Separate names with a comma.
Interview Feedback: Visit Interview Feedback to view and submit interview information.
Interviewing Masterclass: Free masterclass on interviewing from SDN and Medical College of Georgia
Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - DO' started by MD Rapper, Nov 20, 2005.
Fascinating thread....truly insightful.....
Duh, they ask that question to weed out people like YOU
No loss to them, obviously.
This will be fun.. generally its not a good idea to go on here and incite people. This can only get ugly..
this smiley was made for threads like this...
Actually, the OP's thoughts are clearly written and well-thought out. If we exclude the last paragraph....I don't think he/she is trolling, just offering up some opinions.
To the OP:
Let's pretend that you're a white male in the USA, and you feel prefectly "accepting" of blacks and females in general, however sometimes you get doubtful/separatist attitudes from the black community and the feminist community that you personally do not possess towards them. I'm not saying those sentiments are valid but you need to understand the history of it, and the undeniable fact that there is still lots of prejudice against blacks and women. For you to complain to the blacks and women about their defensive attitudes would be truly insensitive and simply uneducated.
Now, you just made a similar complaint about DOs, irrespective of the history of the clashes between DOs and MDs and current prejudice that many MDs still have against DOs. Yes I also want everyone to get along but whining like you just did will not help. It sounds like you really do care about the DO profession, and I hope you have thought about what you could personally contribute to change, if you really want this world to be a better place without defensive attitudes and with fairness not just for DOs/Mds but for everyone.
The things that osteopathy has that makes it different than allopathic medicine--these aren't things that need to be hidden or skirted around in public relations brochures. These things are the crux of what osteopathy offers to both patients and providers learning medicine: an in-depth understanding of palpable anatomy and musculoskeletal pathology, a modality of treatment that engenders trust and helps build intimate relationships with patients, etc.
Like you, I applied to MD schools and DO schools, and withdrew my apps from DO programs when I was accepted to an allo school I really liked (my state school, which turned out to be much cheaper than DO)--but I would have been happy going to a DO school rather than MD-carribean, and I would have rather done that than take a year off before getting the ball rolling. I would have been proud to learn medicine either way--MD or DO.
Personally, I think the DO profession should focus more on a) doing the research on OMM that should be done, especially in today's health-care climate; b) providing more high quality DO residencies for all of its graduates, and c) making it realistically possible for motivated DO students to rock the allo boards if they happen to want to be competitive for surgery, optho, radiology, etc, etc.
We need MORE doctors in this country who are trained as healers of the mind, body and spirit. Not fewer.
Hope that helps to clarify at least another viewpoint that's out there.
Where is the search function when you need it?
Dear MD Rapper,
I will sue you for libel. "a known troll," says who?
Good luck in the MD world, where there are absolutely no chips on anyone's shoulders.
As an MS3 in a DO school, I pretty much agree w/the OP. I hate the separatist attitude of the AOA and the way people say "DOs are just much more than OMM. We treat the whole pt, blah blah blah". Its total bs b/c once you enter the clinic, you peform to "standard of care", which is generally the same regardless of the letters at the end of your name. The one exception is an OMM specialist.
Guy comes in w/CP both MDs and DOs ask the same Qs and order the same tests. Yeah some MDs have terrible bediside mannor and some DOs are great w/pts but the reverse is definatly true as well.
I agree with everything me454555 said above. I've been ranting about this for years. Actually, the AOA finally changed (very recently, I think) their motto - they nixed the "treating people, not just symptoms" b.s. and adopted "Treating Our Family And Yours" which isn't much better, but at least it doesn't promote a contentious attitude towards MDs. Again, I could rant...but the above post pretty much sums up how I feel.
