Mr. Steven Salzberg looking down on O.D.s

[JaggerPlate]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Earlier, someone was asking why MDs weren't coming forward and responding to the article:

"I believe I can say something here because I’m a retired surgeon (an MD). Started out in the Army where I did surgery alongside a few DOs. That’s when I got to know them. Throughout my medical career, I’ve supervised, and worked with, many DOs. I have nothing but respect for them. I don’t know of any MDs who are antagonistic toward them for any reason. The amount of education and training on the DO side is just as grueling and gruesome, and at the end a DO has to pass the boards just like an MD. Come to think of it, I can still remember many DOs who were simply outstanding when I was an attending. They healed and saved many lives.

I kind of question the motive behind the original article, which I thought was very misleading and potentially harmful to the public. It is a bad piece of journalism and should be taken down. This whole thing about MD vs. DO is contrived. It is ancient history. It is a non-issue. It’s like asking who is a better Christian, an Anglican or a Catholic?

Regarding the term allopath, who cares? It’s just shorthand for MD schools, as in allopathic students vs. osteopathic students (perhaps because you can’t really call them MDs or DOs since they haven’t received their degrees). I never had any hearburn with being called an allopath, and the DO folks certainly didn’t seem to care when I called them osteopaths. Again, non-issue.

Steven Salzberg: You’ve stirred up a lot of trouble and wasted a lot of people’s time over nothing."

-docwest
👍

 

[ProtossCarrier]

Earlier, someone was asking why MDs weren't coming forward and responding to the article:

"I believe I can say something here because I’m a retired surgeon (an MD). Started out in the Army where I did surgery alongside a few DOs. That’s when I got to know them. Throughout my medical career, I’ve supervised, and worked with, many DOs. I have nothing but respect for them. I don’t know of any MDs who are antagonistic toward them for any reason. The amount of education and training on the DO side is just as grueling and gruesome, and at the end a DO has to pass the boards just like an MD. Come to think of it, I can still remember many DOs who were simply outstanding when I was an attending. They healed and saved many lives.

I kind of question the motive behind the original article, which I thought was very misleading and potentially harmful to the public. It is a bad piece of journalism and should be taken down. This whole thing about MD vs. DO is contrived. It is ancient history. It is a non-issue. It’s like asking who is a better Christian, an Anglican or a Catholic?

Regarding the term allopath, who cares? It’s just shorthand for MD schools, as in allopathic students vs. osteopathic students (perhaps because you can’t really call them MDs or DOs since they haven’t received their degrees). I never had any hearburn with being called an allopath, and the DO folks certainly didn’t seem to care when I called them osteopaths. Again, non-issue.

Steven Salzberg: You’ve stirred up a lot of trouble and wasted a lot of people’s time over nothing."

-docwest
👍

the MD student form is called "allopathic" forum, and believe me, DOs get offended when they get called osteopaths. How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly. SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum.

 

[Rollo]

the MD student form is called "allopathic" forum, and believe me, DOs get offended when they get called osteopaths. How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly. SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum.

No.

 

[JaggerPlate]

the MD student form is called "allopathic" forum, and believe me, DOs get offended when they get called osteopaths. How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly. SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum.

Hahaha, wait, wait ... let me see if I follow your logic here:

"How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly"

"SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" "

"and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum."

So MD just = medical school, but DO = osteopathic medical school??? Don't think so. It's either allopathic medical school and osteopathic medical school or just 'medical school' under one big umbrella. Additionally, I don't think the terms allopathic and osteopathic are offensive ... it's allopath and osteopath that are just wrong and not accurate.

 

[fourthst]

Earlier, someone was asking why MDs weren't coming forward and responding to the article:

"I believe I can say something here because I’m a retired surgeon (an MD). Started out in the Army where I did surgery alongside a few DOs. That’s when I got to know them. Throughout my medical career, I’ve supervised, and worked with, many DOs. I have nothing but respect for them. I don’t know of any MDs who are antagonistic toward them for any reason. The amount of education and training on the DO side is just as grueling and gruesome, and at the end a DO has to pass the boards just like an MD. Come to think of it, I can still remember many DOs who were simply outstanding when I was an attending. They healed and saved many lives.

I kind of question the motive behind the original article, which I thought was very misleading and potentially harmful to the public. It is a bad piece of journalism and should be taken down. This whole thing about MD vs. DO is contrived. It is ancient history. It is a non-issue. It’s like asking who is a better Christian, an Anglican or a Catholic?

