So I'm shadowing a DO and...

[fiznat]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

He doesn't seem to have any interest at all in his osteopathic training. I've tried starting some conversations about osteopathy from a few different angles, but he seems to deadpan the discussion pretty much every time I try. I feel like my experience with him has still been extremely valuable and interesting, but I'm not sure that I am getting the insight into osteopathy that I'm supposed to be getting.

...Or am I? Granted this is probably the attitude of a lot of practicing DOs-- that osteopathy takes a back seat to traditional medicine and the day-to-day work. I feel like I'll be hard pressed to find someone to talk about "what makes the DO unique" unless I go to an actual osteopathic practice, and those aren't so easy to find/schedule shadowing. The doc I am following now is a DO Emergency Medicine Attending in a busy Level I ED.

I guess I'd like to hear what the experience has been for others who have shadowed DOs outside of actual osteopathic practice, and what kinds of expectations (goals?) I should have about this time.

 

[DrMom]

What are you expecting to see other than OMM?
Osteopathy is an antiquated term that even the AOA doesn't endorse.
Osteopathic medicine = traditional medicine, there is no backseat issue.
Only a small percentage of osteopathic physicians use OMM in their practice. I believe the number is in the single digits.

I'm not sure what you're expecting to see.

 

[Cybii]

He doesn't seem to have any interest at all in his osteopathic training. I've tried starting some conversations about osteopathy from a few different angles, but he seems to deadpan the discussion pretty much every time I try. I feel like my experience with him has still been extremely valuable and interesting, but I'm not sure that I am getting the insight into osteopathy that I'm supposed to be getting.

...Or am I? Granted this is probably the attitude of a lot of practicing DOs-- that osteopathy takes a back seat to traditional medicine and the day-to-day work. I feel like I'll be hard pressed to find someone to talk about "what makes the DO unique" unless I go to an actual osteopathic practice, and those aren't so easy to find/schedule shadowing. The doc I am following now is a DO Emergency Medicine Attending in a busy Level I ED.

I guess I'd like to hear what the experience has been for others who have shadowed DOs outside of actual osteopathic practice, and what kinds of expectations (goals?) I should have about this time.

I've shadowed two DOs and they varied on how much OMT they used. The first DO used it a few times when I shadowed her, whereas I didn't see the second DO do any OMT. I think it just happened to work out that way, since there weren't too many opportunities to actually use osteopathic techniques appropriately. However, they were both really open to talk about it... maybe your physician you're shadowing is too busy to sit down and talk about it if he's "an attending in a busy level I ED".

I kinda get the feeling that you think DOs first approach medicine thinking "how can I use OMT" when they see a patient. ("osteopathy takes a back seat to traditional medicine and the day-to-day work") However, I think you should see it as a tool DOs use when appropriate that sets them apart from MDs.

Try shadowing a DO FP or someone who won't be too busy to answer your questions.

 

[fiznat]

Ease up, guys.

It isn't that I expect to see OMM. What I am looking for is an answer to the question "why are you a DO and not an MD?" Unless I am completely misinformed as to the utility of this shadowing thing, aren't these the types of questions we are supposed to find answers to? Questions like "what does it mean to be a DO," and "how does your osteopathic training play into your day-to-day work?" Those questions seem particularly relevant to me as an upcoming applicant at the crossroads of the MD vs. DO debate.

The problem is, this doctor I am shadowing doesn't seem to be concerned at all about his "DO heritage," if you will. The fact that he is a DO and not an MD doesn't even seem to cross his mind, and when I try to start that conversation, he dismisses it as unimportant. Now, I understand that this attitude may have something to do with the specialty and environment in which I am shadowing (which is why I specifically mentioned that), but I have only followed one guy around and I was hoping that soliciting for experiences on this forum would give me a better idea of the lay of the land. Isn't that reasonable?

Really sorry if I offended anyone by using the term "osteopathy," or suggesting that it may somehow be different from "traditional medicine." Hopefully such a slip up can be forgiven for someone who is just starting to learn about this profession.

 

[Cybii]

Ease up, guys.

