QUESTION FOR DO STUDENTS and beyond

[drdave2be]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I want to be an osteopathic physician b/c I fully believe in Dr. Still's philosophy (based on what I've read). I am excited about OMM/OMT and the emphasis on musculoskeletal.

I worked as a personal trainer in a medically-supervised facility for weight mgt, primarily with clients who had mild to moderate musculoskeletal limitations and have shadowed PTs for >500 hours. I am interested in sports med through FP or PM&R. (btw, I am legit - not a meathead trainer who pushes supplements, but a dedicated student who has fulfilled all pre-reqs and beyond for med school with a real passion for rehab/prevention).

My QUESTION:

1) For students: in light of the 'holistic' approach to understanding medicine, how much emphasis is placed on relating back to the health of the ms system in your curriculum? Furthermore, what's OMM training like?

2) For docs: is OMM accepted where you practice? Do you use it? Do you believe in it? How do you incorporate Dr. Still's intent into your practice?

Thanks in advance for all of your responses!

 

[Eudjinn]

Sorry to rain on the parade a bit, but the "philosophy" of which you speak of sounds nice in the brochure, but don't expect some magical approach to viewing your patients that is any different than that of any other good physician.

Medicine is medicine and you will be learning good, up to date medicine at MD or DO schools. Yes, most DO schools will probably try to incorporate more "this is all connected and this is all related to MSK" stuff, which you may or may not like (I think most of us start out really into the "philosophy" and learning OMM, but a good chunk of people eventually dislike OMM).

You seem like you might be one of those who actually like OMM and will incorporate it into your practice, but only some miniscule amount of DO's actually practice OMM.

We all say we like the "holistic" approach to get into DO school, but I think it's silly because by doing so we imply that MD's look at "just symptoms, not patients," which is totally bogus.

 

[WDeagle]

Its all what you make of it. Some schools are known to be more "osteopathic" than others. Some have really strong OMT training while others may not be as good. There are schools that really emphasize the philosophy and train you to be well-rounded physicians and others that dont emphasize the philosophy as much. However, for someone who is planning on going into sports med or PM&R having good OMT training is a definate plus.

 

[Chocolate Bear]

The older the school, the more they usually have osteopathic roots. Try ATSU-KCOM, CCOM, DMU-COM, KCUMB, MSU-COM, and PCOM. Of course I'm speaking in generalities here, and I've read at least one review of KCUMB and DMU that didn't exactly brag about their OMM departments.

There are another five or so schools that were established in the 70's, besides MSU, that might also have strong ties to the DO philosophy.

As stated above, your education won't be tremendously different from most MD schools, but I think you're aware of this and are just wondering which schools carry an underlying tone throughout the curriculum.

 

[Bleurberry]

I want to be an osteopathic physician b/c I fully believe in Dr. Still's philosophy (based on what I've read). I am excited about OMM/OMT and the emphasis on musculoskeletal.

I worked as a personal trainer in a medically-supervised facility for weight mgt, primarily with clients who had mild to moderate musculoskeletal limitations and have shadowed PTs for >500 hours. I am interested in sports med through FP or PM&R. (btw, I am legit - not a meathead trainer who pushes supplements, but a dedicated student who has fulfilled all pre-reqs and beyond for med school with a real passion for rehab/prevention).

My QUESTION:

1) For students: in light of the 'holistic' approach to understanding medicine, how much emphasis is placed on relating back to the health of the ms system in your curriculum? Furthermore, what's OMM training like?

2) For docs: is OMM accepted where you practice? Do you use it? Do you believe in it? How do you incorporate Dr. Still's intent into your practice?

Thanks in advance for all of your responses!

Interesting post. I'm pre-med too, but what I've gathered is it's what you make of it. If you apply yourself after hours, you can pick up quite a bit. If you do a fellowship in OMM during med school, so much the more. But Still himself said it takes like 10 years to really get good at OMM, and I take him at his word; I don't think developing the sensitivity for it is learned in a semester. I think that's why it runs hot and cold with some students. So bottom line; if you're interested in incorporating OMM in a PM&R style practice one day, and I am as well, then you want to take a long view. Pick it up in school, but then perhaps set your sights on a PM&R residency program that has an OMM component, if not doing a straight up OMM/NMM residency or OMM/FP.

