anon-y-mouse said:
And medhacker, thanks for the reference to that post, I must have missed it. Sure it may be political, but that still does not make it correct. You yourself acknowledge "was it not for this jeaolusy on behalf of the AOA I think many of us [osteopaths] would not have had a chance to become a physician or specialize in an area of choice". Hello, this is the *epitome* of backdoor I am talking about... caused for the most part by the fact that MD's are not eligible for osteopathic residencies. I am fine with the existence of DO, but if they want an equal playing field, it's about time they play fair and allow everyone to get a crack at *all* the residencies in America.
So, if DO is not MD + OMM, and in fact "more", what is the nature of this osteopathic gestalt? Treat the whole patient, not the symptoms? That's making a very grave allegation, that MD's do not consider the whole picture when treating a disease. What is it? Don't get me wrong, I would love to learn manipulative medicine as CME and treat people's bad backs, for example -- and I think that is a very charming aspect of osteopathic education -- but surely if there is more, and if it was in the best interest to saving patient lives, that would also be taught by schools granting an MD. Equality or inequality? Can't have both without sounding like a hypocrite.
Contrary to what seems to be a popular belief, the AOA does not lobby for equality. It lobbies for "A DO has everything an MD has and more" on this premise denying a DO an MD residency access, hospital privileges, etc is illegal - and they sure have lobbied well for look at how DOs have slowly but surely gained ground in the MD only world.
On the same premise the AOA says, an MD has not been trained as an osteopathic physician for 4 years. Yes we both learn the same anatomy, physio, path etc, but when all these things are taught to a DO student, he is being part of a delivery system which is not equal to the MD delivery system. There is a different history, faculty are expected to teach with a "spirit/philosophy" which has been unique to osteopathic education. While these differences may be subtle and may not "necessarily" warrant exclusion of MD students to DO residencies, on the basis that they do not preclude formation of a physician - they sure preclude the formation of an osteopathic physician. Afterall, an osteopathic residency has a committment to produce osteopathic physicians. The fact that upholding these differences determines surviving or not, makes it quite reasonable that they exist. Technically speaking the only way an MD could have such a preparation would be to receive all her/his medical education under that osteopathic umbrella. The DO student, however, for obvious reasons has already received the MD equivalent, plus more.
Please nobody misconstrue my words to mean DO students are better than MD students. DO students are just a bit different. In my opinion keeping a no MD in DO residency policy is good policy. MD students in most cases would not seek DO primary care residencies but DO hyper-competitive specialties. This does not mean either that a DO is less prepared for her/his own residency. However, for every seat in a DO residency given to an MD student in a hyper-compet. DO residency - there is one less DO student who was faithful to osteopathic medicine who did not take advantage of the system he helped uphold. This IMHO would result in less qualified students attending a DO medical program and joining the world of medicine. Think of how well does an MD who completed a DO dermatology residency represent osteopathic medicine.
The number of MD medical schools has been fixed for a bunch of years. Despite obvious signs of physician shortages only recently has the AMA decided to take a stand on it. In the mean time DO schools have been working to fill America's need providing educational opportunities and more fine physicians.
Look, I reiterate my point, if it wasn't for DO schools many would not have become physicians and many Americans would have gone sub-served/unserved. I believe the policy helps support a professional system which has helped America enormously. Changing the policy would not do one good thing for osteopathic medicine. Having a DO neurosurgeon makes publicity for our kind of medicine in obvious ways an MD neurosurgeon (even if she/he does an osteopathic residency) can not.
So IMHO it is not about DOs wanting equality with our beloved MD brethren. Yes we are the underdog! but I think we need to be bold enough to proclaim that while MDs are good we have what MDs have plus more. This makes us qualified for a Job as an MD resident. It does not, however, qualify an MD for a Job in a DO residency and politically speaking it is not good policy.
😍
Disclaimer: Although the thoughts and views in this post seem partial to reality, they are merely fictional characters and are not meant to resemble any true persons or situations. Some of the events described in this book, may erroneously suggest the poster was intoxicated while typing. It is not meant to offend or criticize any cultural groups or victims. And of course, none of what I said should be construed to mean an MD could not be a good physician learn OMM well, be compassionate, and have an "osteopathic" philosophy or even a better one. It does not, imply either, that all DO students automatically learn and perform according to the intended mission of their osteopathic school. Individual results may vary. This is not legal advice, and I am not an attorney, I don't even play one on TV.