It isn't that I expect to see OMM. What I am looking for is an answer to the question "why are you a DO and not an MD?" Unless I am completely misinformed as to the utility of this shadowing thing, aren't these the types of questions we are supposed to find answers to? Questions like "what does it mean to be a DO," and "how does your osteopathic training play into your day-to-day work?" Those questions seem particularly relevant to me as an upcoming applicant at the crossroads of the MD vs. DO debate.

The problem is, this doctor I am shadowing doesn't seem to be concerned at all about his "DO heritage," if you will. The fact that he is a DO and not an MD doesn't even seem to cross his mind, and when I try to start that conversation, he dismisses it as unimportant. Now, I understand that this attitude may have something to do with the specialty and environment in which I am shadowing (which is why I specifically mentioned that), but I have only followed one guy around and I was hoping that soliciting for experiences on this forum would give me a better idea of the lay of the land. Isn't that reasonable?

Really sorry if I offended anyone by using the term "osteopathy," or suggesting that it may somehow be different from "traditional medicine." Hopefully such a slip up can be forgiven for someone who is just starting to learn about this profession.

I think you misconstrued DrMom's and my post. We weren't being sassy or bashing you. You didn't offend anyone. We were just giving you some honest advice.

A lot of physicians really don't spend that much time dwelling over DO vs MD, so that is probably one reason he brushes of the questions. Like I said before, I recommend that you shadow a physician who will be more willing to answer your questions. Usually I find those to be family physicians.

 

[ShinyDome19]

I am not sure what you are expecting to see different between an MD and DO in the ER...or any other specialty where the amount of time the physician has with the patient is very limited. Definately shadow a family physician if you want to see OMM though, I know two family physicians that run a OMM clinic for 4 hours every friday and use it regularly in their practices.

More or less though, "Osteopathic Training" = Allopathic Training + OMM.

If your talking about the Holistic approach to treating patients, most MD schools also teach this now...there is very little difference between allopathic and osteopathic medicine today.

One thing I have noticed different between several DO's and MD's are simply the individual personalities. Every DO I have met so far (~7 - not a great sample size), has been extremely personable...whereas, a very large number of MD's I have come in to contact with (>>7), were not as personable and approachable. However, being that allopathic schools typically have higher MCAT and GPAs than DO schools (meaning people who probably spend more time with books than other people), and DO schools put more emphasis on individuals overall, this is likely just a result of the admissions process.

 

[fiznat]

Cybii,

Thanks, and you're right I probably overreacted a bit. I guess experiences on other forums have left me a little hypersensitive for sarcasm and the like...

You are probably also right that a family practice physician might be able to better answer these kinds of questions-- especially if that was your experience when you did your shadowing. Although I have to say that this doctor has been extremely accommodating and we have had many informative discussions on other topics, just not on "DO" stuff.

I guess the larger question here is -- do you think I am asking the right questions? I feel like I have a unique opportunity to shadow these doctors, and I would really like to make the most out of it. I am interested in figuring out stuff like I mentioned above ("what does it mean to be a DO," etc), but can I use this experience for other insight as well? How else can I best make use of this time?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

There's a long standing belief that DO's are better people and have a better bedside manner.

Realistically I doubt that many doctors are going to put in so much effort in use of manual manipulation. When it was created it was a better method then toxic they call drugs. Now its more or less not useful... Well until the apocolypse happens and we run out of drugs... Then it'll probably be the ****.

 

[JustAGuy]

The DO I shadowed said he went the osteopathic route because he wasn't smart enough to get into an MD school. He also said there was no difference in the way he practiced medicine, and the only time he ever uses his OMM training is when he's trying to get some from the nurses.

 

[billw]

If I were to judge by conversations on SDN, my conclusion would be that a large percentage of people become DOs because they have lower GPAs than MD candidates. So, if you are shadowing a DO who went that route for that reason, I would not expect to get a lot of traction in that conversation.

 

[Cybii]

Cybii,

Thanks, and you're right I probably overreacted a bit. I guess experiences on other forums have left me a little hypersensitive for sarcasm and the like...

You are probably also right that a family practice physician might be able to better answer these kinds of questions-- especially if that was your experience when you did your shadowing. Although I have to say that this doctor has been extremely accommodating and we have had many informative discussions on other topics, just not on "DO" stuff.

