Please see that this message is forwarded to the appropriate persons.
In a recent exploration of the differences between the US and other countries' systems of naming first professional degrees, I happened across the following web page on your site:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html
Within it I found statements that are decades out of date, misleading to prospective students, and insulting to thousands of practicing physicians in the US. Specifically, the degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (not Doctor of Osteopathy, a term that has not been widely used in the US for quite some time) seems to be entirely segregated from the field of 'Medicine' which specifically references allopathic training only.
Further, the following is found in the description of the MD degree on this page: "While the M.D. degree is awarded at the end of 4 years, virtually all students take a subsequent year of clinical internship followed by a supervised residency lasting 1-8 years (depending on the specialty) which is required for medical board certification."
The following version is found in the description of the DO degree on this page: "Holders of the D.O. degree generally take a year of clinical internship and are eligible for some medical residencies."
The latter strongly implies that if DO graduates are eligible for "some" medical residencies, there must be others for which they are not. This is simply false, and has not been the case since 1964, when the AMA officially changed its policy and both allowed and encouraged DO graduates to enter ALL AMA approved medical residencies. Additionally, there are AOA approved residency positions in virtually all medical fields as well. Also, if the allopathic residency training is 'supervised' do you propose that the osteopathic training is not? And if the allopathic curriculum is a "medical" curriculum, do you propose that the osteopathic curriculum is not? This bias in attitude and language should have died forty years ago, but here it sits on a US government website.
The truth is that the path of DO graduates is exactly the same as what you describe for MD graduates - virtually all graduates of both medical paths complete residency training. The majority of DO graduates enter precisely the same residency programs as MD graduates, and the rest complete AOA approved training. Both paths lead to eligibility for full board certification and licensure in every medical specialty existent in the US, with equal practice rights and privileges.
I suggest the following changes to the referenced page above to remove these gross inaccuracies:
1. In the initial paragraph, replace "These field include Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine (Allopathic, including surgery), Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Theology (ordination qualifications), and Veterinary Medicine" with "These field
include Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine (Allopathic and Osteopathic), Optometry, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Theology (ordination qualifications), and Veterinary Medicine."
2. Remove the "Osteopathy" block under the "Degrees Awarded" section heading.
3. Replace the "Medicine" block under the "Degrees Awarded" section with the following version:
"Medicine--Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), a standard allopathic medical curriculum, and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), a standard osteopathic medical curriculum, both generally requiring 4 academic years of full-time study following either a bachelor's degree or early admission after 3 years of undergraduate study. While the M.D. and D.O. degrees are awarded at the end of 4 years, virtually all students take a subsequent year of clinical internship followed by a supervised residency lasting 1-8 years (depending on the specialty) which is required for medical board certification.
I have sent this email only to the provided contact address for the USNEI, and to myself... not to my classmates, other schools, administration, physicians, or members of the AOA board. I would like to think that the outdated wording that I have brought to your attention is simply an oversight that needs updating, and will be appropriately and efficiently handled as such.
If you have any questions about the information I have provided in this email please feel free to respond to this address and I will be happy to assist.
Thanks for your time, consideration, and correction of this matter
