MD - OMT certification

[nvshelat]

On Thursday I had my interview at UMDNJ-SOM. At the end of the interview, I asked where they saw Osteopathic medicine in the next 20 years. They answered that while there isn't scientific evidence on OMM, lots of people have experienced the benefits of OMM and this will cause a surge in the growth of DO schools. He mentioned that new schools are already opening up across the country to fill the demand for osteopathic physicians. He also engaged in some DO vs. MD stuff by saying that DOs are the same as MDs except for the fact that they get to practice OMM. But then he said something contradictory - he said that even MDs are searching for OMM certification bc it's getting so popular.

I was taken aback by this, so I directly asked if it's currently possible for an MD to get OMT certification, and he said yes it is. I then asked the obvious follow-up - wouldn't it actually hurt the growth of DOs if MDs were allowed to practice manipulation? There would be nothing that distinguishes DOs from MDs, only that DO students have lower average entering MCATs. He didn't have an answer to this, only tried to get around it by saying that DO is growing in popularity.

So, is it true that MDs can be certified in OMM? If so, doesn't this hurt the growth of DOs? (Physician supply shortage could easily be handled by MD schools accepting more students).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrMom]

Yes, it is true. It most definitely helps Osteopathic medicine to have MDs trained to use OMM. There aren't that many docs out there who do OMM regularly in their practice.

The MD schools aren't suddenly going to start accepting 2-3K more students a year, so I don't see how they'd have a significant impact on the ability of DO schools to fill with reasonable candidates.

 

[Bill_Brasky]

On Thursday I had my interview at UMDNJ-SOM. At the end of the interview, I asked where they saw Osteopathic medicine in the next 20 years. They answered that while there isn't scientific evidence on OMM, lots of people have experienced the benefits of OMM and this will cause a surge in the growth of DO schools. He mentioned that new schools are already opening up across the country to fill the demand for osteopathic physicians. He also engaged in some DO vs. MD stuff by saying that DOs are the same as MDs except for the fact that they get to practice OMM. But then he said something contradictory - he said that even MDs are searching for OMM certification bc it's getting so popular.

I was taken aback by this, so I directly asked if it's currently possible for an MD to get OMT certification, and he said yes it is. I then asked the obvious follow-up - wouldn't it actually hurt the growth of DOs if MDs were allowed to practice manipulation? There would be nothing that distinguishes DOs from MDs, only that DO students have lower average entering MCATs. He didn't have an answer to this, only tried to get around it by saying that DO is growing in popularity.

So, is it true that MDs can be certified in OMM? If so, doesn't this hurt the growth of DOs? (Physician supply shortage could easily be handled by MD schools accepting more students).

If OMM is good for patients and MD learn it, then good, because patients benefit, and that should be the goal. The reason DOs are not as accepted is only because no one has heard of them. More people doing OMM= more exposure for Osteopathy in general= more mainstreaming of DOs in the public's eyes= good thing.

-Bill Brasky
-------------------------------------------------------------
"First friend of Brasky: Hey, do you fellas know a guy by the name of Bill Brasky?

Second: Yeah, I know Bill Brasky. He's a 10 foot-tall beast-man, who showers in vodka, and feeds his baby shrimp scampi.

Third: Best damn trader on the floor.

Second: He orchestrated the merger between UNICEF and Smith and Wesson.

Third: Brasky went public with his own buttocks and made 7 million.

First: To Bill Brasky.

Together: Bill Brasky!"

 

[mkmgal]

I agree that more physicians practicing OMM can only be beneficial, whether it's practiced by either an MD or DO. I think OMM will continue to grow in popularity and acceptance as it grows in exposure, and as more and more people recognize it's potential, the demand will grow as well. Also, I think MD's will be more prone to do OMM research to prove it's benefit, adding to it's validity.

 

[heyjack70]

I agree that more physicians practicing OMM can only be beneficial, whether it's practiced by either an MD or DO. I think OMM will continue to grow in popularity and acceptance as it grows in exposure, and as more and more people recognize it's potential, the demand will grow as well. Also, I think MD's will be more prone to do OMM research to prove it's benefit, adding to it's validity.