Regarding the term allopath, who cares? It’s just shorthand for MD schools, as in allopathic students vs. osteopathic students (perhaps because you can’t really call them MDs or DOs since they haven’t received their degrees). I never had any hearburn with being called an allopath, and the DO folks certainly didn’t seem to care when I called them osteopaths. Again, non-issue.

Steven Salzberg: You’ve stirred up a lot of trouble and wasted a lot of people’s time over nothing."

-docwest
👍

Another one today:

I appreciate Mr. Salzburg’s clarification about our osteopathic colleagues, but I would like to go a few steps further. First, in my previous role as a neurology department chairman in a major research-oriented medical school, I have had DO graduates as residents in our training programs. Their knowledge, skill, and work ethic earned them a place among the best of the MD graduates, and they are outstanding doctors. Second, as a practicing neurologist, I have come to rely on the expertise of osteopathic physicians with expertise in manipulative medicine for treatment of patients with complex musculoskeletal pain syndromes. These specialists facilitate restoration of normal mobility in a way that my MD colleagues in orthopedics, rheumatology, and pain medicine cannot. Among DO physicians with this particular expertise are a small number who are striving to explore the scientific foundation for their practice. The efforts of these individuals should be commended, not disparaged. And their desire to teach conservative, non-pharmacologic approaches for pain management to both DOs and MDs should be encouraged. Physicians from both traditions are striving to expand the evidential basis for our interventions.
David Griesemer, MD
Director, Pediatric Neurology
Floating Hospital for Children / Tufts Medical Center
Boston, MA

 

[ProtossCarrier]

Hahaha, wait, wait ... let me see if I follow your logic here:

"How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly"

"SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" "

"and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum."

So MD just = medical school, but DO = osteopathic medical school??? Don't think so. It's either allopathic medical school and osteopathic medical school or just 'medical school' under one big umbrella. Additionally, I don't think the terms allopathic and osteopathic are offensive ... it's allopath and osteopath that are just wrong and not accurate.

let me simplify it for you with bullet points.

1. allopathic medical school = medical school, MD, or however you like to call it. Find me one MD school where it refer itself as "allopathic"

2. DO school = osteopathic medical school because of osteopathic philosophy

3. What the hell does "allopathic" even mean? No MD identify themselves as "allopathic physician" and it's just a silly, misguiding term used on SDN.

 

[JaggerPlate]

let me simplify it for you with bullet points.

1. allopathic medical school = medical school, MD, or however you like to call it. Find me one MD school where it refer itself as "allopathic"

2. DO school = osteopathic medical school because of osteopathic philosophy

3. What the hell does "allopathic" even mean? No MD identify themselves as "allopathic physician" and it's just a silly, misguiding term used on SDN.

You can say it's because of the 'philosophy' or whatever you want, but I it either needs to be one or the other: medical school = MD/DO, or allopathic medical school = MD and osteopathic medical school = DO. Additionally, I think the terms allopath and osteopath are asinine and not representative of ... well, anything really. Splitting up the forums to a point where MD was called 'medical school' and DO wasn't included in this category and called something else gives the impression that it's not medical school. You and I both know this is false. So, it's either all inclusive or identified by the terms allopathic/osteopathic.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Another one today:

I appreciate Mr. Salzburg’s clarification about our osteopathic colleagues, but I would like to go a few steps further. First, in my previous role as a neurology department chairman in a major research-oriented medical school, I have had DO graduates as residents in our training programs. Their knowledge, skill, and work ethic earned them a place among the best of the MD graduates, and they are outstanding doctors. Second, as a practicing neurologist, I have come to rely on the expertise of osteopathic physicians with expertise in manipulative medicine for treatment of patients with complex musculoskeletal pain syndromes. These specialists facilitate restoration of normal mobility in a way that my MD colleagues in orthopedics, rheumatology, and pain medicine cannot. Among DO physicians with this particular expertise are a small number who are striving to explore the scientific foundation for their practice. The efforts of these individuals should be commended, not disparaged. And their desire to teach conservative, non-pharmacologic approaches for pain management to both DOs and MDs should be encouraged. Physicians from both traditions are striving to expand the evidential basis for our interventions.
David Griesemer, MD
Director, Pediatric Neurology
Floating Hospital for Children / Tufts Medical Center
Boston, MA

Wow, very nicely said and definitely the type of MD response you would want to hear! 👍

 

[Siggy]

http://www.google.com/search?q=site...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


Well... the American Association of Medical Colleges certainly doesn't shy away from the term "allopathic."