 

[Apterous]

I want to be an osteopathic physician b/c I fully believe in Dr. Still's philosophy (based on what I've read).

That is one reason that really draws me to Osteopathy too, but I also feel that if nothing else, you have extra tools at your disposal than an M.D. would have when seeing patients. But I am still iny undergrad so I may be totally off.🙄

 

[spicedmanna]

I'm not trying to be crass, but I'm really curious what you guys think in terms of Osteopathic philosophy that isn't already covered and/or accepted as a whole in the approach of modern medicine as we know it. Is there something really unique here that you know about that I don't? Having worked with folks on both fronts, I'd have to say that attitude and approach is probably based more on the individual than where he or she went to school. I see this "osteopathic philosophy" thing thrown around a lot and I'm just really curious about what exactly differentiates it from the practice of modern medicine.

In terms of OMT, I do think it can be a good and effective tool to have in one's tool belt. I see myself using it mostly on an adjunctive basis, but there are definitely areas where it can be quite effective and even considered first-line treatment, such as with musculoskeletal complaints.

 

[drdave2be]

Sorry to rain on the parade a bit, but the "philosophy" of which you speak of sounds nice in the brochure, but don't expect some magical approach to viewing your patients that is any different than that of any other good physician.

Medicine is medicine and you will be learning good, up to date medicine at MD or DO schools. Yes, most DO schools will probably try to incorporate more "this is all connected and this is all related to MSK" stuff, which you may or may not like (I think most of us start out really into the "philosophy" and learning OMM, but a good chunk of people eventually dislike OMM).

Point well stated! I agree with you here - it's your following point which is slightly depressing:

You seem like you might be one of those who actually like OMM and will incorporate it into your practice, but only some miniscule amount of DO's actually practice OMM.

We all say we like the "holistic" approach to get into DO school, but I think it's silly because by doing so we imply that MD's look at "just symptoms, not patients," which is totally bogus.

I agree with you that DOs and MDs both receive training that allow them to develop all of the tools at their disposal for efffective practice. There is, however, a recurring theme in the threads that discuss OMM that makes me ask: ok, so why DO? Why not MD? Why are people even applying to DO programs? Is it bc the requirements are more lax vs MD admission? Or is it bc people really want to be rural physicians or serving the underserved. Or is it bc prospective DO students truly believe in the DO philosophy? I'm sure the answer is a combination of the above ingredients. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe that DOs possess some "magic power" that allows them to heal all of their patient's ailments with OMM - far from it. I am simply curious why the theme persists as Chocolate Bear put it - "The older the school, the more they usually have osteopathic roots." What about the current schools? C'mon - why are they DO schools? Maybe I am making something out of nothing, however, I do feel that I have a valid point here. Maybe someone can help me to elaborate?

I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here - I respect each of you. I really think that this could turn into a very interesting discussion!

It would be great to hear from resident's, fellows, and attending DOs on the matter.

 

[spicedmanna]

I am simply curious why the theme persists as Chocolate Bear put it - "The older the school, the more they usually have osteopathic roots." What about the current schools? C'mon - why are they DO schools? Maybe I am making something out of nothing, however, I do feel that I have a valid point here. Maybe someone can help me to elaborate?

Well, I don't necessarily agree completely with CB's statement. Where it's true is that the older schools (and we are probably talking about the original ones) are pretty well-established and they have a tradition of education behind them. There's a legacy (which includes older, tenured professors), which can be quite compelling in terms of direction and even defining. The newer ones don't necessarily have such a foundation, or legacy. Where his statement is not true, though, is that many of these new schools are actually started by people who attended, were professors or administrators at, the older, more established schools, so naturally, you have carry-over. Nevertheless, it's also true that new schools may not be bound by tradition and/or are not necessarily limited by legacy, so they may have more freedom to adapt to what is more appropriate, or better for the times; in other words, they have a greater flexibility or freedom to innovate and experiment beyond what is considered traditional. Of course, these are vast generalizations, but we are generalizing here anyway.