I believe that in the next 30-40 years a shift will occur where both allopaths and osteopaths will learn OMT in medical school. Increasing research (probably not from JAOA, sorry) will increase support for the importance of OMT and it will become a specialty/skill in both the allopathic and osteopathic community. As younger people become the leaders of the medical community, the stigma surrounding OMT, and the separation between DOs and MDs will disappear, and the two fields will merge into one.

I know the allopath students will hate having to do more work during years 1 and 2.

 

[GregsAnatomy]

It's technically not OMM, but the MD family practice doc I shadow every other week trained with our OPP department to learn trigger point injections. Now he does them in his office and gets $125 a pop. 🙂

 

[applicant2002]

I believe that in the next 30-40 years a shift will occur where both allopaths and osteopaths will learn OMT in medical school. Increasing research (probably not from JAOA, sorry) will increase support for the importance of OMT and it will become a specialty/skill in both the allopathic and osteopathic community. As younger people become the leaders of the medical community, the stigma surrounding OMT, and the separation between DOs and MDs will disappear, and the two fields will merge into one.

I know the allopath students will hate having to do more work during years 1 and 2.

everybody an osteopath...md or do....that's my goal!

 

[nvshelat]

I respectfully disagree. I think it can only hurt the growth of osteopathy if MDs are allowed to be certified in manipulation. If MDs practice osteopathy, then DOs offer nothing more than MDs on average - obviously on the individual level ppl will have preferences between/among physicians for various reasons. Patients will migrate towards the more familiar MD than the unfamiliar DO when they have a choice for their source of OMM. I understand that people's familiarity with manipulation will increase, and thats a good thing for patients - but this increased demand means increased competition among providers, which will hurt the minority (DOs).

In regards to the physician supply, I'm not sure where 2-3k students comes from?? I did a simple google search on physician supply shortage. According to the American College of Physicians (ACP) the increase in # of students enrolled should be 15% to address the shortage.
125 MD schools and 17,000 entering students (AAMC) averages 136 students per entering class. If we increase by 15%, 17000 x 1.15 = 19550. 19550/125 = 157, an average increase of a little over 20 students per medical school.

 

[CJDocS]

I agree with the nvshelat. So, what will it be? Everyone with a medical degree a D.O. or M.D.? Or, those who graduated after say...2015 will be considered D.O. or M.D. after med school? If OMT truly is what distinguishes a D.O. from an M.D., shouldn't there be a little more pride in maintaining this distinction?
For instance, a couple years back, nurses were attempting to integrate pharmaceutical compounding into their job description. As we know, pharmacists are especially trained in their art, not only to master their knowledge in pharmacology and dosages-but also to compound specific dosages depending on the needs of the patient. Did pharmacists easily give in and say, "Hey, why not, it'll give us something less to do." No they didn't.
Realizing that they have invested in the education, and knowing that compounding techniques distinguish them from other health professions, they lobbied against nurses having compounding as part of their job description. I think that D.O.'s who are really interested in OMT should put more effort into
researching and perfecting their art, and developing new techniques to add to the body of knowledge. I'm not saying that we should necessarily withhold teaching OMT to non-osteopathic physicians. What I am saying is that
by refining OMT and what it can offer the patient, practicing D.O.'s and osteopathic students can think about and learn to incorporate OMT into their practice whatever their specialty might be.

 

[medhacker]

I am also not too sure that it would be a good thing for our profession - neither that nor allowing MDs to equally access DO residencies. Just as other professions have acted to protect the future of their practice I think we need to do the same.

 

[Bill_Brasky]

I'm less worried about the integrity of our profession than in getting better health care to patients. If osteopathic philosophy and teaching is integrated totally into the MD world and the distinction between the two fades away that doesn't bother me at all. I'm going into this for the patients, not for the pride of the letters behind my name.

