MD vs. DO

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

bluewind751

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
What's the difference between MD and DO doctors in terms of education, healing tactics, mindset, salary, and other factors? Also, would one type of doctor be better in certain specialties such as sports medicine? (I've heard that since DOs have a better focus in the musculoskeletal system, they have an edge in sports medicine.)
 
Last edited:
Take a look at some of the linked threads in the MD vs. DO section of this post in the Pre-DO FAQs. Also, take a look at this sticky in the Pre-DO forum.

Also, a pre-emptive "let's keep this civil," please. These threads tend to get de-railed really fast.
 
Why not just close it now. Really.

bluefart, they're the same thing. DO's aren't better equipped than MD's for Sports Medicine. Both will get you where you want to go, wherever that is.
 
The education is the same, with DOs also learning manipulation.

Healing tactics are the same.

Mindset varies amongst all physicians.

Salary is the same.

Your ability is based on your residency. Residencies differ in quality.
 
Please no flaming on this thread. There are a lot of legitimate questions that people may have. It seems that every time this comes up, someone has to ruin it.

That being said, I am planing on applying DO this year and I have noticed that many secondary questions ask "Why do you want to be an osteopathic physician?" or "What attracts you to the osteopathic philosophy?"

I find these questions difficult to answer. Often schools websites say that a DO "treats the whole body and not just the disease." I find that to be vague and frankly insulting to MD schools, which I'm also applying to. I'm mostly attracted to DO schools because I feel that they are very receptive to non-trads like myself or academic late-bloomers. I feel that this makes DO schools seem very warm and inviting to students like me. Also the DO students that I have met, seem to be a good fit for me.

However, I don't think that my reasons given above answer any of the DO "philosophy" questions or the "Why do you want to be an osteopathic physician?" questions. In my mind there is little difference between an Allopath and an Osteopath - just 200 hours of OMM. Sure the schools may be different, have different student demographics, and be a better fit for certain students, but ultimately a physician is a physician in my mind.

How do you DO students define "osteopathic physician?"
 
The doc I worked for has a lot of respect for DO's. Putting your hands on someone for a purpose drips with placebo effect (at the very least, and as the son of a chiropractor I know there is a lot more than just this). That said, there aren't too many traditional (i.e. do manipulations) DO's out there any more.
 
Please no flaming on this thread. There are a lot of legitimate questions that people may have. It seems that every time this comes up, someone has to ruin it.

That being said, I am planing on applying DO this year and I have noticed that many secondary questions ask "Why do you want to be an osteopathic physician?" or "What attracts you to the osteopathic philosophy?"

I find these questions difficult to answer. Often schools websites say that a DO "treats the whole body and not just the disease." I find that to be vague and frankly insulting to MD schools, which I'm also applying to. I'm mostly attracted to DO schools because I feel that they are very receptive to non-trads like myself or academic late-bloomers. I feel that this makes DO schools seem very warm and inviting to students like me. Also the DO students that I have met, seem to be a good fit for me.

However, I don't think that my reasons given above answer any of the DO "philosophy" questions or the "Why do you want to be an osteopathic physician?" questions. In my mind there is little difference between an Allopath and an Osteopath - just 200 hours of OMM. Sure the schools may be different, have different student demographics, and be a better fit for certain students, but ultimately a physician is a physician in my mind.

How do you DO students define "osteopathic physician?"

If "treating the whole body and not just the disease" resonates with you, you're a dolt.

The osteopathic hierarchy has to create a false distinction in order to justify their own existence. Aside from one stupid class (OMM), there is no distinction. That's the truth.
 
If "treating the whole body and not just the disease" resonates with you, you're a dolt.

The osteopathic hierarchy has to create a false distinction in order to justify their own existence. Aside from one stupid class (OMM), there is no distinction. That's the truth.
wouldn't say it those words but yeah that seems to be the case... this is the flip side of claiming it's all the same and same residencies blah blah.. if it's really the same, what's the point?

apologies in advance if this is coming off in a negative way, i intend it to be a question
 
Also check the osteopathic thread.