Basically, though, having gone to a national conference or two, I'd have to say that most schools are more alike than different. It's basically medical school and that's something you need to keep in mind. All of them cover what the AOA considers necessary to make an osteopathic physician. No matter where you attend, as was already stated, it's what you make of it and what you want to personally emphasize.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

You seem like you might be one of those who actually like OMM and will incorporate it into your practice, but only some miniscule amount of DO's actually practice OMM.

We all say we like the "holistic" approach to get into DO school, but I think it's silly because by doing so we imply that MD's look at "just symptoms, not patients," which is totally bogus.

I agree with you that DOs and MDs both receive training that allow them to develop all of the tools at their disposal for efffective practice. There is, however, a recurring theme in the threads that discuss OMM that makes me ask: ok, so why DO? Why not MD? Why are people even applying to DO programs? Is it bc the requirements are more lax vs MD admission? Or is it bc people really want to be rural physicians or serving the underserved. Or is it bc prospective DO students truly believe in the DO philosophy? I'm sure the answer is a combination of the above ingredients. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe that DOs possess some "magic power" that allows them to heal all of their patient's ailments with OMM - far from it. I am simply curious why the theme persists as Chocolate Bear put it - "The older the school, the more they usually have osteopathic roots." What about the current schools? C'mon - why are they DO schools? Maybe I am making something out of nothing, however, I do feel that I have a valid point here. Maybe someone can help me to elaborate?

I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here - I respect each of you. I really think that this could turn into a very interesting discussion!

It would be great to hear from resident's, fellows, and attending DOs on the matter.

You're asking a good set of questions. Currently, there aren't really a whole lot of differences between the way DOs and MDs practice. The degree to which the two divisions have converged has even led some to argue that the MD/DO degrees should be merged. Granted, that's a whole other argument with it's own set of pros and cons but it illustrates how much the line between the two professions has been blurred. In fact, many DO students choose ACGME (aka MD) residencies because they're percieved to provide stronger graduate medical education and better job prospects in the long run.

To make a long story short, don't think of yourself "becoming a DO" so much as you think of yourself as becoming a physician. 🙂

 

[Chocolate Bear]

I agree with what Spiced has said and should clarify that I was mostly speaking of the various differences I observed/perceived between some older vs. some new schools, with respect to OMM and its teaching and use. I noticed that older schools, in general, offered more OMM support/faculty, had more (or ANY) OMM fellowship positions, and sometimes had affiliations with local DO hospitals/residency programs.

This is why I said "stronger osteopathic roots." I didn't mean to imply that you would see a separate philosophy being taught at these places, but rather OMM seemed to be better supported and perhaps integrated into the curriculum (clinical integration into the basic science courses).

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Why are people even applying to DO programs?

Many, many reasons, all of which are represented by different members of this forum.

Is it bc the requirements are more lax vs MD admission?

This is a very popular reason, yes.

Or is it bc people really want to be rural physicians or serving the underserved.

For some people, this is the case. But this is the motivation for many people just to go into medicine, in general, not necessarily osteopathic medicine.

Or is it bc prospective DO students truly believe in the DO philosophy?

This happens too, but if you poll enough MD and DO students about their curriculum, you'll find a lot less difference than you thought you would on the first day you went to the AOA website and read what a DO was. 😉😉

I am simply curious why the theme persists as Chocolate Bear put it - "The older the school, the more they usually have osteopathic roots." What about the current schools? C'mon - why are they DO schools?

Perhaps because it's easier to fund a DO school than an MD school. DO schools can self-fund via tuition, whereas MD schools must fund themselves via other means, as well. This helps keep MD schools' tuition in check (somewhat) and discourages their admittance of too many applicants for the financial gain of increased tuition revenue.

A. Finances

ER-2 The present and anticipated financial resources of a medical school must be adequate to sustain a sound program of medical education and to accomplish other institutional goals.