-Bill Brasky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"First: He goes about 7' 10", 590.

Second: He'll eat a homeless person if you dare him.

Fifth: Hey, are you guys talking about Bill Brasky?

Together: We certainly are.

Fifth: I know Bill Brasky!

Second: Then let me buy you a round. "

 

[nvshelat]

So lets assume patients are all better off because now they have a whole ton of MDs treating their musculoskeletal problems with OMT. That's wonderful.
But this also means that there is no legitimacy to the osteopathic profession - they're then just a bunch of MD rejects as opposed to what they are now, providers who are licensed to use OMT and other tools to heal. DOs then gradually disappear as MDs take all of our jobs.
Are patients better off? If OMM works, then sure, bc they have more providers using the therapy. Would DOs be out of a job under this scenario? Yes, particularly if MD schools increase their output.
It's not unsimilar to the outsourcing of jobs, really. Is the world better off when jobs are outsourced to India? Sure - Indians get jobs, and the world gets cheaper prices and quality service. But countries have to protect their own workers as well, which is why there are protectionist measures in place. Licensing OMT to MDs is equivalent to outsourcing the job.

 

[mamitch4]

I am with Bill_Brasky on this one...
I am certainly more interested in the future of medicine than in the future of osteopathy as a profession. And I think that OMT/osteopathic philosophy has something to contribute to good medicine. This is something that frustrates the h#$$ out of me about the AOA. They are clearly more interested in protecting the instituition of osteopathy than in promoting the interests of DO's and patients when these interests might conflict.
The more access that patients have to OMT, the better-- regardless of who is providing it, DO's or MD's. If this means that 100 years from now OMT is an well-established and evidenced-based part of medicine, the practice of osteopathy has been absorbed into the medical mainstream, and the DO degree no longer exists... fantastic! The quality of medical education and patient care will have been improved. What more can we ask for?

 

[laboholic]

So lets assume patients are all better off because now they have a whole ton of MDs treating their musculoskeletal problems with OMT. That's wonderful.
But this also means that there is no legitimacy to the osteopathic profession - they're then just a bunch of MD rejects as opposed to what they are now, providers who are licensed to use OMT and other tools to heal. DOs then gradually disappear as MDs take all of our jobs.
Are patients better off? If OMM works, then sure, bc they have more providers using the therapy. Would DOs be out of a job under this scenario? Yes, particularly if MD schools increase their output.
It's not unsimilar to the outsourcing of jobs, really. Is the world better off when jobs are outsourced to India? Sure - Indians get jobs, and the world gets cheaper prices and quality service. But countries have to protect their own workers as well, which is why there are protectionist measures in place. Licensing OMT to MDs is equivalent to outsourcing the job.

I disagree with this because only about 5% of DO actually practice OMM. The rest of the DOs are practicing right along side MDs in family practices and specialties - I dont think there is much to distinguish them. So, why do these DOs that dont practice OMM still have jobs? because they got a good medical education and passed the boards. I dont think the small percentage of family practice MDs (thats who will probably want to do this) that want to learn OMM will have any affect on DO jobs. Just my opinion ( I havent even started DO school yet).

Oh, and I also agree with some of the above posts... If its good for patients, every doctor should have access. Period. This is why osteopathy began. AT Still saw that 19th century medicine was not effective, so he began a new branch to try and better serve the patient. Now that modern drugs are effective, osteopathic medicine has made a switch back. There is nothing wrong with Allo conforming to keep up with new, scientifically proven, patient-benefiting techniques.

 

[nvshelat]

What more can we ask for?

That the DO degree exists in 100 years AND OMM is mainstream. I don't believe that one has to come at the sacrifice of the other; thats why I believe that the AOA shouldn't allow MDs to be licensed in their craft. This would allow for DOs to grow in number and as OMM becomes more legitimized/proven, the demand for DOs will increase. This leads to more highly qualified physicians entering the field. Patients are better off, the quality of medical education increases, and DOs are still around. I think the starting point is not licensing MDs in OMM, but pouring research money into OMM to make it a scientifically proven therapy.