 

[jbradley]

Idiot says he was "too harsh" on DOs, so now he's showing them a little mercy. Idiot refuses to admit he was proven flat out wrong. I don't see any formal apology. It still pisses me off that he's leaving that article on there in broad daylight as is, unchanged. Several people have asked him to take it down on grounds that patients might die if they refuse to see a DO. By the way, the guy acts like some kind of academic aristocrat or some such. Well, his father got a PhD at U of Tennessee and teaches at U of South Carolina, and he himself is at U of Maryland. How come he couldn't get a job at John Hopkins/Stanford/MIT? His Harvard/Yale education wasn't good enough, huh? LOL.

 

[ProtossCarrier]

http://www.google.com/search?q=site...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


Well... the American Association of Medical Colleges certainly doesn't shy away from the term "allopathic."

that's a shame.

 

[RetinaTazer]

interestingly, my post regarding the new ranking and MCAT scores of MD students were taken down.
here is the link of the new way of ranking medical schools:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/health/17chen.html?scp=1&sq=medical%20ranking&st=cse
Here is AAMC’s table of MCAT scores of MD students. There are 9 students with less than 14 points of MCAT and 35% of MD students have less than 29 points.
https://www.aamc.org/download/157948/data/table25-h-mcatgpa-grid-hisp-0810.pdf.pdf

 

[Dr Oops]

the MD student form is called "allopathic" forum, and believe me, DOs get offended when they get called osteopaths. How would you feel if I say you go to an "osteopathic" school? It's just very silly. SDN should really rename their "allopathic" forum to "medical student forum" and DO forum to DO medical student forum or osteopathic medical student forum.

who cares?

you can call me osetopath all you want.

 

[Antibodies]

interestingly, my post regarding the new ranking and MCAT scores of MD students were taken down.
here is the link of the new way of ranking medical schools:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/health/17chen.html?scp=1&sq=medical%20ranking&st=cse
Here is AAMC’s table of MCAT scores of MD students. There are 9 students with less than 14 points of MCAT and 35% of MD students have less than 29 points.
https://www.aamc.org/download/157948/data/table25-h-mcatgpa-grid-hisp-0810.pdf.pdf

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[Altruist]

Here's the link to the general table from the AAMC:
https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf
It's the best "what are your odds" table I've ever seen. I'll have to look to see if AACOM puts out anything similar. (EDIT: ...although even if they do, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this conversation.)

I can see why "allopathic" would annoy people. It was, after all, a moniker given to them by Hahneman, who made up homeopathy, and I'm pretty sure he meant it to be derisive. This was back in the days of the humoral theory and bleeding-as-medical treatment, though, so maybe we all just need to move on.

Osteopathic medicine, on the other hand, is properly named. It's what AT Still called what he was doing, so I can't see getting upset about being called an osteopathic physician. Osteopath... well, that might be different, given the connection to the manipulation-only people in the UK and elsewhere.

I've shifted somewhat into thinking that the biggest issue this blog post raises is that a well-educated person who researches the influenza genome (which gives him some connection to clinical medicine) had absolutely no idea what a DO is, or what we can do, apart from a loudmouth like Mercola. Yes, he should have done better research, but I wasn't impressed by, for example, the AOA President's snarky response. It might have felt good for her to write it, but it wasn't the most professional letter she could have sent. This whole thing is more of an educational issue than one of honor, and it suggests that whatever work has been done to get out the word about DO's, there's a lot left to do.

Prof. Salzberg took the post down from his personal blog, which seems like a pretty clear mea culpa. If he meant this as an insult, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done that.

 

[Dr Oops]

Here's the link to the general table from the AAMC:
https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf
It's the best "what are your odds" table I've ever seen. I'll have to look to see if AACOM puts out anything similar. (EDIT: ...although even if they do, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this conversation.)

I can see why "allopathic" would annoy people. It was, after all, a moniker given to them by Hahneman, who made up homeopathy, and I'm pretty sure he meant it to be derisive. This was back in the days of the humoral theory and bleeding-as-medical treatment, though, so maybe we all just need to move on.