What is even funnier is that a lot of the responses on this thread validate what he wrote.
okay, my response was a bit harsh, but this type of thread always goes south. and it always lead to this gang on effect where all the do bashers come out in full force.
i do agree that there is somewhat of an inferiority complex in the osteopathic community, which we should get over. we're all going to have to work alongside md's, and many md's are excellent, compassionate, patient-centered doctors. however, i don't think this attitude is the norm amongst osteopathic students or even most osteopathic physicians under the age of 50 or so.
as for the question about whether or not you applied to allopathic schools, it's actually a good question based on the fact that so many people do use osteopathic schools as a backup. however, i don't think answering truthfully is going to cause a school to turn you down -- i've been honest about applying to allopathic schools at all my interviews, and i've gotten in. as for just emphasizing the allopathic nature of their education, then why would anybody select an osteopathic school over an allopathic school? there are differences, and it's cool for people in the osteopathic community to be proud of their differences.
Yes there are differences in the SCHOOLING. Maybe it's emphsized less/differently at other DO schools, but here at Western, I'd be rich if I get a nickle for everytime a lecturer emphasized the osteopathic phillosophy, looking at the whole patient, being patient-centered..etc in every subject/organ system Such concepts are very actively incorporated. Many of my friends at MD schools haven't heard it brought up even once in their lectures. Even though those MD schools don't emphasize it, that doesn't mean their graduates can't pick it up on their own. Similarily, some DO students will never see the whole patient despite what the school has taught them. Some North Koreans could believe in capitalism, just like some Americans could believe in communism despite what their societies have taught them, but that doesn't mean there was no difference in what they were taught.
So yes, there is a difference in the education between DO and MD SCHOOLS, but in terms of the difference between two actual persons one DO and one MD, it really depends on them two.
I believe DOs should not care about what the MDs think when we talk about what we do. If we say we like our patients, that doesn't mean the MDs don't and they should not get all childish about it.
Stating facts is a little different.
Also to whoever compared the DO separatist bit to women and African-Americans your whole logic is misplaced because doing a DO is self-selection and being a woman and a minority is not..
Yes it's self-selection, but that has nothing to do with the main point(hint: history and current prejudice). Obviously you need some help in reading comprehension. Could someone help him on that?
It's really tiring to see all the posturing and knee-jerks going on in the forums. For the slightly less jaded, could we simply assume that the OP is asking a serious and legit question, and respond in kind? If you believe that the OP is simply trolling, then ignore the post and hit the 'report this post' button.
To the OP:
This article that can be found in the pre-DO FAQ I think captures exactly the problem most people have with osteopathy being very similar to allopathy in terms of diagnosis and treatment, while still trying to define itself as something more or different - unique, if you will. Interviewers are looking for an answer that either relies on pedantry or sophistry. Neither tack seems substantive.
i had mercifully forgotten that mercola was a d.o.. i don't have a lot of respect for that guy.
In my humble opinion, I dont think that the OP is trolling at all.
I am a second year medical student in an Osteopathic school. I have been to an AOA HOD meeting, an AACOM conference, two DO Days on the Hill, the Unified AOA Conference in Orlando, and two SOMA conferences since starting medical school. The AOA is a very proud organization. Many of the older members of the AOA were around when the opinion of DOs left much to be desired. Yes, the AOA likes to sport logos like "Proud to be a DO" and "Treating People... Not just Symptom." I dont think they intend to send the message that we are better than our allopathic counterparts.
In fact, at my school they encourage us to work together with allopaths and do what ALL physicians are supposed to, take care of those in need. Osteopathic students and physicians learn the same material as allopathic physicians, with the exception of OMT. I am a huge advocate of OMT and love to use it. I get good result 95% of the time when its use is indicated. I cant count how many times I have had MDs ask me about my OMT training and how they think it is "neat". Some MDs even want to learn this valuable tool for their own scope of practice.
Finally, being a good doctor is not based on where you go to school or which professional route you decide to take, DO or MD. What makes you a good physician is hard work, dedication, and the willingness to sacrifice to help those around you in need. You cant teach that at any institution, that comes from within.
I am very proud of the fact that I am going to be an Osteopathic physician, just like MD students are proud that they are going to be Allopathic physicians. I hope that I dont offend anyone with this post, but I think it is important for all physicians and pre-professional student to realize that we have to work together to be effective physicians. Just my $0.02.
The osteopathic physicians who are more committed to osteopathic manipulation tend to be more likely than their colleagues to have a fundamentalist religious orientation.
This is interesting too.