 

[McDoctor]

It's technically not OMM, but the MD family practice doc I shadow every other week trained with our OPP department to learn trigger point injections. Now he does them in his office and gets $125 a pop. 🙂

I hate to be overly cynical, but of course MD's in primary care want in on OMM as it is a billable procedure reimbursed almost universally. There is no investment in equipment required and a great way to generate additional revenue. I think DO's should lobby to keep this within their realm, this is something that makes us unique and attractive to established practices of primarily MD providers who want to broaden the services they provide.

 

[OMMFan]

The DO who introduced me to osteopathic manipulation told me that while it is possible to get OMM training as an MD, there is a big practical difference between learning OMM through a weekend or evening course vs. learning it throughout school.

DO students get to start developing their palpatory skills on day 1 (okay, semester 1) of medical school. They also have access to expert OMM faculty and other resources that help them to more thoroughly learn what they need to effectively use OMM in their practice. And of course, osteopaths who practice OMM (and take advantage of appropriate resources while still in school) continue to build upon their strong foundation of OMM knowledge as their careers progress.

This was one of my biggest reasons for choosing osteopathic medicine over allopathic medicine. My MCAT scores, grades, clinical experience, and motivations for practicing medicine are competitive for allopathic schools.

 

[timtye78]

I hate to burst someone elses bubble but most skills are learned during residency training, and then of course which skills depends on what residency.

You think DOs have something extra? Physiatrists/PM-R docs do manipulation, but they dont tell their pts that its 'osteopathic manipulation'-they call it 'physical medicine' or 'rehab' medicine or physical therapy.

You think DOs know something extra about the spine?-talk to an orthopedic surgeon who did a spine fellowship or an anesthesiologist/pain management doc about the nuances of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. They will tell you about the spine and its innervations. They wont tell you that you can fix a kidney infection by 'balancing sympathetic outflow.'

I doubt any MDs will ever tout the term 'osteopathic' in anything they present to a patient.

I am thankful my school helped me get to where I am today no doubt.

 

[OSUdoc08]

I hate to burst someone elses bubble but most skills are learned during residency training, and then of course which skills depends on what residency.

You think DOs have something extra? Physiatrists/PM-R docs do manipulation, but they dont tell their pts that its 'osteopathic manipulation'-they call it 'physical medicine' or 'rehab' medicine or physical therapy.

You think DOs know something extra about the spine?-talk to an orthopedic surgeon who did a spine fellowship or an anesthesiologist/pain management doc about the nuances of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. They will tell you about the spine and its innervations. They wont tell you that you can fix a kidney infection by 'balancing sympathetic outflow.'

I doubt any MDs will ever tout the term 'osteopathic' in anything they present to a patient.

I am thankful my school helped me get to where I am today no doubt.

I guarantee you the OMM faculty member at our school, who is an MD, uses this term to her patients daily. Let's not make blanket generalizations.

 

[nvshelat]

I hate to burst someone elses bubble but most skills are learned during residency training, and then of course which skills depends on what residency.

You think DOs have something extra? Physiatrists/PM-R docs do manipulation, but they dont tell their pts that its 'osteopathic manipulation'-they call it 'physical medicine' or 'rehab' medicine or physical therapy.

You think DOs know something extra about the spine?-talk to an orthopedic surgeon who did a spine fellowship or an anesthesiologist/pain management doc about the nuances of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. They will tell you about the spine and its innervations. They wont tell you that you can fix a kidney infection by 'balancing sympathetic outflow.'

I doubt any MDs will ever tout the term 'osteopathic' in anything they present to a patient.

I am thankful my school helped me get to where I am today no doubt.

The point is that if OMM turns out to be a legitimate and highly regarded form of therapy, then doctors will indeed begin referring to it as such. We're talking about in the future, not today.

 

[OSUdoc08]

The point is that if OMM turns out to be a legitimate and highly regarded form of therapy, then doctors will indeed begin referring to it as such. We're talking about in the future, not today.