Won't hurt to get two perspectives on it no?
 
If "treating the whole body and not just the disease" resonates with you, you're a dolt.

The osteopathic hierarchy has to create a false distinction in order to justify their own existence. Aside from one stupid class (OMM), there is no distinction. That's the truth.

I agree that DO pretty much = MD, but the schools seem to want to delineate themselves from MDs by asking secondary like "What is your interest in becoming an osteopathic physician?"

That question can be difficult to answer if my interest is in becoming a physician period. What is the osteopathic difference that they are talking about besides the cliche "treating the whole body?"

And please lets keep this civil. I'm interested in honest answers - DO students chiming in on their experiences would be great.
 
MD gets you more girls
 
I agree that DO pretty much = MD, but the schools seem to want to delineate themselves from MDs by asking secondary like "What is your interest in becoming an osteopathic physician?"

That question can be difficult to answer if my interest is in becoming a physician period. What is the osteopathic difference that they are talking about besides the cliche "treating the whole body?"

And please lets keep this civil. I'm interested in honest answers - DO students chiming in on their experiences would be great.

An overwhelming majority of students don't use OMM, which is the only thing that really distinguishes DO from MD. Last time I checked, I think it was over 60-70% of DO students go into MD residencies anyways, so they tend to never have to use OMM. Even those that go into DO residencies, if you don't want to use it, you don't have to (and many, many don't).

OMM is just something that DO schools must emphasize so they can continue to exist. Otherwise, they'd be identical to MD schools, and cease to exist.
 
I agree that DO pretty much = MD, but the schools seem to want to delineate themselves from MDs by asking secondary like "What is your interest in becoming an osteopathic physician?"

That question can be difficult to answer if my interest is in becoming a physician period. What is the osteopathic difference that they are talking about besides the cliche "treating the whole body?"

And please lets keep this civil. I'm interested in honest answers - DO students chiming in on their experiences would be great.

It's BS. It's a test. The question wasn't difficult for me. I told them I saw no distinction. I wanted to be a physician.

I got in.
 
Osteopathic healing tactics
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whr_c2LXL_M[/YOUTUBE]
 
Ouch. 🙁 It sure resonates with me and the allopathic school I'm going to.

I'm very interested in Loyola - if that's what you mean (know a couple of people there, and they are down to earth and love Stritch).

"Treats the whole person" - though I do agree is a cliche. I find compassion very valuable in a physician, but sometimes I feel like the osteopathic community (not neccesarily the DOs or students, but administrators and the people who create the websites for the schools) act as if compassion (person vs. disease) is their philosophy. If I go MD i plan on being just as compassionate as if I go DO - that's just an important quality in a physician (MD or DO) in my opinion.

So at this point I feel like the delineation made when one says "osteopathic philosophy" is rather thin. It seems that the main difference at this point in my mind other than the schools, students, etc. is OMM.

Can anyone chime in on OMM? Likes? Dislikes?
 
Last edited:
If "treating the whole body and not just the disease" resonates with you, you're a dolt.

The osteopathic hierarchy has to create a false distinction in order to justify their own existence. Aside from one stupid class (OMM), there is no distinction. That's the truth.
You may consider OMM "stupid" but as stated in the thread, the placebo effect has a strong impact on patients. Additionally, OMM helps relieve a multitude of symptoms for patients. Calling a modality "stupid" is both disheartening and ignorant. You do not need to embrace OMM, but calling something "stupid" that has shown positive effects is not necessary.

Everyone can benefit from reading this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=408247
 
I'm very interested in Loyola - if that's what you mean (know a couple of people there, and they are down to earth and love Stritch).

"Treats the whole person" - though I do agree is a cliche. I find compassion very valuable in a physician, but sometimes I feel like the osteopathic community (not neccesarily the DOs or students, but administrators and the people who create the websites for the schools) act as if compassion (person vs. disease) is their philosophy. If I go MD i plan on being just as compassionate as if I go DO - that's just an important quality in a physician (MD or DO) in my opinion.