I guess the larger question here is -- do you think I am asking the right questions? I feel like I have a unique opportunity to shadow these doctors, and I would really like to make the most out of it. I am interested in figuring out stuff like I mentioned above ("what does it mean to be a DO," etc), but can I use this experience for other insight as well? How else can I best make use of this time?

If I had to advise what questions to ask, don't ask questions about DOs that would come up in secondaries or interview questions ("why did you want to become a DO, what does it mean to be a DO?") You're shadowing the guy, so you should be able to see what it means to be a DO 😛 Heck, shadow a MD and see the difference, if there is one. Everyone had their own reason to go into medicine, whether it be MD or DO. So why don't you phrase the question "why did you decide to go into medicine" instead of asking "why DO"? That way it doesn't seem like you're trying to mooch off good answers to put on your application (although you don't come off that way).

Others have told you many go into DO because of lacking tests scores, which is sometimes true, but not always. If that's the case with your physician you're shadowing, it may be a sore subject. I know I could have gone MD but decided to stay with DO due to more emphasis on primary care and because I want to know OMT. Everyone has different goals, and there are different paths to get there. If you're deciding MD vs DO, just search previous SDN forums... they're filled with lots of information, pros and cons of certain schools, etc. 👍

And as for making better use of your shadowing time... I really don't know what to say... You show up, follow the physician, ask questions when appropriate, and sometimes they let you do some things like listen to their lungs or heart or whatnot... Although I don't see the more hands on activities happening in a hospital setting, more in a private practice. Other than that, you're just a shadow. 😛

 

[HimeMomo]

Honestly, we all know that there are two types of D.Os graduating as practicing physicians: the ones that couldn't make it into M.D schools so they are a little bitter that their last name is not attached to those two superficial letters thus they don't care too much about the distinct philosophy and OMM practices behind it.

I mean, it isn't just about the philosophy, it is also about the people who believe that prevention, manipulation, and less drugs are better. Which means, you have a completely different type of doctor that wants you to take control of your own life, not the doctor that is there to save you again and again as you succumb to heart attacks, strokes, which could have been prevented.

This particular doctor seems to be the first type, the one that is trying his best to live an M.D life through a D.O degree. Which, is his own free will and choice. But I believe he is missing out on the privileges he had while he was in school. Guess he didn't care too much about the philosophies and holistic sides to medicine.

I suggest you find yourself another D.O doctor to shadow. Trust me, there are other ones who will give you all the answers you need, if not through their voice, it will be through their actions.

 

[JaggerPlate]

If I were to judge by conversations on SDN, my conclusion

Well, if conversations on SDN are indicative of anything remotely related to reality, then I quit life ...

 

[just one]

When I shadowed, I asked the question "in your opinion, what are the advantages of chosing DO over MD?". I feel that is much more respectful than asking "why didn't you chose MD", which is in my opinion belittling his/her path. If the op asked "why are you a DO instead of an MD" could be taken negatively even if that was not the intention

 

[ShinyDome19]

When I shadowed, I asked the question "in your opinion, what are the advantages of chosing DO over MD?". I feel that is much more respectful than asking "why didn't you chose MD", which is in my opinion belittling his/her path. If the op asked "why are you a DO instead of an MD" could be taken negatively even if that was not the intention

I agree..."Why not MD" comes across very negative.
The only two questions, which pertain to osteopathic medicine, I could ever think of that I asked the physicians I shadowed were:

1) Do the MD's here treat you any different? (I asked this question because the place where I shadowed,an ER doc, was a place I might consider coming back to for residency or something at some point)

2) Do you ever get to use your OMM? (ER doc said not generally on patients, but more commonly on other docs and nurses...and they love him for it; Family doc said all the time and she runs a OMM clinic once a week for 4 hours)

All other questions were answerable by any physician.

If I were to judge by conversations on SDN, my conclusion would be that a large percentage of people become DOs because they have lower GPAs than MD candidates. So, if you are shadowing a DO who went that route for that reason, I would not expect to get a lot of traction in that conversation.

Thats funny, last time I read SDN, there were people who went to MD schools because they couldnt get into DO school...

 

[JaggerPlate]

Thats funny, last time I read SND

What's SND?