Has anyone every heard of a physical therapist?

OMM uses techniques that PT's employ.

Noone every questioned the legitimacy of physical therapy.

 

[nvshelat]

OMM uses techniques that PT's employ.

Noone every questioned the legitimacy of physical therapy.

😕 OMM = physical therapy?? 😕

 

[OSUdoc08]

😕 OMM = physical therapy?? 😕

CORRECT

In OMM, you learn practically ALL of the techniques that physical therapists use (i.e. Muscle Energy, Myofascial Release, & Counterstrain). The physical therapists in my class can vouch for them being duplicate techniques.

In addition, many of our labs are run by Physical Therapists.

This is why the majority of people that have a problem with OMM are pre-meds, due to a lack of understanding of what OMM actually is.

 

[nvshelat]

CORRECT

In OMM, you learn practically ALL of the techniques that physical therapists use (i.e. Muscle Energy, Myofascial Release, & Counterstrain). The physical therapists in my class can vouch for them being duplicate techniques.

In addition, many of our labs are run by Physical Therapists.

This is why the majority of people that have a problem with OMM are pre-meds, due to a lack of understanding of what OMM actually is.

Hmm. interesting.

 

[DragonWell]

OMM uses techniques that PT's employ.

Or do PTs employ techniques that DOs invented? 😕

Lots of professions - PT, massage therapists, rolfers, etc. employ OMM techniques ie. SCS, MET,MFR but to me what sets DOs apart is that they invented so many techniques which have been copied elsewhere.

At the risk of going all AT Still on your a**es, I think that part of what makes osteopathy truly unique comes from its philosophy: how the body, health and disease are viewed. It's not the simply techniques themselves, but how they're used. For example, as a massage therapist, I regularly watch colleagues misuse MET, randomly stretching muscles that are already overstretched and weak! Without the diagnostic skills and overall way of looking at the person that DOs bring, the tools become useless, or at least much more limited. A PT might be able to master OMM, but do they also have the training to know when a different, perhaps pharmaceutical approach is the better choice?

 

[OSUdoc08]

Or do PTs employ techniques that DOs invented? 😕

Lots of professions - PT, massage therapists, rolfers, etc. employ OMM techniques ie. SCS, MET,MFR but to me what sets DOs apart is that they invented so many techniques which have been copied elsewhere.

At the risk of going all AT Still on your a**es, I think that part of what makes osteopathy truly unique comes from its philosophy: how the body, health and disease are viewed. It's not the simply techniques themselves, but how they're used. For example, as a massage therapist, I regularly watch colleagues misuse MET, randomly stretching muscles that are already overstretched and weak! Without the diagnostic skills and overall way of looking at the person that DOs bring, the tools become useless, or at least much more limited. A PT might be able to master OMM, but do they also have the training to know when a different, perhaps pharmaceutical approach is the better choice?

Question: Why do people accept physical therapy as mainstream, but call OMM voodoo?

Answer: Ignorance. They are the SAME.

 

[GregsAnatomy]

Question: Why do people accept physical therapy as mainstream, but call OMM voodoo?

Answer: Ignorance. They are the SAME.

Agreed. Just ask the PT on our school's OMM faculty!

 

[DragonWell]

Noone every questioned the legitimacy of physical therapy.

Question: Why do people accept physical therapy as mainstream, but call OMM voodoo?

Answer: Ignorance. They are the SAME.

I think it might be a bit of an over generalization to say that no one ever questioned the legitimacy of physical therapy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=9761803&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Like all of manual therapy including OMM, some PT techniques are evidence based, many are not. By it's very nature, manual therapy is more difficult to prove effective than pharmaceutical interventions - how do you double blind a hands on therapy? Or provide placebo OMM treatment? Add to this the fact that diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders is often subjective and based on patient feedback or orthopedic tests which have questionable inter-examiner reliability.