Osteopathic medicine, on the other hand, is properly named. It's what AT Still called what he was doing, so I can't see getting upset about being called an osteopathic physician. Osteopath... well, that might be different, given the connection to the manipulation-only people in the UK and elsewhere.

I've shifted somewhat into thinking that the biggest issue this blog post raises is that a well-educated person who researches the influenza genome (which gives him some connection to clinical medicine) had absolutely no idea what a DO is, or what we can do, apart from a loudmouth like Mercola. Yes, he should have done better research, but I wasn't impressed by, for example, the AOA President's snarky response. It might have felt good for her to write it, but it wasn't the most professional letter she could have sent. This whole thing is more of an educational issue than one of honor, and it suggests that whatever work has been done to get out the word about DO's, there's a lot left to do.

Prof. Salzberg took the post down from his personal blog, which seems like a pretty clear mea culpa. If he meant this as an insult, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done that.

He did mean it an an insult, but the research and writing are so poor that it makes him look like an idiot. It was in own best interest to take it down. Not to mention all the people emailed forbes and such.

 

[fourthst]

I felt it was an insult, and everyone I know who read it felt the same way. It was a gratuitous, unprovoked attack upon the DO community.

Salzberg demonstrated a shocking ignorance about our healthcare system. He's completely unqualified to write about healthcare issues.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Additionally, I don't think any US trained DO should be referred to as an osteopath. It's wildly unrepresentative of what we do.

I sort of disagree on this. I understand what you mean that the word "osteopath" makes it sounds like it is just about bone disease, but at the same time Osteopathic Medicine wants to distinguish itself with a special name.

 

[RetinaTazer]

The stat references and links posted on the blog comments at Forbes were somehow removed a few hours later.

 

[Bacchus]

I sort of disagree on this. I understand what you mean that the word "osteopath" makes it sounds like it is just about bone disease, but at the same time Osteopathic Medicine wants to distinguish itself with a special name.

Osteopathic physician. Osteopathic medicine. The rest of the world uses osteopath to signify practitioners (not fully licensed physicians) who perform OMT only.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I sort of disagree on this. I understand what you mean that the word "osteopath" makes it sounds like it is just about bone disease, but at the same time Osteopathic Medicine wants to distinguish itself with a special name.

Like Bacchus said (below) I have no problem with being called an osteopathic physician, saying I practice osteopathic medicine, etc, but I just don't think the term osteopath is accurate. Especially because there are currently programs in the UK, AU, etc, where people actually become non-physician osteopaths and only practice manipulation.

Osteopathic physician. Osteopathic medicine. The rest of the world uses osteopath to signify practitioners (not fully licensed physicians) who perform OMT only.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Like Bacchus said (below) I have no problem with being called an osteopathic physician, saying I practice osteopathic medicine, etc, but I just don't think the term osteopath is accurate. Especially because there are currently programs in the UK, AU, etc, where people actually become non-physician osteopaths and only practice manipulation.

That's true. I hadn't accounted for that.

 

[Bones DO]

UPDATE:

So I don't know if anyone read the commentary section, but every post gives this guy a big 'wtf' and asks why this article is so awful, where he's pulling this from, why he's quoting A.T. Still from 1874 in an article in 2010, etc. I've decided to write my own reply in the commentary section, inform the AOA (and get their standard response in there), and also see what I can do to contact this guy directly and try to get a rebuttal put up on the forbes blogs. Don't know if anyone cares, has suggestions, would like to do the same, etc, but this just bugs me. Probably won't get on it until late this weekend or early next week though.

Thank you so much for doing this Jaggerplate! 👍👍👍

 

[wolverinepwns]

one day he'll come to the ED with a MI and one of those O.Ds will save his life! what a *****!

 

[fourthst]

Salzberg's latest statement:

http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/comment-page-3/#comments

4:50 pm on 11/01/10
Steven Salzberg Science Business

Again, see my followup post here: http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/10/29/second-thoughts-on-osteopathic-medicine/

I tried to correct my mistakes, which I admit were errors, although the comments on my second post indicate that many readers are still unhappy. In any case, I made some incorrect judgments and generalizations, and I regret doing so.

 

[Osteotastic]

The bottom line is, those of us who have moved on to practice modern evidence (real evidence not joke articles with poor research design) should be able to change our title to MD. I am sick of being lumped in with the minority of DOs. Either that or we need to change to MDO.