 

[dozitgetchahi]

Ease up, guys.
The problem is, this doctor I am shadowing doesn't seem to be concerned at all about his "DO heritage," if you will. The fact that he is a DO and not an MD doesn't even seem to cross his mind, and when I try to start that conversation, he dismisses it as unimportant. Now, I understand that this attitude may have something to do with the specialty and environment in which I am shadowing (which is why I specifically mentioned that), but I have only followed one guy around and I was hoping that soliciting for experiences on this forum would give me a better idea of the lay of the land. Isn't that reasonable?
.

My 2 cents:

The reason that many practicing DOs are not talking about their "DO heritage" is that much of that heritage is hogwash, frankly. The mythology surrounding the "osteopathic philosophy" is little more than a PR effort on the part of the AOA to convince people that "DOs are different". For various reasons, they seem to feel that osteopathic medicine's raison d'etre is OMM and this nebulous "patient-oriented" philosophy that they often can't even define. It's not, and you shouldn't believe them on that subject.


"I mean, it isn't just about the philosophy, it is also about the people who believe that prevention, manipulation, and less drugs are better. Which means, you have a completely different type of doctor that wants you to take control of your own life, not the doctor that is there to save you again and again as you succumb to heart attacks, strokes, which could have been prevented."

There are plenty of MDs that practice this way also (with the possible exception of manipulation - but some MDs learn that too). In fact, any good doctor should be encouraging his or her patients to prevent disease and take care of their health. This line of thinking isn't exclusive to DOs, and it didn't start with us either.

Look...at the end of the day, practicing DOs that pushed hard to match into quality allopathic residencies do not want to be viewed differently from MDs (and for good reason). Dig around a bit and talk to some more DOs - you'll see what I mean. And when you do finally go off to osteopathic medical school, you'll meet plenty of other students who are interested in becoming good physicians in general - not just simply osteopathic physicians.

 

[HimeMomo]

My 2 cents:

The reason that many practicing DOs are not talking about their "DO heritage" is that much of that heritage is hogwash, frankly. The mythology surrounding the "osteopathic philosophy" is little more than a PR effort on the part of the AOA to convince people that "DOs are different". For various reasons, they seem to feel that osteopathic medicine's raison d'etre is OMM and this nebulous "patient-oriented" philosophy that they often can't even define. It's not, and you shouldn't believe them on that subject.


"I mean, it isn't just about the philosophy, it is also about the people who believe that prevention, manipulation, and less drugs are better. Which means, you have a completely different type of doctor that wants you to take control of your own life, not the doctor that is there to save you again and again as you succumb to heart attacks, strokes, which could have been prevented."

There are plenty of MDs that practice this way also (with the possible exception of manipulation - but some MDs learn that too). In fact, any good doctor should be encouraging his or her patients to prevent disease and take care of their health. This line of thinking isn't exclusive to DOs, and it didn't start with us either.

Look...at the end of the day, practicing DOs that pushed hard to match into quality allopathic residencies do not want to be viewed differently from MDs (and for good reason). Dig around a bit and talk to some more DOs - you'll see what I mean. And when you do finally go off to osteopathic medical school, you'll meet plenty of other students who are interested in becoming good physicians in general - not just simply osteopathic physicians.

It's not myth, the philosophy started from Dr. Still a long time ago stemming itself away from what the M.Ds were at the time. And lets just say, the M.D's goals back then were not as holistic as they were now.

D.Os came into existence because of Dr. Still, and his ways of viewing how a doctor should be like. MDs can now incorporate all the preventive measures and learn holistic care, as well as OMM all they want to, but they weren't the bold ones to start it.

In fact, thanks to the new philosophy, women were wanted in medicine to become physicians. That was not quite what MDs allowed back in the day.

So please stop crediting M.Ds now that 100 years have passed and the great debate of allowing D.O the same accreditation has subsided, M.D=D.O (except for the GPA/MCAT acceptance score differences)

 

[DrBowtie]

It's not myth, the philosophy started from Dr. Still a long time ago stemming itself away from what the M.Ds were at the time. And lets just say, the M.D's goals back then were not as holistic as they were now.

D.Os came into existence because of Dr. Still, and his ways of viewing how a doctor should be like. MDs can now incorporate all the preventive measures and learn holistic care, as well as OMM all they want to, but they weren't the bold ones to start it.

In fact, thanks to the new philosophy, women were wanted in medicine to become physicians. That was not quite what MDs allowed back in the day.