The end result is a situation in which some people are going to be skeptical of OMM, and others will embrace it, with both sides claiming to have the evidence on their side. Personally, I have seen so many people helped by manual therapy and become so fascinated with it that I embrace it, in fact OMM is the reason I decided to go DO. At the same time, I also accept the possibility that at least part of the therapeutic effect may be placebo and some of the techniques probably are "voodoo with a great theory".

 

[bustbones26]

Question: Why do people accept physical therapy as mainstream, but call OMM voodoo?

Answer: Ignorance. They are the SAME.

Its the attitude that DO's take, the high and mighty, Oh we treat people and not disease. Sorry, if you are an MD, don't tell me that you'd take just a little bit offense to this.

Being a DO myself, an MD medical student rotating with me once admitted that he thought it was voodoo until he saw some of it work for patients. My reply was this, if you pick up an OMT test, foundations being a good one in my opinion, and read it, having a science and medicine background, although not a DO, you'd say,hey, I can see how the stuff works, that makes sense. But look at the attitude the "true" osteopaths take. They walk around high and mighty and occasionally, yes, its true, they come up with some a$$backward theory. Think about your OMT profs, you know who they are, the weird ones, there is at least one at every DO school! They are the ones that embarass us all and make us look bad.

My MD colleagues have never knocked what I do to patients, in fact, most want to watch and have me explain what I am doing because they are very eager to know. But I guarantee you that the day I say, "I am treating the patient and not the disease", or imply that my OMT is superior to any drugs they prescribe, I guarantee you that they would not be as accepting.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Its the attitude that DO's take, the high and mighty, Oh we treat people and not disease. Sorry, if you are an MD, don't tell me that you'd take just a little bit offense to this.

Being a DO myself, an MD medical student rotating with me once admitted that he thought it was voodoo until he saw some of it work for patients. My reply was this, if you pick up an OMT test, foundations being a good one in my opinion, and read it, having a science and medicine background, although not a DO, you'd say,hey, I can see how the stuff works, that makes sense. But look at the attitude the "true" osteopaths take. They walk around high and mighty and occasionally, yes, its true, they come up with some a$$backward theory. Think about your OMT profs, you know who they are, the weird ones, there is at least one at every DO school! They are the ones that embarass us all and make us look bad.

My MD colleagues have never knocked what I do to patients, in fact, most want to watch and have me explain what I am doing because they are very eager to know. But I guarantee you that the day I say, "I am treating the patient and not the disease", or imply that my OMT is superior to any drugs they prescribe, I guarantee you that they would not be as accepting.

This has nothing to do with OMM. This has to do with how MD's in general treat patients. This is why more and more people are going to DO's. It has to do with bedside manner and compassion.

There is a REASON why the show is called, "House, MD" and not "House, DO." It's a parody on the way some people view MD's.

Yes, there are exceptions. In addition, these are only perceptions/opinions. No flaming needed.

 

[DeLaughterDO]

This has nothing to do with OMM. This has to do with how MD's in general treat patients. This is why more and more people are going to DO's. It has to do with bedside manner and compassion.

There is a REASON why the show is called, "House, MD" and not "House, DO." It's a parody on the way some people view MD's.

Yes, there are exceptions. In addition, these are only perceptions/opinions. No flaming needed.

OSUdoc;

Are you saying that a vast majority of patients don't need that kind of candor when speaking with their physician? Hell, I think the medical system would be in much better shape and so would the patients.

We spend way too much time hand-holding patients and telling them they are "ok" just the way they are when we really need to be telling them they're fat, lazy and killing themselves with their lack of exercise, the two packs of cigarettes a day they smoke and the fifth of liquor they drink daily.

Personally, House is my freaking hero - and I'll be a DO in about 2 months. I think we could all take a very valuable lesson from his patient interaction.

Just because we "look at the whole patient" doesn't mean we have to be nice to them and tell them what they want to hear. We are being paid to provide a service and help them be healthier, not boost their self esteem.

Besides, who wouldn't like to take vicodin q15 minutes all day long???

