That Thing You D.O. (FYI)

[VALO]

---

Members do not see this ad.

[SIZE=+1]That Thing You D.O.[/SIZE]
Paul Jung, M.D.
Diversifying your pool of potential medical schools​

What is an osteopathic physician? This is an excellent, but unfortunately infrequently asked, question. Many medical students and applicants have never heard the term "osteopathy." Even within organized medicine there are disagreements about the similarities and differences between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. With this column, I hope to make clear the distinction between physicians who hold a Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) degree and those with a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.). And as you become more informed, you'll find that your list of potential medical schools will expand. Don't worry, though. This column also offers some tips for choosing among medical schools.
Similarities and differences
First and foremost, D.O.s are physicians who can practice medicine just like M.D.s. Osteopathic physicians hold all of the required state medical licenses and are eligible to practice in every medical specialty.
The admission requirements to D.O. and M.D. schools are identical. The D.O. and M.D. curricula are also quite similar, and both degrees require four years of study. Both osteopathic and allopathic students have to pass background courses such as anatomy, physiology and pathology as well as all of the clinical clerkships. The scientific training in both types of medical school is equally rigorous. And as there are for M.D. students, there are combined degree programs for osteopathic students-D.O.-Ph.D., D.O.-M.P.H. and others. The D.O. boards cover the same material as the M.D. boards and ask the same types of questions. Like M.D.s, D.O.s must complete a residency-and may do so at the same program to which M.D.s apply and match. However, some state boards require D.O.s to complete a specific osteopathic internship before they can obtain a license. This internship would have to be done before either an osteopathic-specific residency or an allopathic residency.
As another example of how similar the two degrees are, take a look at the 1961 allopathic conversion of a California osteopathic medical school. The state medical board decided to offer all of the school's alumni an M.D. degree for a $65 fee and a few required seminars.
Osteopathic and allopathic physicians use the same medical reference books, learn about the same bodies, diagnose and treat the same diseases in the same patients, order the same diagnostic tests, dispense the same prescriptions and get paid the same money. The federal government recognizes no differences between D.O.s and M.D.s for the purposes of treatment and reimbursement under government-run health-care programs.
Yet despite all of these similarities, there are significant philosophical, if not practical, differences between osteopaths and allopaths.
Let's look at how osteopathy began. Dr. Andrew Taylor Still formally launched osteopathic medicine in 1892 with the founding of the first osteopathic medical school in Kirksville, Missouri. An allopathic physician dissatisfied with contemporary medical practices, Still wanted to create a more comprehensive, holistic approach to medicine. With the belief that the human body can heal itself and that all disease has a basic musculoskeletal component, Still created the osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT)-the manual manipulation of the body designed to stimulate the body's ability to combat disease and restore health. OMT is the cornerstone of the osteopathic medical curriculum. Many people believe the OMT philosophy and treatment to be the true distinction between osteopaths and allopaths. Many D.O.s use OMT in their daily practice, sometimes on its own or in combination with other therapies such as prescribing medicine or performing surgeries. Conversely, many D.O.s do not use OMT in their practices, further blurring the line between allopathic and osteopathic medicine.
There are 19 osteopathic medical schools and 125 allopathic medical schools in the United States. D.O. graduates comprise 6 percent of the physician population and 15 percent of physicians practicing in our underserved communities. In contrast to M.D.s, D.O.s have historically chosen to practice in primary care fields. D.O.s and M.D.s have virtually the same professional opportunities.
Every premed should consider both osteopathic and allopathic medical schools.
For more information about osteopathic medicine and osteopathic medical schools, you can contact: the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; the Student Osteopathic Medical Association; and the American Osteopathic Association.
So many schools, so little time and money
With 19 osteopathic and 125 allopathic medical schools on your list of possibilities, exactly how many medical schools should you apply to? This is a perennial question for many premeds. Surely you shouldn't apply to all of them. Nor should you apply only to two or three prestigious institutions. What is the appropriate number? To determine this, take a look at your odds of acceptance. Of course, there are numerous variables to consider, so here are some handy guidelines:
Apply to your state school(s). State-affiliated medical schools typically give preferential consideration to in-state applicants. So unless you have extreme reservations about attending a particular institution, you should stack the deck in your favor by applying to all of your state medical schools. Some schools may not be state-supported, yet still may provide preferential consideration for state residents. For example, for Pennsylvania residents, the University of Pittsburgh charges a lower tuition and the University of Pennsylvania offers preferential admissions. So if this is true in your state, apply to these schools as well.
If your state doesn't have an affiliated medical school, check to see if surrounding states' medical schools would offer you preferential consideration. Pennsylvania's Thomas Jefferson University gives preference to Delaware applicants, and Washington's medical school gives preference to applicants from Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and Montana. The bottom line is to investigate which schools would offer you preferential consideration and apply to those.
Location, location, location. Many students would prefer to live in a particular region or city. If this is the case for you, you should apply to several medical schools in your desired areas. Don't hesitate to cluster your applications and frankly admit to admissions committees that you prefer that region of the country. But, don't necessarily expect your personal preference to carry any weight with a school's admissions staff.
Money talks. Applying to medical school costs money. So the number of schools you apply to may be limited by the amount of money you have to spend on applications. If this is the case, financial restraints behoove you to choose carefully.
Unfortunately, medical school tuition is also pricey. Your state school probably charges the least expensive tuition, but you must also consider living expenses and other costs when evaluating schools. If certain institutions are prohibitively expensive for you, don't bother applying to them. Of course, as a medical student you will have absolutely no problem finding an adequate number of loans to cover all your expenses. But keep in mind there's no guarantee these loans will carry a reasonable interest rate. Don't bury yourself in debt.
And never assume that a higher tuition implies a higher quality of education. In fact, when comparing schools with radically different tuitions, you should always ask yourself, "What am I getting in return for paying the additional tens of thousands of dollars per year?"
You should research the financial aid, grant and scholarship options at each school. Some institutions have special programs significantly reducing tuition. These deserve investigating.
Matching interests. Some schools have truly unique and innovative curricula designed to encourage and develop particular interests or medical careers. For example, Mercer University School of Medicine and the University of Minnesota-Duluth School of Medicine were both founded to provide physicians for rural underserved areas. You should investigate several schools matching your career interests and apply to them. Obviously, your application to these schools should promote your interest in their special programs. And it makes no sense to apply to schools with strong primary care programs if you're interested in a subspecialty and vice versa. Remember to diversify your list. If your entire application list consists of similar schools and you suspect you lack the qualifications for one of them, chances are you won't be admitted to the rest either. You should strive for a balanced list-one that includes several different schools, varying by location, state affiliation, unique programs and special interests. In other words, don't apply only to the Ivy League schools or only to M.D.-Ph.D. or D.O.-Ph.D. programs. Nor should you apply only to "safety schools." Diversify your list of medical school choices, take a few chances, but always be reasonable. There are many options available to you, and with a little research and analysis, you should be able to select the medical institutions that are the best fit for you.