An evaluation of performance on the certifying examination of the American Board of Internal Medicine in the 1980s noted that although physicians from osteopathic medical schools did not do as well as those from allopathic programs, overall they "did well" and could be an "untapped reservoir of talented physicians" for internal medicine.
25 years later, does this statement still hold. I hope that DO grads are now more at par to allop grads.
And if there is value in therapy that is uniquely osteopathic -- that is, based on osteopathic manipulation or other techniques -- why should its use be limited to osteopaths?
Immm Bananas.. so true
See I didnt say anything rude to you yet many DOs are so sensitive about this subject. Look at the 2nd half of what you wrote and tell me if that was called for. In the end I feel that since this is self selected the comparison is moot. Going into the DO field you should realize that these barriers are there and since the doctors who started the field wanted a primary tilt thats what you get. Way more DOs go into FP, IM and Peds. After all I dont know if I would want my ophtho or ortho doc "treating all of me". Let them stick to the parts they are trained in. Since it is obvious many of you cant have this discussion like adults (this is PRE-DO) I wont be back. Good riddance to these topics. Like so many wise MD and DOs before who chose to avoid this subject I will also in the future. Good luck with your choices. I hope you realize the limitations of your choice even though I dont necessarily agree that things should be that way.
my hunch is that the first statement about osteopathic physicians not doing as well was referring to the lower usmle board scores of osteopathic residency candidates. if so, it's still true. however, it's probably easier now to match in im than it was 20 years ago because so many do's have done it. otherwise, how could you measure candidates not doing as well -- it certainly wouldn't be objective.
as for the second quote, osteopathic manipulation is no longer limited just to ostepathic physicians. one of osucom's omm professors in an md who surprisingly enough does research in cranial therapy. harvard has a cme program where md's can learn omm, and my guess is that more is to come in that area. this is all positive because it can lead to more respect for omm and for the osteopathic profession.
This is a great thread. I really like osteopathic medicine (although some of the individual schools can be a little kooky) and think it's more of a fit to my personality. The only downside I have found thus far, however, is the "chip on the shoulder" attitude that seems pervasive in the profession, as the OP pointed out. The knee-jerk reactions to any criticism of the profession is unnervingly similar to religious fundamentalist reactions to any criticism of their beliefs.
Sometimes it seems that osteopathy is almost a religion to some people, especially when many aren't open to ideas or research that may contradict the basis of the profession (or their beliefs). I really do think a lot of the supposed bias and descrimination is internal.
So what is it with these threads? What is with the incessant need for non osteopaths to point out what they think is wrong with our profession?
I've got to admit that I wonder about this one, too. It sort of feels like me going to a Roman Catholic discussion board and posting about why I'm ex-catholic. Discussion's good and all, but these threads always bring out people with very strong anti-osteopathic sentiments, which doesn't seem appropriate for a pre-osteo support forum.
To the OP:
I suspect your post is genuine, as it appears well though out and organized. If not, it doesn't really matter anyway - I just wanted to give my opinion on this matter. I agree with a lot of what you have said in some respects; however, Im hoping that the chip on the shoulder opinion was more a generalization directed toward the AOA, and not individuals per se. Most of the pre-DO/DO folks on these forums for the most-part seem to be rather down to earth and caring folks, in my opinion. I also suspect that most of the "chip on shoulder" attitudes that may sometimes be portrayed by individuals are more likely cases of a triggered self-defense mechanism, rather than sincere self-righteousness. (These debates on the SDN forums have become ad nausea and tend to touch people off quickly).
As far as the AOA goes yes, I do think that the AOA leadership should probably refresh/update themselves soon - this does weigh heavily on my mind as I will be preparing to apply to school soon (both MD and DO). But then again, they have not only kept the profession alive, it is in fact growing at a decent rate. (Maybe whatever they're doing, although it doesn't always appear beneficial, is working). I will agree that it does indeed seem that the AOA leadership's practices and the way in which they portray the profession are questionable at times. However, I certainly don't think their sole purpose in life is to make DOs/DO students live's miserable, and I suspect that a lot of the problems with the "chip on shoulder" attitude sometimes perceived stems from the identity crisis that the profession is undergoing. Loyalists and separatists are living under the same roof. Stressing the similarities between DOs and MDs is great on one hand because it helps to add validity to the profession to "prove" that DOs are "real" doctors, but is also not good in another respect - because if DOs are not unique, then we are back at the same old merger question. I think the leaders are tyring to maintain the uniqueness of the DO profession to continue its existance, but are having a more and more difficult time as the two philosophies have encroached on each other.