 

[OSUdoc08]

OSUdoc;

Are you saying that a vast majority of patients don't need that kind of candor when speaking with their physician? Hell, I think the medical system would be in much better shape and so would the patients.

We spend way too much time hand-holding patients and telling them they are "ok" just the way they are when we really need to be telling them they're fat, lazy and killing themselves with their lack of exercise, the two packs of cigarettes a day they smoke and the fifth of liquor they drink daily.

Personally, House is my freaking hero - and I'll be a DO in about 2 months. I think we could all take a very valuable lesson from his patient interaction.

Besides, who wouldn't like to take vicodin q15 minutes all day long???

Maybe we should tell cancer patients they would be better off dead anyway.

How about telling a child that she deserved to be sexually assaulted?

This is the type of mentality that I see from House. To use an example from the actual show:

"House is rude and dismissive of a group of nuns and their religion, and actually cusses one of them out. The person they are there to see has rapidly failing health, and House enjoys mocking all of them."

Please tell me where you will be practicing. I don't want you near my family.

👎

 

[bustbones26]

This has nothing to do with OMM. This has to do with how MD's in general treat patients. This is why more and more people are going to DO's. It has to do with bedside manner and compassion.

There is a REASON why the show is called, "House, MD" and not "House, DO." It's a parody on the way some people view MD's.

Yes, there are exceptions. In addition, these are only perceptions/opinions. No flaming needed.

Did you make a wrong turn at new mexico? I commented on your question as to why people find PT mainstream but call OMT voodoo. Let me clarify, there are some DO's out there that if you listen to how they talk, or watch how they act, you just shake you head and laugh at them.

On a scientific level, OMT is not voodoo, when people ask what OMT is, instead of saying "we treat people and not diseases", we ought to explain how we manipulate the natural physiology of the human body, and, ultimately that it works! The attitude of the OMT zealots who treat it like a religion are the reason why people do not accept it as mainstream.

In regard to House, trust me, just trust me here when I say this to you, no matter if you are an MD or DO, when you get into your internship year, you will discover that there is a little Dr. House in each and every one of us. The difference between us and him is that we have enough sense to supress those unkind words.

Lastly, House, Grays Anatomy, Scrubs, ER, you name it, chalk them all up, they are a bunch of TV shows for entertainment and should never hold up to any standard as to how any of us should or should not practice medicine. There is a difference between real medicine and these amusing TV shows.

Okay, lets give DO's their due, I always hear people complain about why there is not a TV show about DO's or why DO's are not featured in some of these hollywood movies/shows. Did anybody see "Supersize Me" Look closely, the gastroenterologist this guy saw had "DO" really big on her jacket. Kind of cool, huh?

 

[CJDocS]

Did anybody see "Supersize Me" Look closely, the gastroenterologist this guy saw had "DO" really big on her jacket. Kind of cool, huh?[/QUOTE]

Yup, I have the movie, and she is a D.O.

 

[DeLaughterDO]

Maybe we should tell cancer patients they would be better off dead anyway.

How about telling a child that she deserved to be sexually assaulted?

This is the type of mentality that I see from House. To use an example from the actual show:

"House is rude and dismissive of a group of nuns and their religion, and actually cusses one of them out. The person they are there to see has rapidly failing health, and House enjoys mocking all of them."

Please tell me where you will be practicing. I don't want you near my family.

👎

I'll quote this for you again:

We spend way too much time hand-holding patients and telling them they are "ok" just the way they are when we really need to be telling them they're fat, lazy and killing themselves with their lack of exercise, the two packs of cigarettes a day they smoke and the fifth of liquor they drink daily.

Where did I say we need to tell cancer patients to die or that the child deserved to be assaulted? I was making a comment on the fact that we (as a profession) are too soft with patients - we tend to hold their hands and try to make them feel good about themselves no matter what. I was merely pointing out that maybe if the medical profession was a little more honest with patients they would be better off in the long run.