The costs of conducting an accredited program leading to the M.D. degree should be supported from diverse sources, such as income from tuition, endowments, earnings by the faculty, support from the parent university, annual gifts, grants from organizations and individuals, and appropriations by government. Evidence for compliance with this standard will include documentation of adequate financial reserves to maintain the educational program in the event of unexpected revenue losses, and demonstration of effective fiscal management of the medical school budget.

ER-3 Pressure for institutional self-financing must not compromise the educational mission of the medical school nor cause it to enroll more students than its total resources can accommodate.

Reliance on student tuition should not be so great that the quality of the program is compromised by the need to enroll or retain inappropriate numbers of students or students whose qualifications are substandard.

....

MS-24 Medical schools should have mechanisms in place to minimize the impact of direct educational expenses on student indebtedness.

The LCME considers average student debt, current and the trend over the past several years; total number of students with scholarship support and average support per student; percentage of total financial need supported by institutional and external grants/scholarships, and the presence of activities at the school or university levels to enhance scholarship support as key indicators in the assessment of compliance with this standard. In addition, the LCME will consider the entire range of other activities that a school could engage in, such as limiting tuition increases and/or supporting students in acquiring external financial aid.

Source: http://www.lcme.org/functions2008jun.pdf

The Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA) has none of the above stipulations or guidelines.

Source: http://www.osteopathic.org/pdf/SB03-Standards of Accreditation July 2008.pdf

Since we all know how the bottom line is usually the decision-maker in our world, it seems like a very short logical step to posit that founders of recent, new Osteopathic medical schools may have been taking the path of least resistance, rather than proudly upholding the legacy of Osteopathic medicine or doing some other noble deed.

 

[drdave2be]

Before I respond, please make a note to check out the latest thread: "That Thing you D.O. (FYI)" - IMO, it covers what I was originally trying to articulate.

Ok, after reading the above thread - "That Thing you D.O.", I am beginning to see (thanks to CB and Spiced Manna) that as a pre-med, my idealistic views are naive. Of course it is my hope that the DO philosophy (which portrays elements of 'holisitic medicine', 'patient's ability to heal themselves', 'treat the patient as a whole system' vs. etc..) rings true when attending DO school - that hope is collective amongst all us DO hopefulls, isn't it?

I like the theme 'you are what you make of it'. I for one, aspire to be an osteopathic physician, and as it stands right now, an IDEALSTIC one. What does that mean? It means that I want to get educated in the principles of modern medicine and attempt to master OMM beyond school so that I can apply these teachings to help people get well. Furthermore, it means that I will do my best to remind myself to look at osteopathic medicine via integrating the principles that Dr. Still intended.

I agree highly with Spicedmanna - "good physicians" practice modern medicine. I also agree that there is no "magic" difference between DOs and MDs. I do beleive, however, in the 'DO philosophy'.

For all you DO hopefulls out there, don't stop believing... life is what you make of it👍

 

[Pony46]

Before I respond, please make a note to check out the latest thread: "That Thing you D.O. (FYI)" - IMO, it covers what I was originally trying to articulate.

Ok, after reading the above thread - "That Thing you D.O.", I am beginning to see (thanks to CB and Spiced Manna) that as a pre-med, my idealistic views are naive. Of course it is my hope that the DO philosophy (which portrays elements of 'holisitic medicine', 'patient's ability to heal themselves', 'treat the patient as a whole system' vs. etc..) rings true when attending DO school - that hope is collective amongst all us DO hopefulls, isn't it?

I like the theme 'you are what you make of it'. I for one, aspire to be an osteopathic physician, and as it stands right now, an IDEALSTIC one. What does that mean? It means that I want to get educated in the principles of modern medicine and attempt to master OMM beyond school so that I can apply these teachings to help people get well. Furthermore, it means that I will do my best to remind myself to look at osteopathic medicine via integrating the principles that Dr. Still intended.

I agree highly with Spicedmanna - "good physicians" practice modern medicine. I also agree that there is no "magic" difference between DOs and MDs. I do beleive, however, in the 'DO philosophy'.

For all you DO hopefulls out there, don't stop believing... life is what you make of it👍

I like the way you think & your spirit or 'idealism' - I feel the same way.

