on some reading and conversation...but, returning to my comments on this thread...
The PHILOSOPHY is a strategic level idea
The approach to medical training is more on the Tactical level. Stating that Philosophically there is little difference between DOs and MDs doesnt contradict stating that DOs dont do as good a job educating as MDs (if this is in fact the case)
Example:
lets say you have two communist countries: country A has the communist philosophy, but works efficiently within its system, kills beaurocrats aggressively, and takes three or four centuries to collapse.
country B has the same basic philosophy, but its power structure is inefficient and its approach more haphazard, so that the proletariat falls apart within ten years....
BOTH had the same base philosophy,
But each had different tactical planning leading to different results.

oh, and what the hell is your problem, you forgot to address me as oh exalted one or the great shoey again and its ssssstarting to irk me....

 

[mj]

Well, oh majestic Cobbler, had you not posted such a lazy half ass response to a superior logical post to start with, I probably wouldn?t have been so distracted as to have forgotten the pleasantries.

As for your grumblings, perhaps?

You are correct that your moaning has never been aimed directly at DOs but at medical education as a whole. I drew my inference from the fact that you have stated DO programs should pay their attendings like MD programs do and develop teaching hospital affiliations similar to MDs. I was wrong in my conclusion, but as you are so much more experienced and wiser than I am, I?m sure you will forgive my elementary mistake with due gentleness.

To the logic of your point, seems more of an argument of semantics or ?chicken-egg?. If I adopt a system with the stated aim of meeting specified goals and then upon evaluation and realization that my system is ineffective, choose not to change it, can I still say I am seeking the original goals? Is philosophy without action truly philosophy? If I say I believe in pacifism and then proceed to seek out a semi automatic and wipe out the local McDonalds because the drive thru guy didn?t get my order right can I really claim to be a pacifist? I suppose I could, but thoughts not backed up by action will be dismissed by the reasonable for their lack of realism. The osteopathic community cannot continue to hold strong clinical rotations that lead to solid learning as part of their philosophy, not actively work for improvement of those clinicals and still expect people to believe them when they say ?we value clinical education?

mj

[This message has been edited by mj (edited 06-16-2000).]

 

[ADRIANSHOE]

indubitably