So please stop crediting M.Ds now that 100 years have passed and the great debate of allowing D.O the same accreditation has subsided, M.D=D.O (except for the GPA/MCAT acceptance score differences)

Please put down the Kool-aid.

 

[The Virginian]

It's not myth, the philosophy started from Dr. Still a long time ago stemming itself away from what the M.Ds were at the time. And lets just say, the M.D's goals back then were not as holistic as they were now.

D.Os came into existence because of Dr. Still, and his ways of viewing how a doctor should be like. MDs can now incorporate all the preventive measures and learn holistic care, as well as OMM all they want to, but they weren't the bold ones to start it.

In fact, thanks to the new philosophy, women were wanted in medicine to become physicians. That was not quite what MDs allowed back in the day.

So please stop crediting M.Ds now that 100 years have passed and the great debate of allowing D.O the same accreditation has subsided, M.D=D.O (except for the GPA/MCAT acceptance score differences)

If you wish to learn what Still really thought about medicine go back and read some of his books.

Autobiography of AT Still (Version 2.0)
The Philosophy of Osteopathy (Version 2.0) by A. T. Still
Osteopathy, Research and Practice (Version 2.0) by A. T. Still
The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy (Version 2.0) by A. T. Still

You can find them online...

http://www.interlinea.org/atstill.html

Still did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccination, or most other newer (for the late 19th century) concepts in medicine. He thought all ills of the human body resulted from lack of proper blood supply through arteries and/or proper drainage through veins.

 

[Cheshyre]

http://www.interlinea.org/atstill.html

Still did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccination, or most other newer (for the late 19th century) concepts in medicine. He thought all ills of the human body resulted from lack of proper blood supply through arteries and/or proper drainage through veins.

To say that MDs were particularly scientific when Still began osteopathic medicine is false. I believe one of the treatments for the cold at the time was to administer "Dover's Powder," a mix including opium and ipecac. The idea was that sweating would somehow stop the illness. Wikipedia has an excerpt detailing how this powder and port were used to treat dysentery. There have been reports of DO treatments at the time resulting in better patient outcomes. If the orthodox treatments of the time involved forcing patients with severe diarrhea to lose water, it's possible to imagine that a drugless course of treatment could be better for a 19th century patient.

Plus, there wasn't even a real system for properly licensing MDs.

In any case, the divide between Still and the rest of the osteopathic physicians came about rather quickly. While Still rejected quite a lot (perhaps understandable, considering that the orthodox medical system of the time had failed to keep his family from dying of meningitis), those around him chose to look more into the subjects that were now being supported by 20th century science.

Just sayin'. I'm at work, just waiting for assays to finish.

 

[The Virginian]

To say that MDs were particularly scientific when Still began osteopathic medicine is false. I believe one of the treatments for the cold at the time was to administer "Dover's Powder," a mix including opium and ipecac. The idea was that sweating would somehow stop the illness. Wikipedia has an excerpt detailing how this powder and port were used to treat dysentery. There have been reports of DO treatments at the time resulting in better patient outcomes. If the orthodox treatments of the time involved forcing patients with severe diarrhea to lose water, it's possible to imagine that a drugless course of treatment could be better for a 19th century patient.

Plus, there wasn't even a real system for properly licensing MDs.

In any case, the divide between Still and the rest of the osteopathic physicians came about rather quickly. While Still rejected quite a lot (perhaps understandable, considering that the orthodox medical system of the time had failed to keep his family from dying of meningitis), those around him chose to look more into the subjects that were now being supported by 20th century science.

Just sayin'. I'm at work, just waiting for assays to finish.

I think most of the medicine that Still was exposed to in the 19th century was the frontier version - herb doctor, etc. Most of America was still a frontier then as was it's educational system and the west was even worse. An example is vaccination, which was being accepted by the end of 18th century and made mandatory in England by early to mid-19th century. While physicians and medical schools in the eastern U.S. adopted newer modes and theories of treatment, it took a lot longer to travel west.

My point was that as these new developments came about, Still steadfastly refused to accept them. He had formulated his own theory of disease - poor circulation - and he wasn't budging.

