I recently read an article titled "The Paradox of Osteopathy" in The New England Journal of Medicine, Nov. 4, 1999. The article points out that although DO's are trained in osteopathic manipulation, the majority of them do not use it that often in treatment. The implication here is that DO's, for the most part, are allopaths in practice since they commonly use the same modes of treatments as do MD's. At the end of the article, the paradox is put forth: "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 and other techniques--why should its use be limited to osteopaths?" I thought this was an interesting article. Does anyone believe that 1) osteopathy ought to abandon osteopathic manipulation and hence become allopathy or 2) allopathy ought to adopt osteopathic manipulation and hence become osteopathy or 3) both branches of medicine ought to continue to exist. Please back up your choice with reasons.