And I still think they would be. 😛

calm down

 

[OSUdoc08]

I'll quote this for you again:



Where did I say we need to tell cancer patients to die or that the child deserved to be assaulted? I was making a comment on the fact that we (as a profession) are too soft with patients - we tend to hold their hands and try to make them feel good about themselves no matter what. I was merely pointing out that maybe if the medical profession was a little more honest with patients they would be better off in the long run.

And I still think they would be. 😛

calm down

There is a different between being honest and being Dr. House. THIS is my point.

 

[scpod]

We spend way too much time hand-holding patients and telling them they are "ok" just the way they are when we really need to be telling them they're fat, lazy and killing themselves with their lack of exercise, the two packs of cigarettes a day they smoke and the fifth of liquor they drink daily...Just because we "look at the whole patient" doesn't mean we have to be nice to them and tell them what they want to hear. We are being paid to provide a service and help them be healthier, not boost their self esteem.

Part of treating the "whole" patient is looking at their self esteem. Richards, et al. (2002) and others showed that patients with low self esteem were likely to drop out of a weight loss regimen. If you were treating the "whole" person, then, you would need to look at that self esteem issue before you put your patient on a diet. Otherwise, your treatment is likely to fail. Only in an ideal world would you tell patients that they need to lose weight and stop smoking and they would-- just like that. In the real world there are probably other issues that would need to be handled first. Your refusal to look at the self esteem issue, instead simply calling them fat and lazy, could be looked at as detrimental to their health.

 

[DeLaughterDO]

Part of treating the "whole" patient is looking at their self esteem. Richards, et al. (2002) and others showed that patients with low self esteem were likely to drop out of a weight loss regimen. If you were treating the "whole" person, then, you would need to look at that self esteem issue before you put your patient on a diet. Otherwise, your treatment is likely to fail. Only in an ideal world would you tell patients that they need to lose weight and stop smoking and they would-- just like that. In the real world there are probably other issues that would need to be handled first. Your refusal to look at the self esteem issue, instead simply calling them fat and lazy, could be looked at as detrimental to their health.

There is a difference between evaluating them for self-esteem problems and hand-holding them and telling them they are perfect the way they are and don't need to change... people have friends for that. They have physicians to tell them the hard stuff their friends won't - like they need to drop that last 50 pounds, exercise and stop eating McDonalds before they keel over.

Nowhere have I ever heard you need to fix a self esteem issue BEFORE starting a diet. Maybe concurrently, but definitely not before. Besides, don't you think losing the extra person they've been carrying around might HELP their self esteem?

jd

 

[DeLaughterDO]

There is a different between being honest and being Dr. House. THIS is my point.

I can agree with this. Honesty != brutalizing patients.

I can see how it could be fun with some of the more annoying ones, though

 

[scpod]

There is a difference between evaluating them for self-esteem problems and hand-holding them and telling them they are perfect the way they are and don't need to change... people have friends for that. They have physicians to tell them the hard stuff their friends won't - like they need to drop that last 50 pounds, exercise and stop eating McDonalds before they keel over.

Nowhere have I ever heard you need to fix a self esteem issue BEFORE starting a diet. Maybe concurrently, but definitely not before. Besides, don't you think losing the extra person they've been carrying around might HELP their self esteem?

jd

The post was actually a little facetious. Still, the point remains that there is evidence (several studies) that suggests a person with initially low self esteem is likely to fail any dietary course of treatment. The only study I've read that addresses the self esteem factor after weight loss was limited (N=32). I'm sure that there are others, but my initial point wasn't really the treatment of self esteem. It was more along the lines of attitude of the physician. Calling your patient fat and lazy is no way to gain their trust. It's also not the way to treat the "whole" patient. I see where one might argue that you are there to make them healthier, so you need to tell them that they are killing themselves. Yet, treating patients like they are children is not going to work for most of them. "Tough love" doesn't work for everybody. Treating obesity, for example, involves more than just decreasing the weight if you are treating the "whole" patient. It involves getting to the root of the problem. That's not hand-holding. Calling them fat and lazy doesn't get to the root of the problem.