 

[Rollo]

The bottom line is, those of us who have moved on to practice modern evidence (real evidence not joke articles with poor research design) should be able to change our title to MD. I am sick of being lumped in with the minority of DOs. Either that or we need to change to MDO.

Or you should have went to an MD school.

 

[DD214_DOC]

Well, he apparently wrote a follow-up blog, which had a hint of remorse and correction, but also stunk of trying to reverse the tides back on DOs. This guy seems to basically read a few web pages, magazine rankings, and comments section off his own blog and spouts off the first thing that comes into his head. Pretty pathetic.

Isn't that what a blog is supposed to be?


The guy clearly didn't do his homework, but a couple of the points he makes is dead-on. Osteopathic schools DO have lower admission standards than MD schools. OMT IS a poorly-researched wishy-washy modality.

Having said that, I'm too busy learning and taking care of patients to care.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Isn't that what a blog is supposed to be?


The guy clearly didn't do his homework, but a couple of the points he makes is dead-on. Osteopathic schools DO have lower admission standards than MD schools. OMT IS a poorly-researched wishy-washy modality.

Having said that, I'm too busy learning and taking care of patients to care.

I wouldn't say anything in that article was dead on. He used quotes from 1874 to prove OMT is 'wishy-washy,' without mentioning things like the NEJM study, the recently released study by the American College of OB/GYN, any of the work coming out of the Osteo research center at Texas, etc. To add another layer of suck to this article, he used admission data from 1997 to compare entry numbers. If an actual scientific conclusion was pulled from this research/data, I'd call it far more poorly-researched and wishy-washy than the worst JAOA article out there. He threw the kitchen sink at the issue, it's not shocking that he may have grazed something that's at least debatable, but his modalities, bias, etc, are so horrid that nothing 'dead on' can be drawn from anything regarding this editorial.

 

[thepoopologist]

Isn't that what a blog is supposed to be?

A blog on blogspot maybe.

The guy clearly didn't do his homework, but a couple of the points he makes is dead-on. Osteopathic schools DO have lower admission standards than MD schools. OMT IS a poorly-researched wishy-washy modality.

Having said that, I'm too busy learning and taking care of patients to care.

If someone came up to me and insulted me in such an ignorant fashion, I would not pick out the few (questionably) valid points he made and try to make a debate out of it. No, I would absolutely do everything in my power to put him in his place, because he chose to bring up the subject in a way that completely disrespected me as a person.

Nobody who begins a discussion like that deserves to be listened to. Unfortunately for us, he writes for Forbes' Science and Technology and has a PhD and we are forced to answer him because the common layperson will come across his entry and mistake it for fact.

 

[PunkmedGirl]

Or you should have went to an MD school.

Amen!!

 

[Dr Oops]

I wouldn't say anything in that article was dead on. He used quotes from 1874 to prove OMT is 'wishy-washy,' without mentioning things like the NEJM study, the recently released study by the American College of OB/GYN, any of the work coming out of the Osteo research center at Texas, etc. To add another layer of suck to this article, he used admission data from 1997 to compare entry numbers. If an actual scientific conclusion was pulled from this research/data, I'd call it far more poorly-researched and wishy-washy than the worst JAOA article out there. He threw the kitchen sink at the issue, it's not shocking that he may have grazed something that's at least debatable, but his modalities, bias, etc, are so horrid that nothing 'dead on' can be drawn from anything regarding this editorial.

Agreed. Im surprised he ever knows what a blog is given the multiple Sources he quoted, all of which being before 2000. Not one source from earlier than 10 yrs ago. I bet his real research has the same piss poor technique

 

[TriagePreMed]

Or you should have went to an MD school.

That was on the money. And seriously, work toward making DO better if you think it can be. Don't go jumping ship because a few idiots exist.

 

[Osteotastic]

I am in Residency at an ACGME program. The letters DO are irrelevant to me in my work and practice. I learned neurology in medical school too. I actually use what I learned in neurology. The letters of my degree do not reflect this or any other specialty or modality that I learned in medical school. Why should my degree represent in its entirety a modality I practically never use. The only "Osteopathic" part of my education were those few hours a week that were taught by the faculty of my school that rely on brainwashing young or just plain naive minds into thinking we need to represent our entire profession by this one small and seldom used antiquated portion of it to justify their positions and bloated salaries. All I'm saying is, for God sakes, at least throw an M in there somewhere. I do practice Medicine after all. And some day after graduation or acceptance to med school, hopefully, so will you.