There are some people who genuinely believe in the osteopathic model. Keeping these schools open gives these people a chance to embrace this philosophy. For those who are not die-hard, and are willing to accept either approach I say why not? It may simply be that the DO profession has survived simply because it can. The schools are turning out a good product and supplying the population with fully capable physicians. Attending an osteopathic school, like its allopathic brethren, will provide you with the necessary education and tools to become a capable and productive physician, in order to help people with their health problems. (I think this fact is too often overlooked on these forums when caught in the arguments over what are really trivial issues in the big picture). Sorry, I believe I have forgotten where I was going here (...have no idea where that all came from). Anyway to sum this up - I think many people, like myself, may recognize some the downfalls. But the issues certainly aren't big enough to dissuade them from pursuing the DO approach. (Nothing in life is perfect, there are most-certainly many aspects of the MD model that are similarly unappealing). I am glad, feeling the way you do, that you withdrew your DO applications - as you probably would not have been happy with your choice. Good Luck to you.
Two paths to the same goal.
I think the problem here is what constitutes a pre - let's call it a pro - osteopathy forum. I think that a pro-osteopathic medicine forum is a pro-DO forum, not a pro-OMM forum and not a pro-OMT forum. Manipulative medicine is something that 90% of DOs in the field do not practice. The strides that osteopathy has made have been due to the incorporation of allopathic treatment modalities, and not because we insist on pushing the 120 year old ideas of A.T. Still. The DOs who wish to specialize in OMT should do so and enjoy their practice but leave us heretics alone.
Frankly, any merger at this point would be conducted under terms much more favorable than those which were set forth in California. Perhaps a merger isn't such a bad idea after all.
"The paradox is this: if osteopathy has become the functional equivalent of allopathy, what is the justification for its continued existence? And if there is value in therapy that is uniquely osteopathic -- that is, based on osteopathic manipulation or other techniques -- why should its use be limited to osteopaths?"
How could anyone not agree with that?[/QUOTE]
Great thought. I am currently very interested in applying to osteopathic schoosl, and this one issue is my only reservation to going the D.O route. Can anyone reubut or comment further? Why is the distinction necessary if the curriculum is largely the same, and if OMM is an effective treatment, why is it only used by (maybe) 5% of all medical practitioners? Thanks for the post, and I look forward to any other viewpoints on this.
I agree with this.
I'm going to guess it's for the same reasons baptists, methodists, lutherans, etc. don't merge all together and become one faith. They think their way is better, even though most of it is based on the original. Only very subtle differences separate DOs and MDs, and the line is very blurry.
It really has more to do with politics and business. The private DO schools make a lot of money for their owners, one reason why you are seeing and will continue to see ridiculous expansion of colleges. If they didn't fight for their, "uniqueness", they would have no reason to continue to exist. If they merged, they would be governed by the same body that governs MD schools, which I believe places limits on class sizes and the construction and chartering of new schools.
The market of students who may not be able to get into DO school is a HUGE market, one that is willing to shell out lots of money. What incentive is there to shut the door on them?
First off Please no flaming! This thread is going very well.
In my opinion -- Osteopathic and Allopathic medicine may be very alike today. However, in the past it was very much different. A 100+ years ago mind, body, & spirit approach was very radical and unique. A.T. Still knew that traditional approach to medicine didn't work very well so he developed a knew methodology. He incorpated his traditional background as a MD along with other forms of medicine to come up with something that helped his patients. So in retrospect we are a unique type of MD with the title of DO.
Modern medicine has come to discover a lot of what Still was promoting a 140 years ago. So to answer someones question about combining the two degrees -- I am all for it as long as we use something other than DO or MD. I do not want to be assimiliated into the MD world just because allopathic medicine decided to be more like us. And yes I mean more like Osteopaths. We've always been a unique type of MD and now modern medicine is leaning towards our unique approach and modalities.