So at this point I feel like the delineation made when one says "osteopathic philosophy" is rather thin. It seems that the main difference at this point in my mind other than the schools, students, etc. is OMM.

Can anyone chime in on OMM? Likes? Dislikes?
See my above post.
 
MD gets you more girls

DOs have better looking classmates 😎
And if you're going to be chasing the type of tail that goes for you just because of your profession (a.k.a doctor) they won't give a damn if you're an MD or DO (nor would they know the difference), they're just hunting down a man with money and a car, and for the most part aren't worth your time. But to each their own.

A little synopsis of the two degrees from what I've gathered so far and my own impressions:

In contemporary medical practice, MD = DO DO = MD. There was a time and purpose for the distinction during the origination of osteopathy (and their founder was an MD,DO.. interesting, eh?) and IMHO played a key part in pushing medicine forward in the late 1800s in America. The philosophy had its role, and was beneficial for patients at the time when medicine was not very evidence based or scientifically rigorous, and very primitive by current standards. Mark Twain [not an authority on medicine, but very influential at the time] praised it at the time, and was instrumental in getting DO's licensed in New York State, which helped further the degree. However, it went a bit out of vogue when medicine became better regulated and consisted of a stronger scientific foundation, and some of its members tended to be a bit more radical in the mid-20th century. Keep in mind too that it was "different" and the minority in the population of physicians, so that alone will always bring certain connotations upon it from the outside. Then you have some the craziness that went on between the AMA and AOA in the 60s and the whole UC-Irvine scandal and you can see how things can turn ugly, and here on these forums they get ugly sometimes. Since then its become more mainstream up to the point of opening up ACGME residencies to DO graduates in this decade and having full practice rights in many foreign nations. Both schools of thought were always trying to do whats best for the patient and community. Both have entered the modern world, MDs aren't giving you leeches anymore or crack your skull open to 'release the demons' and I highly doubt any DO would think HVLA is going to cure you of HIV. Both are evidence based, both have essentially the same curriculum, both are held to the same standards and legal rights in the USA. Both provide a means to becoming a physician, if this is truly what you want to do. There will always be good and bad apples in both schools, no way to get around that. Both are providing a high quality of education for future physicians to serve communities here in the US in a time when the baby-boomers and post-boomers are only getting older, and our generation is going to have to take care of them.
 
See my above post.

Thanks for posting the thread, Bacchus. I hope it can help answer some of my OMM questions.

And I agree, calling OMM "stupid" is callous. Comments like those always cause these threads to get locked. Meanwhile, there are people like me who would like some honest experiences to be told, but miss out because of a flame war.
 
Thanks for posting the thread, Bacchus. I hope it can help answer some of my OMM questions.

And I agree, calling OMM "stupid" is callous. Comments like those always cause these threads to get locked. Meanwhile, there are people like me who would like some honest experiences to be told, but miss out because of a flame war.

It can't be that "stupid" if certain MD schools and CME's are offering it as 'electives'. Right?
 
DOs have better looking classmates 😎
And if you're going to be chasing the type of tail that goes for you just because of your profession (a.k.a doctor) they won't give a damn if you're an MD or DO (nor would they know the difference), they're just hunting down a man with money and a car, and for the most part aren't worth your time. But to each their own.

A little synopsis of the two degrees from what I've gathered so far and my own impressions:

In contemporary medical practice, MD = DO DO = MD. There was a time and purpose for the distinction during the origination of osteopathy (and their founder was an MD,DO.. interesting, eh?) and IMHO played a key part in pushing medicine forward in the late 1800s in America. The philosophy had its role, and was beneficial for patients at the time when medicine was not very evidence based or scientifically rigorous, and very primitive by current standards. Mark Twain [not an authority on medicine, but very influential at the time] praised it at the time, and was instrumental in getting DO's licensed in New York State, which helped further the degree. However, it went a bit out of vogue when medicine became better regulated and consisted of a stronger scientific foundation, and some of its members tended to be a bit more radical in the mid-20th century. Keep in mind too that it was "different" and the minority in the population of physicians, so that alone will always bring certain connotations upon it from the outside. Then you have some the craziness that went on between the AMA and AOA in the 60s and the whole UC-Irvine scandal and you can see how things can turn ugly, and here on these forums they get ugly sometimes. Since then its become more mainstream up to the point of opening up ACGME residencies to DO graduates in this decade and having full practice rights in many foreign nations. Both schools of thought were always trying to do whats best for the patient and community. Both have entered the modern world, MDs aren't giving you leeches anymore and I highly doubt any DO would think HLVA is going to cure you of HIV. Both are evidence based, both have essentially the same curriculum, both are held to the same standards and legal rights in the USA. Both provide a means to becoming a physician, if this is truly what you want to do. There will always be good and bad apples in both schools, no way to get around that. Both are providing a high quality of education for future physicians to serve communities here in the US in a time when the baby-boomers and post-boomers are only getting older, and our generation is going to have to take care of them.

Thanks for the post. I just started reading "The DOs" by Norman Gevitz to learn a little of the history (I'm only a few pages in.) But I excited to learn more. AT Still is quite a character!
 
Thanks for the post. I just started reading "The DOs" by Norman Gevitz to learn a little of the history (I'm only a few pages in.) But I excited to learn more. AT Still is quite a character!

I haven't read it yet. Don't know if I'll get around to it, but I'd like to this winter. My post is just my opinion, based on what I've gathered here at SDN, wikipedia (oh no!! how is that a source? 😱), and my experience of having my family doc as DO. Personally, I'm applying to both, and where I'm accepted and is the best financial/location option for me is where I'll be. I've only shadowed MDs so far, so its not like I'm a gung-ho pre-do or something, just trying to give an objective view since too often there's this pre-med bickerings that MDs and DOs I've talked to have said is BS. A recent doc I visited as a patient (she was an MD) afterwards we were talking about school and I mentioned I'll be applying to med school next year, and she asked if I've thought about osteo because in her opinion she knows its hypercompetitive and is pushing her own daughter to apply to both MD & DO since there are just so many variables in this application process, why put all your eggs in one basket?
 
Boys have penises. Girls have vaginas. They are both human.
 
You may consider OMM "stupid" but as stated in the thread, the placebo effect has a strong impact on patients. Additionally, OMM helps relieve a multitude of symptoms for patients. Calling a modality "stupid" is both disheartening and ignorant. You do not need to embrace OMM, but calling something "stupid" that has shown positive effects is not necessary.

Everyone can benefit from reading this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=408247

I didn't say OMM was stupid. I was diminishing the value of this single subject in the grand scheme of medical education.
 
I'd say one skill that's universal among MD's and Do's is the ability to use the search function.
 
I'm very interested in Loyola - if that's what you mean (know a couple of people there, and they are down to earth and love Stritch).

"Treats the whole person" - though I do agree is a cliche. I find compassion very valuable in a physician, but sometimes I feel like the osteopathic community (not neccesarily the DOs or students, but administrators and the people who create the websites for the schools) act as if compassion (person vs. disease) is their philosophy. If I go MD i plan on being just as compassionate as if I go DO - that's just an important quality in a physician (MD or DO) in my opinion.

So at this point I feel like the delineation made when one says "osteopathic philosophy" is rather thin. It seems that the main difference at this point in my mind other than the schools, students, etc. is OMM.

Can anyone chime in on OMM? Likes? Dislikes?

Yup, I was referring to Loyola. I agree about the people there--they are the main reason I chose the school 🙂. The people you surround yourself with in medical school (faculty, students, staff, etc.) have a large impact on your formation as a physician, and I couldn't imagine a better group of people than those at Loyola. (Of course, it's the perfect match for me--not necessarily for others!)

If you're still interested in Loyola when you apply, feel free to PM me if you'd like one student's opinion of the school.
 
Top