 

[Rollo]

I am in Residency at an ACGME program. The letters DO are irrelevant to me in my work and practice. I learned neurology in medical school too. I actually use what I learned in neurology. The letters of my degree do not reflect this or any other specialty or modality that I learned in medical school. Why should my degree represent in its entirety a modality I practically never use. The only "Osteopathic" part of my education were those few hours a week that were taught by the faculty of my school that rely on brainwashing young or just plain naive minds into thinking we need to represent our entire profession by this one small and seldom used antiquated portion of it to justify their positions and bloated salaries. All I'm saying is, for God sakes, at least throw an M in there somewhere. I do practice Medicine after all. And some day after graduation or acceptance to med school, hopefully, so will you.

Like I said before....you should have went to an MD school.

Don't think that I'm a 100% hardcore supporter of DO/OMM. I agree with you that there are lot of DOs who believe that the entire profession should be represented by something small and seldom used collection of techniques, most of which can and are performed by chiropractors with similar results.

And believe it or not, I also agree with you that since DO isn't exactly that different from MD that we should think about merging the two degrees and sticking with MD while offering OMM as an elective or something.

The part that I disagree with you is when you say that DO should be converted to MDO. It will only create more confusion and ignorance among the general population and, as represented by Mr. Salisbury, among other academics.

DO as a profession should go all out on hiring top public relations firms and advertise the profession to the entire nation for what it is: evidence-based medical system that has different roots than allopathic counterparts with the addition of osteopathic techniques.

 

[Postal]

DO as a profession should go all out on hiring top public relations firms and advertise the profession to the entire nation for what it is: evidence-based medical system that has different roots than allopathic counterparts with the addition of osteopathic techniques.

I was recently at a med school interview and the dean was asked what was being done to increase public awareness of the osteopathic profession. He said that he does not support spending loads of money to tell people what D.O.'s are. How many D.O.'s simply don't tell patients how they differ from M.D.'s or what a D.O. is? How many D.O.'s have signs on their practices that just says Dr. so&so and do not add the D.O. initial after his name? He went on to list other ways that D.O.'s miss out on free publicity. Basically, his point was that many D.O.'s complain that everyone is misguided about their profession yet neglect to inform patients and others about what it is that they do what being a D.O. really means.

I think I agree. I don't think money should be spent on advertising the profession. Let the results of the hard work of D.O.s speak for itself.

 

[Rollo]

I was recently at a med school interview and the dean was asked what was being done to increase public awareness of the osteopathic profession. He said that he does not support spending loads of money to tell people what D.O.'s are. How many D.O.'s simply don't tell patients how they differ from M.D.'s or what a D.O. is? How many D.O.'s have signs on their practices that just says Dr. so&so and does not add the D.O. initial after his name? He went on to list other ways that D.O.'s miss out on free publicity. Basically, his point was that many D.O.'s complain that everyone is misguided about their profession yet neglect to inform patients and others about what it is that they do what being a D.O. really means.

I think I agree. I don't think money should be spent on advertising the profession. Let the results of the hard work of D.O.s speak for itself.

So let me see if I understand his argument.

The dean, who oversees and manages the production of DOs, expects his products (practicing DOs) to advertise themselves?

That makes no sense at all from a business perspective.

If you're producing something that is different from the status quo, it is your responsibility to make sure that the consumers understand how your product is different from the status quo.

Public has to know first what and who a DO is, how they are different from, and similar to an MD. Then, they can observe and appreciate the hard work of DOs.

Simply put: if you did not know that product A is different from product B, you would not appreciate product A's unique characteristics while at the same time realizing that both products are equally effective.

And frankly, I would rather not spend any time explaining to my patients how my degree is different. I would rather spend that time doing something more productive like talk about patients' condition, see other patients, relax, etc.

 

[Dr Oops]

So let me see if I understand his argument.

The dean, who oversees and manages the production of DOs, expects his products (practicing DOs) to advertise themselves?

That makes no sense at all from a business perspective.

If you're producing something that is different from the status quo, it is your responsibility to make sure that the consumers understand how your product is different from the status quo.

Public has to know first what and who a DO is, how they are different from, and similar to an MD. Then, they can observe and appreciate the hard work of DOs.

Simply put: if you did not know that product A is different from product B, you would not appreciate product A's unique characteristics while at the same time realizing that both products are equally effective.