🙂🙂

 

[Boner]

Ok, after reading the above thread - "That Thing you D.O.", I am beginning to see (thanks to CB and Spiced Manna) that as a pre-med, my idealistic views are naive. Of course it is my hope that the DO philosophy (which portrays elements of 'holisitic medicine', 'patient's ability to heal themselves', 'treat the patient as a whole system' vs. etc..) rings true when attending DO school - that hope is collective amongst all us DO hopefulls, isn't it?

I like the theme 'you are what you make of it'. I for one, aspire to be an osteopathic physician, and as it stands right now, an IDEALSTIC one. What does that mean? It means that I want to get educated in the principles of modern medicine and attempt to master OMM beyond school so that I can apply these teachings to help people get well. Furthermore, it means that I will do my best to remind myself to look at osteopathic medicine via integrating the principles that Dr. Still intended.

I agree highly with Spicedmanna - "good physicians" practice modern medicine. I also agree that there is no "magic" difference between DOs and MDs. I do beleive, however, in the 'DO philosophy'.

For all you DO hopefulls out there, don't stop believing... life is what you make of it👍

The DO philosophy is nothing unique/special. It is a marketing ploy the AOA loves to overuse, nothing more. DOs may have pioneered the holistic approach to patient care, however, it is the standard of care today. You're going to be hard pressed to find a physician who doesn't think the body systems are interrelated, or that the body has an innate ability to heal itself, etc...
Furthermore, you're going to find that when you get to DO school, OMM isn't really all that great. You'll pocket a few techniques you like, but the vast majority is not supported by a strong evidence base. Furthermore, those few techniques you do like are going to have limited clinical utility, especially depending upon your chosen specialty. I like muscle energy and S/CS. These techniques have some solid evidence to support them (PTs use these techniques all the time, too, so it's nothing unique to DOs). But they only work on specific injuries/complaints. On top of all of this, you really need years and years to become proficient at this. Two years is not enough. I go to a so-called OMM heavy school. We learn diagnosis and treatment of regions and segements, etc... but we only learn how to address a minute level of clinical complaints and how to tie all the techniques together to address them. You really need to a lot of clinical training to be proficient at OMM, so don't think you'll come out of DO school as anything near proficient.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

Before I respond, please make a note to check out the latest thread: "That Thing you D.O. (FYI)" - IMO, it covers what I was originally trying to articulate.

Ok, after reading the above thread - "That Thing you D.O.", I am beginning to see (thanks to CB and Spiced Manna) that as a pre-med, my idealistic views are naive. Of course it is my hope that the DO philosophy (which portrays elements of 'holisitic medicine', 'patient's ability to heal themselves', 'treat the patient as a whole system' vs. etc..) rings true when attending DO school - that hope is collective amongst all us DO hopefulls, isn't it?

I like the theme 'you are what you make of it'. I for one, aspire to be an osteopathic physician, and as it stands right now, an IDEALSTIC one. What does that mean? It means that I want to get educated in the principles of modern medicine and attempt to master OMM beyond school so that I can apply these teachings to help people get well. Furthermore, it means that I will do my best to remind myself to look at osteopathic medicine via integrating the principles that Dr. Still intended.

I agree highly with Spicedmanna - "good physicians" practice modern medicine. I also agree that there is no "magic" difference between DOs and MDs. I do beleive, however, in the 'DO philosophy'.

For all you DO hopefulls out there, don't stop believing... life is what you make of it👍

Well said! +1 "Idealists" unite.

The DO philosophy is nothing unique/special. It is a marketing ploy the AOA loves to overuse, nothing more. DOs may have pioneered the holistic approach to patient care, however, it is the standard of care today. You're going to be hard pressed to find a physician who doesn't think the body systems are interrelated, or that the body has an innate ability to heal itself, etc...
Furthermore, you're going to find that when you get to DO school, OMM isn't really all that great. You'll pocket a few techniques you like, but the vast majority is not supported by a strong evidence base. Furthermore, those few techniques you do like are going to have limited clinical utility, especially depending upon your chosen specialty. I like muscle energy and S/CS. These techniques have some solid evidence to support them (PTs use these techniques all the time, too, so it's nothing unique to DOs). But they only work on specific injuries/complaints. On top of all of this, you really need years and years to become proficient at this. Two years is not enough. I go to a so-called OMM heavy school. We learn diagnosis and treatment of regions and segements, etc... but we only learn how to address a minute level of clinical complaints and how to tie all the techniques together to address them. You really need to a lot of clinical training to be proficient at OMM, so don't think you'll come out of DO school as anything near proficient.