 

[HimeMomo]

Still did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccination, or most other newer (for the late 19th century) concepts in medicine. He thought all ills of the human body resulted from lack of proper blood supply through arteries and/or proper drainage through veins.

Adding to CHESHYRE, MDs did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccinations either.

Although Still believes that by manipulation, the body can get better, it is more of a spiritual realization that humans do not just get better with medicine, they also need to be better mentally, and be ready to battle the illness they are faced with.

Mental awareness, positivity, and hope does a lot for people who are ill. They have a faster recovery rate. These have been proven in recent studies.

Thus, the ideas that Still warranted at the time, in its infancy, has its head on right. Vaccinations, and the germ theory came later through the help of epidemiologists, biologists and chemists who pioneered the way to better health care today.

At a time when people thought using cowpox pus as medicine, really caught the outrage from the medical community (MDs). Thanks to people who think outside the box, we are where we are today.

So questioning the existence of D.Os is basically questioning people who venture outside the box, questioning people who think there is more to just toxic medicine, and questioning the basic concept of discovery and curiosity of what else life can bring us.

That is just being close minded.

 

[illegallysmooth]

An ER is the wrong place to be if you want to experience real osteopathic medicine, chock full o' osteopathic principles and manipulation.

I understand your frustration. The DO schools want you to truly understand and desire an osteopathic education and career, and not many practicing DOs are really going to be willing or able to help you with that. The reason for this is that the whole "DO philosophy" has become less and less important, and right now there is very little, if any, difference in the medicine. I DO BELIEVE you will find more DOs who are open and patient-centered. But, as people have touched on, that's not necessary a product of the training, but more of the experience and individual characterstics of those who go to DO schools.

If gaining a deep sense of osteopathic medicine is important to you, find a willing primary care doc who uses OMM.

But honesty...I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[MDub1]

HimeMomo, I think you're absolutely correct that Still (and others) have added to medicine a lot. DO's certainly have added a lot to allopathic understanding and vice versa. But the real point is that you'll be hard pressed to find an actual difference in philosophy today. Allopathic schools have incorporated those philosophical ideals (treating the whole patient, etc) into their curricula and there is little (if any) actual difference today. As a DO you'll learn OMM, but beyond that there is little distinction between what you'll learn as a DO or MD.

 

[bleeker10]

Adding to CHESHYRE, MDs did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccinations either.

Although Still believes that by manipulation, the body can get better, it is more of a spiritual realization that humans do not just get better with medicine, they also need to be better mentally, and be ready to battle the illness they are faced with.

Mental awareness, positivity, and hope does a lot for people who are ill. They have a faster recovery rate. These have been proven in recent studies.

Thus, the ideas that Still warranted at the time, in its infancy, has its head on right. Vaccinations, and the germ theory came later through the help of epidemiologists, biologists and chemists who pioneered the way to better health care today.

At a time when people thought using cowpox pus as medicine, really caught the outrage from the medical community (MDs). Thanks to people who think outside the box, we are where we are today.

So questioning the existence of D.Os is basically questioning people who venture outside the box, questioning people who think there is more to just toxic medicine, and questioning the basic concept of discovery and curiosity of what else life can bring us.

That is just being close minded.

I find it amusing when pre-meds tell med students what osteopathic medicine it about. You are gonna have a realization if/when you get into med school that osteopathic medicine is much much different than osteopathy. You will have lectures on "holistic" medicine that will make you wonder how people can buy into some of the crap. You should never blindly accept someone who thinks "outside of the box" because you never know if they are legit. I know a healthcare provider who told my brother that he could get rid of nightmares by tapping 3 times on his forehead. Do you buy this? I sure as hell don't. But it's the same outside of the box thinking that you espousing earlier. I came into med school skeptical of the benefits of OMM. I like the treatments we do so far. But I know I will have a hard time buying that dorsi/plantarflexing someones foot repeatedly will help cure the flu. I think OMM is great for MSK conditions. For GI, cardiac, immune problems, I think it's out of place.

 

[HimeMomo]

HimeMomo, I think you're absolutely correct that Still (and others) have added to medicine a lot. DO's certainly have added a lot to allopathic understanding and vice versa. But the real point is that you'll be hard pressed to find an actual difference in philosophy today. Allopathic schools have incorporated those philosophical ideals (treating the whole patient, etc) into their curricula and there is little (if any) actual difference today. As a DO you'll learn OMM, but beyond that there is little distinction between what you'll learn as a DO or MD.