And frankly, I would rather not spend any time explaining to my patients how my degree is different. I would rather spend that time doing something more productive like talk about patients' condition, see other patients, relax, etc.

👍. The old days of medicine (and pretty much everything else) of where you just did a good job and that was enough are gone.

In addition to being great clinicians we need to educate the public, through advertising, word of mouth, etc.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I am in Residency at an ACGME program. The letters DO are irrelevant to me in my work and practice. I learned neurology in medical school too. I actually use what I learned in neurology. The letters of my degree do not reflect this or any other specialty or modality that I learned in medical school. Why should my degree represent in its entirety a modality I practically never use. The only "Osteopathic" part of my education were those few hours a week that were taught by the faculty of my school that rely on brainwashing young or just plain naive minds into thinking we need to represent our entire profession by this one small and seldom used antiquated portion of it to justify their positions and bloated salaries. All I'm saying is, for God sakes, at least throw an M in there somewhere. I do practice Medicine after all. And some day after graduation or acceptance to med school, hopefully, so will you.

How about DO-M???

 

[Cheshyre]

👍. The old days of medicine (and pretty much everything else) of where you just did a good job and that was enough are gone.

In addition to being great clinicians we need to educate the public, through advertising, word of mouth, etc.

I think that being too open (DO's are ________ - Find a DO today) carries the risk of coming across as.. well, trashy. I hate the radio ads for plastic surgeons and TV ads for lawyers for this very reason. Personally, I think current DO advertising is pretty bland. I understand that we don't have as much money as most MD institutions, but... come on. I'm not going to criticize because changing the sign outside of WCOMP was a good thing, but.. perhaps a graphic designer/artist of some sort should've been consulted. Or, we should've done away with the giant signpole completely. It's absurd since the new buildings on campus are GORGEOUS.

If you've never seen or heard them, the University of Michigan Health System ads are UNBELIEVABLY good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxwcizqYFMI). The production values are incredibly high - even a single page magazine on on a free airline ad looked like something out of House. Dark background, high contrast. Good looking female surgeon in scrubs leaning on a table in the OR. A blurb underneath about "I'm a cardiothoracic surgeon..." Instantaneously recognizable maize Block M logo at the bottom. Their radio ads are crazy good as well. Amazing background music - very tasteful, modern orchestral piece (same song as the video above). Suspenseful marimba. The ad begins with a patient talking about how his dad died from colon cancer and how he felt as he was diagnosed with it as well. Then, the patient talks about UMich. Music changes to deep, heroic cello and bass. Higher strings enter to give movement. Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. When I still worked at UMich, I would be like "I WANT TO WORK HERE BASED ON THIS RADIO AD ALONE!"

Yeah. Of course, their ads are for a hospital vs. a profession. So.. yeah.

 

[Rollo]

I think the ad company that makes GEICO's commercials should be hired by the AOA.

 

[Cheshyre]

I think the ad company that makes GEICO's commercials should be hired by the AOA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA

... This ad company? Hah.

My point in the last post wasn't to say that I'm some kind of media genius or anything. It's just that I'm terrified of flipping the TV on one day and seeing a DO commercial that had a vibe this gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saw-5WgysEg&feature=related

I remember seeing that one when I still lived in Michigan. A quick Google search shows that the Binder&Binder law firm is from NY.

Gughg. That cowboy hat guy kind of freaks me out.

 

[Postal]

Ugh.... I don't know. I'm just not completely sold on officially advertising the profession. I kind of feel like advertisements would take away from the prestige of the profession. Especially if it comes out tacky like those YouTube links with the cowboy lawyers.

While I agree it would be counter productive to continuously explain to patients what a D.O. is and all that, I think that the power of word of mouth is extremely powerful. Patient comes in, is treated by a great D.O., patient realizes doctor is D.O. and not M.D., patient goes and tells friends and family.

To be quite honest, I think that most Americans don't even care if they get treated by a D.O. or M.D. as long as they are treated by licensed physicians. I sort of think that the only ones who care about all this recognition are the D.O.s

 

[dermpathdoc]

Go for it Jagger!