Exactly. Allopathics played catch-up. But it seems now that everyone is saying they are the same as if M.D.s believed it all along.

 

[spicedmanna]

Exactly. Allopathics played catch-up. But it seems now that everyone is saying they are the same as if M.D.s believed it all along.

Might be a misunderstanding. I have no idea who "everyone" is, but I think the predominate view is that the modern practice of medicine includes it. Modern medicine has been influenced by both traditions and has benefited. Both traditions have learned from each other and established a common standard of care, to the point where differences in approach have become unsubstantial and historical.

 

[facetguy]

...On top of all of this, you really need years and years to become proficient at this. Two years is not enough... You really need to a lot of clinical training to be proficient at OMM, so don't think you'll come out of DO school as anything near proficient.

Very true.

 

[Dissected]

Exactly. Allopathics played catch-up. But it seems now that everyone is saying they are the same as if M.D.s believed it all along.

ehh..I hate grouping "MD's" into one giant catch-all category. there are over 100 MD institutions, most of which graduate 100+ or much more every year. Lots of room for different philosophies about medicine, and you can bet that each school currently and historically has had a unique overall atmosphere for how their students are taught.

In the same mindset, you could say that the osteopathic doctrine played catch-up with just about everything except OMM that is in the curriculum. They may have gotten the "holistic" ideals right, but things have changed a LOT since back in the day, mostly in the direction of incorporating 'modern medicine' into the curriculum which is what allopathic institutions have put so much effort into all along. If you have read Gevitz, you know how painful it was to transition the osteopathic curriculum into even basic pathology and Rx.

I think that the meeting of both minds on this issue is what makes up medicine today. Regardless of where either train of thought was founded, they are so similar today that it doesn't really matter that much to me. I am going to join the ranks of physicians upon graduation, and specialize in a field of my choice (hopefully 🙄). My background training might be different than a majority of my colleagues, but only infanatesamally so.

Sorry to perpetuate MD & DO discussions...I just had to get that out

 

[Chocolate Bear]

ehh..I hate grouping "MD's" into one giant catch-all category. there are over 100 MD institutions, most of which graduate 100+ or much more every year. Lots of room for different philosophies about medicine, and you can bet that each school currently and historically has had a unique overall atmosphere for how their students are taught.

In the same mindset, you could say that the osteopathic doctrine played catch-up with just about everything except OMM that is in the curriculum. They may have gotten the "holistic" ideals right, but things have changed a LOT since back in the day, mostly in the direction of incorporating 'modern medicine' into the curriculum which is what allopathic institutions have put so much effort into all along. If you have read Gevitz, you know how painful it was to transition the osteopathic curriculum into even basic pathology and Rx.

I think that the meeting of both minds on this issue is what makes up medicine today. Regardless of where either train of thought was founded, they are so similar today that it doesn't really matter that much to me. I am going to join the ranks of physicians upon graduation, and specialize in a field of my choice (hopefully 🙄). My background training might be different than a majority of my colleagues, but only infanatesamally so.

Sorry to perpetuate MD & DO discussions...I just had to get that out

I think this one is a valuable discussion, actually. 👍

 

[spicedmanna]

Well said! +1 "Idealists" unite.

I try not to dash hope. It's good to have something to believe in. Tends to make life more palatable. Just don't let it cloud you from clearly seeing what's around you. Same goes for cynicism, it's flip side.

One thing you could say is that osteopathic medical schools, as a whole, have a common set of conscious commitments, or intentions: the tenets of osteopathy. What you do with those while you are in school and out of school is up to you.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

1. I don't give a **** about AT Still's philosophy. It is like 150 years old, and there wasn't a lot of good medicine back then. On the other hand, he was one of the few that recognized it, and took the initiative to take a step back from a lot of things that clearly weren't working, and employ techniques that did work.