Thank you. I know time has passed, and nothing is ever the same anymore. At least the spirit of exploration, open-mindedness and treating patients as human beings is alive and well in medicine, then Still has done his job influencing his M.D counterparts.

I know a healthcare provider who told my brother that he could get rid of nightmares by tapping 3 times on his forehead. Do you buy this? I sure as hell don't. But it's the same outside of the box thinking that you espousing earlier. I came into med school skeptical of the benefits of OMM. I like the treatments we do so far. But I know I will have a hard time buying that dorsi/plantarflexing someones foot repeatedly will help cure the flu. I think OMM is great for MSK conditions. For GI, cardiac, immune problems, I think it's out of place.

Hey, the healthcare provider tried, maybe your brother is desperate, and when people are desperate, they try everything and anything. I am sorry in the end it didn't work. I wouldn't buy the dorsi/plantarflexing someone's foot to cure the flu either, and I can see how OMM seem to solely apply to chiropractic-like problems. However, the principles behind treating a patient more naturally has its benefits.

For me, I have an immune disorder, and I can tell you (to the last statement you posted) that I am healthy and well because of the concepts of medicine I was taught when I was young. None of the traditional M.D concepts helped, instead, alternatives did its way and proved its worth in the end. Becoming a physician to me is all about what I will bring to the table in the end for the patients, and to shut off as many paths that could potentially cure the person, isn't what I am about. You can do it the traditional way all you want with your D.O degree.

No one is necessarily living through Dr. Still's eyes these days, nor is any other M.D living through Dr. Snow's eyes (discoverer of the cause of cholera) either. But the buildup of knowledge being brought forth by these physicians together, and the hope of discovering more treatments in the future is the goal of health care providers. Medicine is only in its infancy. There is more to come, and it can only be brought on by open-minded ready explorers/researchers in this field. I admire Dr. Still for his bold theories.

 

[Cheshyre]

I think most of the medicine that Still was exposed to in the 19th century was the frontier version - herb doctor, etc. Most of America was still a frontier then as was it's educational system and the west was even worse. An example is vaccination, which was being accepted by the end of 18th century and made mandatory in England by early to mid-19th century. While physicians and medical schools in the eastern U.S. adopted newer modes and theories of treatment, it took a lot longer to travel west.

My point was that as these new developments came about, Still steadfastly refused to accept them. He had formulated his own theory of disease - poor circulation - and he wasn't budging.

I fully agree. I just think it's a little unfair to characterize 19th century DOs as being horrendously primitive compared to their MD counterparts, and also, unfair to characterize early osteopathy as beginning and ending with Still. As an aside, I have no other knowledge of the medical practices of the 19th century asides from some vague ideas of colchicine and digitalis being available. Thus, I can't make any judgment on East Coast medical practices. All of my medical reading regarding this time involves improvements in public health... and some random flash game where you perform amputations during the Civil War. Yes.

Also, according to Wiki (I lurve Wiki), vaccination has technically been around since as early as 200 BC in Chinese med and Ayurvedic texts. Without doing any more reading, I think it's possible that early vaccinations weren't really based in any sort of sound scientific theory. I'm not even sure if viral particles were actually described until the 20th century.

While I don't think I can agree as fully with HimeMomo, I do think that it is important to keep an open mind. Accepted ideas could be wrong, and new ideas could be great. From historical accounts, it seems that plenty of the vitriol directed against DOs was based simply on the fact that it wasn't orthodox. That said, of course, make your own judgments. As someone with a solid MCDB background who has read a couple of papers on OMM, I can't say I'm sold yet (even though I've never seen one that says "OMM can cure the flu/cancer/AIDS!"). We'll see what the future brings. I don't think HimeMono ever said to blindly accept what's outside of the box.

EDIT: Bleeker, I have to wonder if your brother was a young child when he was seen for nightmares. Nightmares happen often to children. There's no reason to prescribe a sleep aid, and if the kid will sleep better because of some insane crap about head tapping, why not?

 

[The Virginian]

Adding to CHESHYRE, MDs did not understand virology, germ theory, vaccinations either.