UPDATE:

So I don't know if anyone read the commentary section, but every post gives this guy a big 'wtf' and asks why this article is so awful, where he's pulling this from, why he's quoting A.T. Still from 1874 in an article in 2010, etc. I've decided to write my own reply in the commentary section, inform the AOA (and get their standard response in there), and also see what I can do to contact this guy directly and try to get a rebuttal put up on the forbes blogs. Don't know if anyone cares, has suggestions, would like to do the same, etc, but this just bugs me. Probably won't get on it until late this weekend or early next week though.

 

[Cheshyre]

To be quite honest, I think that most Americans don't even care if they get treated by a D.O. or M.D. as long as they are treated by licensed physicians. I sort of think that the only ones who care about all this recognition are the D.O.s

Yeah. For me, that's the point.

I'm looking at this with a long-term perspective in mind. Personally, I'd like to see the profession grow. I'd like to see more DO schools attached to their own hospitals, and not only that, to hospitals known for their quality of care. I'd like to see some real competition for students between DO and MD programs. I want to see college students think hard about which profession they want to enter. It will drive both professions to be better than they already are, and it will be better for the public. How many people say that they can't find a primary care provider? Of those, how many even knew that they could search for a DO?

I don't want to see future pre-meds being nervous to enter a DO school because of the negative social stigma (for example... like this Salzberg idiocy). I don't want to log into SDN 30 years from now to see another student asking for advice because their parents don't believe that DOs actually practice medicine.

I think that an increase in positive social attention will lead not only to more patients but to more monetary resources.

Word of mouth is powerful. It seems that the profession has largely gotten to where it is today using that as its sole form of advertising. However, it's the 21st century. Information is available to anybody with an internet connection - from a computer or from a phone. With people finding themselves with less and less time to devote to any one subject, it becomes more important for advertisements to carry a solid punch, to gather hearts quickly. If we can get that, people will be inclined to learn more about the details instead of dismissing the entire profession based on something they heard about OMM being crazy. Otherwise, I worry about us being overshadowed by those who are willing to advertise.

This is all simply my opinion, and frankly, speculation. I'm not a business major, nor am I an expert in healthcare politics. I think we are distinct from MDs, but I'm still working out the finer details on what it means to be a DO (and so is everyone else). All I really, truly know is that there are DO schools out there that train some damn fine physicians. There are people who really believe in what we're doing and have made massive efforts to grow and defend the profession. When these people are gone, we'll have to take the reins. Nobody else is going to take of us.

 

[Meerkatology]

medical school is just to prepare you for residency.

quality of residency training determines quality of physician. MD or DO coming out of the same residency program is the same doctor.

heck, if a PA or NP successfully completed a medical residency, i'd call them doctors too.

too bad there are no clear rankings for residencies and all the general public sees is what med school you graduated from, instead of where your real training takes place.

 

[randomusername]

Anybody else catch this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40096673/ns/health-health_care/?gt1=43001

You'll NEVER guess where he did med school and residency at....
UC-SD and Harvard, respectively (http://www2.massgeneral.org/ortho/hand/RingCV.pdf). I just thought it "funny" since those are the types of places that Salzberg wants his docs to come from to ensure the best care possible. And yes, I realize that in most regards this guy is a BA as far as his career goes and all blame wasn't his, but still.

 

[ProtossCarrier]

Anybody else catch this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40096673/ns/health-health_care/?gt1=43001

You'll NEVER guess where he did med school and residency at....
UC-SD and Harvard, respectively (http://www2.massgeneral.org/ortho/hand/RingCV.pdf). I just thought it "funny" since those are the types of places that Salzberg wants his docs to come from to ensure the best care possible. And yes, I realize that in most regards this guy is a BA as far as his career goes and all blame wasn't his, but still.

I don't get your post. How does this have to do with his pedigree at all?

 

[randomusername]

I don't get your post. How does this have to do with his pedigree at all?

The point of it was that this doc, who is obviously a smart guy and has trained in great facilities his entire life (the kinds of places Salzberg wants his docs trained at), still made one of the biggest avoid at all costs mistakes in medicine, meaning that in spite of Salzberg's opinion, these people he so reveres are still only human and still make drastic errors.

 

[ProtossCarrier]

The point of it was that this doc, who is obviously a smart guy and has trained in great facilities his entire life (the kinds of places Salzberg wants his docs trained at), still made one of the biggest avoid at all costs mistakes in medicine, meaning that in spite of Salzberg's opinion, these people he so reveres are still only human and still make drastic errors.

everyone makes mistakes, those who had poorer training such as some newer DO school and tiny AOA programs probably make more, your point?