2. If you are interested in rehab/sports med, osteopathic school is a bonus. At least the one where I am (all our patient care skills stuff is taught by a sports med doc, and we get a ton of that stuff). Now that I've been exposed to it, there is not a doubt in my mind that these techniques will make us better primary care and/or sports med docs, at least at the beginning of our careers. I have a kinesiology degree, and worked in college strength and conditioning, and as a personal trainer, and I definitely see the overlap. We also get a lot of musculoskeletal trauma stuff that would probably be good for EM.

If you're interested in GA-PCOM, feel free to drop me a line on PM and I will explain to you why our pre-clinical clinical stuff is slanted towards sports med.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

I try not to dash hope. It's good to have something to believe in. Tends to make life more palatable. Just don't let it cloud you from clearly seeing what's around you. Same goes for cynicism, it's flip side.

One thing you could say is that osteopathic medical schools, as a whole, have a common set of conscious commitments, or intentions: the tenets of osteopathy. What you do with those while you are in school and out of school is up to you.

I have posted more in the last 4 days than ever. I guess I am losing it. Like TexasTri said, who cares about the philosophy. OMM = good tool. I want to do sports med., so that is why I am so excited about it. I wonder how much time I wasted reading about D.O. vs M.D. stuff, and then commenting on it. A physician is a physician. DoktorB articulated it well. I can't wait to be a doc and I hope I won't spend any time in the future dabbling over all of this philosophy stuff unless it helps someone to get over it and focus on practicing medicine. And the idealist comment was a hyperbole of sorts.

 

[spicedmanna]

I have posted more in the last 4 days than ever. I guess I am losing it.

It happens. Take a look at my post count. It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but I hope I've at least helped a few people during my proliferative posting phases. I think part of the reason I'm posting so much is because I don't want to study. Yeah, I'd say it's directly proportional. I'm pretty burned out...

Anyway, I sometimes feel compelled to jump in there when I probably should just leave well enough alone. Then again, maybe not. Who knows.

Like TexasTri said, who cares about the philosophy. OMM = good tool. I want to do sports med., so that is why I am so excited about it. I wonder how much time I wasted reading about D.O. vs M.D. stuff, and then commenting on it. A physician is a physician. DoktorB articulated it well. I can't wait to be a doc and I hope I won't spend any time in the future dabbling over all of this philosophy stuff unless it helps someone to get over it and focus on practicing medicine. And the idealist comment was a hyperbole of sorts.

Well, you have a good head on your shoulders. Just keep on trucking. Everything goes by very quickly and before you know it, you'll be hitting the wards. Good luck with everything and welcome to an awesome tradition of professionals.

 

[Bleurberry]

Before I respond, please make a note to check out the latest thread: "That Thing you D.O. (FYI)" - IMO, it covers what I was originally trying to articulate.

Ok, after reading the above thread - "That Thing you D.O.", I am beginning to see (thanks to CB and Spiced Manna) that as a pre-med, my idealistic views are naive. Of course it is my hope that the DO philosophy (which portrays elements of 'holisitic medicine', 'patient's ability to heal themselves', 'treat the patient as a whole system' vs. etc..) rings true when attending DO school - that hope is collective amongst all us DO hopefulls, isn't it?

I like the theme 'you are what you make of it'. I for one, aspire to be an osteopathic physician, and as it stands right now, an IDEALSTIC one. What does that mean? It means that I want to get educated in the principles of modern medicine and attempt to master OMM beyond school so that I can apply these teachings to help people get well. Furthermore, it means that I will do my best to remind myself to look at osteopathic medicine via integrating the principles that Dr. Still intended.

I agree highly with Spicedmanna - "good physicians" practice modern medicine. I also agree that there is no "magic" difference between DOs and MDs. I do beleive, however, in the 'DO philosophy'.

For all you DO hopefulls out there, don't stop believing... life is what you make of it👍

I'm with ya, buddy!!