Modern medicine has taken a lot from Osteopathic medicine -- just look at Physical Therapy, PM&R, and the holistic approach wich many MDs use.
As far as DO schools being a fall back option because they couldn't get into a MD program -- I believe you should choose DO only if its the right fit for you. I don't think it should be used as a fall back option, however if your considering it as a last resort than you must not be anti-DO and I will be happy to have you as my future osteopathic colleague regardless if you believe in OMT or not.
Reminder to Die Hard Allopaths: This is a osteopathic forum so please do not come in here causing hatred. You don't see osteopaths talking hatred in the Allopaths forum so please don't bring it here. You too would get defensive if we did it to you.
These statements are my opinion and are not meant to offend or incite flaming. Please keep this thread positive and productive.
Sorry for the long post
I completely agree with everything! It makes absolutely no sense for DOs to exist. We should just be absorbed by MDs.
It also doesn't make sense for Harley-Davidson to exist. They're a smaller company and produce very few motorcycles compared to Honda. Besides, Hondas and Harleys are the same: two wheels, an engine, etc. The motorcycles do the exact same thing. Why have different models? There should just be a single company producing a single model bike, period.
Please don't think I am criticizing DO's... I think that it is a problem that some DO's will in one breath say "we're the same as MD's" and in the next breath say (and I have literally heard this several times from DO students I invited to speak to my old pre-med organization) "we're better than MD's because all they want to do is write prescriptions and treat symptoms, not patients". I don't think you can be "the same" and "better". I think attitudes/statements like that reinforce an unneccesary divide between DO's and MD's. I think the divide itself is mostly propagated by MD's, but that when DO's make statements like that (which I equate to mean you're a bad doctor since any good doctor does not treat their patients like a paycheck), it only makes matters worse. I think OMM might be a useful tool, but that DO's are essentially the same as MD's with an extra tool to help their patients and that although it might be part of the DO philosophy to treat patients and not symptoms, any good MD does the same thing (so woohoo for the AOA getting rid of that slogan). I've been told (from DO students) that MD's never touch their patients (not true) and just want to write a prescription and kick them out the door (true of bad MD's, but I suspect there are bad DO's out there that do the same thing).
MD's do stupid crap too "We're better than DO's because you need a higher MCAT score to get in allopathic schools" (yeah, and I really care about your SAT score too, buddy). I think attitudes like that are a way for a below average MD student or phsycian to justifying why they are better than someone else, when if they really wanted to be better than someone else (DO or MD), they would focus on being a better doctor. Past accomplishments (your undergrad GPA or MCAT score) don't mean much. What matters is if you're a good doctor today. (Note: I know not all DO's had lower MCAT scores, I'm just illustrating the stupid MD mentality on the issue).
I guess the point is, MD's don't want to hear that they are inferior because MD's care more about symptoms than patients and DO's don't want to hear they are inferior because it's "easier" to get get into a DO school. Both are not necessarily true and both draw an unneccesary line between DO and MD that I don't think should exist. I'm not saying you should eliminate the DO for MD because I do think there are small differences, but that it's more like getting a cupcake with chocolate icing and another one with vanilla icing. They are both yummy, accomplish the same thing, but have subtle diffences (but most people would be happy to be given either cupcake). Perhaps I'm just hungry and should go have a cupcake?
Who eats cupcakes on Thanksgiving?
Go have some pumpkin pie. I just did...
Its importance to point out the differences, IMO. Once I get my D.O. degree, I will proudly wear it and point out the differences and similarities to my patients. I personally believe in OMT and will be proud to be in a profession that uses it. Pointing out differences is not always a bad thing.
Well said!! I can't agree more!
I think you've got the munchies...
Thanks USArmyDoc and jbone. I'm glad my point made sense
OSUdoc and OnMyWayThere, I'm stuck at school alone this Thanksgiving and I can't cook to save my life, so I guess I had food on my mind all day
You should learn to cook. It's a good way to impress men.