Although Still believes that by manipulation, the body can get better, it is more of a spiritual realization that humans do not just get better with medicine, they also need to be better mentally, and be ready to battle the illness they are faced with.

Mental awareness, positivity, and hope does a lot for people who are ill. They have a faster recovery rate. These have been proven in recent studies.

Thus, the ideas that Still warranted at the time, in its infancy, has its head on right. Vaccinations, and the germ theory came later through the help of epidemiologists, biologists and chemists who pioneered the way to better health care today.

At a time when people thought using cowpox pus as medicine, really caught the outrage from the medical community (MDs). Thanks to people who think outside the box, we are where we are today.

So questioning the existence of D.Os is basically questioning people who venture outside the box, questioning people who think there is more to just toxic medicine, and questioning the basic concept of discovery and curiosity of what else life can bring us.

That is just being close minded.

Germ theory has been around for hundreds, even thousands of years. It wasn't proven until mid-1860's with Pasteur and later Koch. Vaccination was proven by Jenner in late 18th century.

Go read some of Still's works and then decide.

 

[Cheshyre]

Germ theory has been around for hundreds, even thousands of years. It wasn't proven until mid-1860's with Pasteur and later Koch. Vaccination was proven by Jenner in late 18th century.

Go read some of Still's works and then decide.

However, for much of the 19th century, people believed in "miasma."

The more I read about Jenner, the more I think that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing. He just knew that vaccination had worked in Turkey and figured (through some observations known by the general public) that cowpox was similar enough to smallpox to provide immunity (without, you know, killing the recipient). Not exactly rigorous science. Still pretty neat though.

 

[illegallysmooth]

However, for much of the 19th century, people believed in "miasma."

The more I read about Jenner, the more I think that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing. He just knew that vaccination had worked in Turkey and figured (through some observations known by the general public) that cowpox was similar enough to smallpox to provide immunity (without, you know, killing the recipient). Not exactly rigorous science. Still pretty neat though.

He observed that milkmaids infected with cowpox were known for their beautiful complexions - they did not acquire smallpox.

 

[Morsetlis]

I experienced OMM in the SDOMA.org continuing education lecture w/ a whole of DO docs attending. It was about a model of OMM developed by Steve Typaldos, DO, lecture given by Gene Lenard, DO. About half of them left before the lecture ended.

Fascial distortion model, in the orthopathy discipline: treating fascial pain by manual pressure to realign the fascia (6 types of distortion that can be corrected), diagnosed by the patient's body language and response to treatment. Treatment is done by application of a lot of pressure for a few times over 45min-1hour.

Rubbing along skin: Triggerband. Apply thumb pressure along triggerband to straighten. Causes slight pain.

Pushing on a specific spot or rubbing along bony prominence: Herniated triggerpoint. Apply pressure continuously. Causes pain.

Cupping of a specific area: Fold distortion of fascia. Pull and rub until fascia is straightened. Causes pain.

Palm rubbing along broad surfaces: Cylinder distortion. Align hands and straighten out cylinders (similar to cardiac muscles). Vacuum cups may be used for this. Should not cause pain.

And two more that I forgot. Oh well.

 

[mechanictodr]

He doesn't seem to have any interest at all in his allopathic training. I've tried starting some conversations about allopathy from a few different angles, but he seems to deadpan the discussion pretty much every time I try. I feel like my experience with him has still been extremely valuable and interesting, but I'm not sure that I am getting the insight into allopathy that I'm supposed to be getting.

...Or am I? Granted this is probably the attitude of a lot of practicing MDs-- that it's just traditional medicine and what is there really to expain about it. I feel like I'll be hard pressed to find someone to talk about "what makes the MD unique" unless I go to an actual allopathic practice where they push arsenic and mercury treatments, and those aren't so easy to find/schedule shadowing. The doc I am following now is a MD Emergency Medicine Attending in a busy Level I ED.

I guess I'd like to hear what the experience has been for others who have shadowed MDs outside of actual allopathic practice, and what kinds of expectations (goals?) I should have about this time.

.
.
.
.


How did you expect him to react?

 

[Cheshyre]

He observed that milkmaids infected with cowpox were known for their beautiful complexions - they did not acquire smallpox.

Not his observation. Common knowledge at the time.