Osteopath in forensics?

[Joob]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm an osteopathic student and have been interested in psychiatry since I started. I only recently started looking into fellowships and was wondering if it would make any sense to do a forensic psych fellowship. If I had to testify in court would having D.O. after my name take away from my expertise because of the stigma against osteopathy?

 

[Sneezing]

The stigma you speak of begins with you. Take some pride in your degree. Make your credentials stand out so that if any ignorant fool questions it, you can illustrate the flaws in their beliefs. If some one told you no, a DO will have no chance at a forensic career would you believe them? Grab your pride, degree, and knowledge and manipulate your career into success.

 

[ArkansasRanger]

I'm an osteopathic student and have been interested in psychiatry since I started. I only recently started looking into fellowships and was wondering if it would make any sense to do a forensic psych fellowship. If I had to testify in court would having D.O. after my name take away from my expertise because of the stigma against osteopathy?

For court, your degree wouldn't be so relevant as would your license. Go to court more and watch how things are done. You'll find it's almost 180 to what you see on tv. I love going to first appearances and trials even more so being on the witness stand against a pro se defendant.

 

[whopper]

I agree with the above--sorta.

Here's where I got to say some uninspirational, though real things.

Several superficial things can be presented in court that can make an expert witness look better in court.

A D.O. degree can make an expert witness look worse. A study was done and it turned out that D.O.s and foreign medical graduates will have less credibility with juries.

By the way, I am a foreign medical graduate, I'm not trying to browbeat you.

Graduating from U. Mass which has one of the best forensics programs will not look as good as a program from a name brand institution that may not be as good. Hey, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. U. Mass is headed by one of the top forensic directors in the country and it has solid training. There are a few Ivy League forensics fellowships which are no where near as good as the U. Mass program. To the laymen in the jury, the Ivy League program may sound more impressive because of the name-brand.

Even Phil Resnick recommends that if you're an expert witness from an Ivy League, wear your university tie, and make it very apparent, and he's not in an Ivy League program (though heads one of the best programs out there.)

That said, the bulk of your credibility won't be just on the D.O. It's going to be on the presentation you give and several other credentials. I would not let it hold you back if you really want to go into forensics.

Also most doctors will not work in solely in front of juries. Most court cases are only in front of judges. With consistent and high quality work, you will develop a good reputation among judges, lawyers and other doctors. This is far more important than the stigma the D.O. attaches. By the way, the D.O. title IMHO doesn't mean any less. I've seen far too many good D.O.s and far too many bad M.D.s to think there's any validity in judging someone based on that degree.

 

[NJWxMan]

I'm a DO and am going full throttle into Forensics. I was interviewed by some of the biggest names in forensics while I was on my interviews. Numerous said that it is actually an ADVANTAGE. Why? A) If you allowed the jury to ask each psychiatrist one question, 99% would ask "Since when did MD's begin practicing psychiatry?" The public is clueless folks. B) Osteopathic principles state that the body is a whole and that the mind, body, and spirit are one as opposed to system based practice of allopathics. From what I've heard, the "mind" part is a big positive when brought up in court. C)All osteopathic physicians are, by definition, US trained; again, another positive. D) Vast majority can state, without being false, that they do in fact have more training that their allopathic counterparts (1 yr required internship that many do part take in prior to 4 yrs of psych. residency.) I hate to say it, but the DO inferiority ideal is getting old. I'm just finishing up in my last month of medicine, and I have been begged. Yes, begged, to switch into IM or Neuro. My evaluations put majority of my MD peers to shame. If you work you as* off, build a name in a specific area in Forensics, no one will be able to kick you to the ground. There are numerous DO's in Forensics out there that are doing very, very well that I know of.

 

[whopper]

Do you know where you want to do fellowship?

 

[sonofthesouth]

Whopper makes a good point. Just to reinfororce what most everyone else said, my anecdotal input is that I know of a few DOs in forensic psychiatry. All of them are doing well. However, none of them have this "extra year" of training that NJWxMan speaks of.

 

[monelkub]

However, none of them have this "extra year" of training that NJWxMan speaks of.

It used to be mandatory to do an "Osteopathic Intern Year" but that is no longer, it was voted away by the AOA. The catch is if you ever want to be a Dean of an Osteopathic Medical School or an Osteopathic ACOGME Program Director it is required that you have completed the first year at an ACOGME program prior to any ACGME program. Otherwise it makes no difference. I know many DO's that are forensic trained and have not heard anything negative.

 

[Manicsleep]

The DO degree may make you look worse but not by much.
According to Mr. Burns (phil resnick) a lawyer is going to use whatever they can to make you look bad. They will make you explain the DO degree and how it is different from an MD if they feel it is to their advantage in court.

However, there are many opportunities to do forensics work that are not high profile court related. So you just have to decide how much this is going to affect you and how you want to use your training.

If you want to be the next resnick/applebaum/scott/guthiel then it is going to be difficult but maybe you will be a trailblazer.

 

[colleezfascia]

After being grilled by the lawyer on your credentials, you can then proceed to remind the lawyer that anyone with a college degree can get into law school in the U.S. Of course, it would most likely not be appreciated.

 

[whopper]

True, though in general, it's good not to exchange barbs. In general, it diminishes your credibility. In general if a lawyer tries to make you look bad, just go with the flow. It can actually be thrown back in the lawyer's face making him or her look like a bully, while it makes you look humble.

A lawyer could bring up your FMG degree or D.O. Just as well as your lawyer on recross could bring up several other aspects of your C.V. that make you look impressive. A D.O. is just the tip of the iceberg of what could be said about the doctor.

Let's say for example we have a D.O. where the lawyer attempted to downgrade his degree. His lawyer on recross could bring up several other things...e.g.

"Doctor, is there any official industry standard that a D.O. is somehow worse than an M.D.?"

"Is it true that D.O.s have virtually the same medical rights and responsibilities concerning their license to practice medicine?"

"D.O.s get additional training over the typical M.D. curriculum. Can you explain that to us in more detail?"

Or, if the D.O. has some other credentials that are impressive, these too can be brought up.

"Doctor, you served as chief resident. Were you chosen for this position over several of your colleagues that are M.D.s?"