http://www.amsa.org/premed/rx/rx1101.cfm

 

[spicedmanna]

The federal government recognizes no differences between D.O.s and M.D.s for the purposes of treatment and reimbursement under government-run health-care programs.

Yet despite all of these similarities, there are significant philosophical, if not practical, differences between osteopaths and allopaths.

While I think the literature you quoted is pretty accurate on a lot of things, I happen to really disagree with the above item, from an experiential point of view. I've been attending an osteopathic medical school for nearly two years and I have yet to see this "significant" difference in philosophy that everyone is talking about. As far as I know, I am studying nearly the same things that my brethren at KUMED and UMKC are studying. Indeed, we even sometimes share professors and clinical staff.

I think some people would like you think that there is a significant difference, but sadly, there isn't. The only thing I can come up with is that at osteopathic medical schools, we are required to learn osteopathic manipulative medicine and are tested on it on boards, while our colleagues at allopathic medical schools are not. That's truly the only content difference, with the exception perhaps of differences in focus and emphasis, but you'll find these differences from school to school anyway.

If anybody knows what this "significant" philosophical difference means, beyond OMT and some now historical stuff, I'd like to know about it, because I want to get my money's worth. So far, all I hear are crickets and a lot of propaganda from certain people and groups.

 

[Semicolon]

For an article whose title contains "D.O.", there isn't nearly as much about osteopathic medicine in particular. Regardless, it's a good article, but it seems a bit old. Aren't there more osteopathic schools now? Or were the branches not counted?

 

[spicedmanna]

For an article whose title contains "D.O.", there isn't nearly as much about osteopathic medicine in particular. Regardless, it's a good article, but it seems a bit old. Aren't there more osteopathic schools now? Or were the branches not counted?

Yeah, there are more schools than what is cited. There are 25 osteopathic medical schools, according to AACOM. The article is probably a bit old.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

Anyone at a D.O. school other than KCUMB want to chime in? Maybe KCUMB doesn't cover this difference very much, or maybe they do. Maybe the whole philosophical difference is the emphasis on structure/function interrelationship and the heightened awareness and recognition of the body's self-healing capabilities? Some more insight would be nice.

 

[spicedmanna]

Anyone at a D.O. school other than KCUMB want to chime in? Maybe KCUMB doesn't cover this difference very much, or maybe they do.

I agree. I would love to hear about any legitimate and significant differences in philosophy, meaning elements that uniquely distinguishes one from the other (other than learning OMT in medical school, because that's the obvious distinction).

Maybe the whole philosophical difference is the emphasis on structure/function interrelationship and the heightened awareness and recognition of the body's self-healing capabilities? Some more insight would be nice.

Every physician is taught this now-a-days and it's purely common sense. You can't teach structure w/o delving into function and vise versa; it's called anatomy, histology, biochemistry, and physiology, and clinical coursework elements as well as coursework in pathology and pathophysiology tie them together. The whole promotion of self-healing thing is something any good physician should be cognizant of as it is inherent in the understanding of how the body works on several levels. I would say that one more unique element to DO's is that we are taught that we can promote self-healing through manual therapy. Whether or not we use that after finishing school, or whether these techniques are truly efficacious, though, is something completely different.

Since the education is nearly identical, whichever school you attend, the question becomes how will you apply these concepts/approaches when you are practicing physician? What kind of physician will you be?

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Yeah, there are more schools than what is cited. There are 25 osteopathic medical schools, according to AACOM. The article is probably a bit old.

With the Seton Hill campus of LECOM starting this Fall, that makes 29 schools, including branches. I believe another one might be opening the following year, too.

 

[udsoccer7]

Anyone at a D.O. school other than KCUMB want to chime in? Maybe KCUMB doesn't cover this difference very much, or maybe they do. Maybe the whole philosophical difference is the emphasis on structure/function interrelationship and the heightened awareness and recognition of the body's self-healing capabilities? Some more insight would be nice.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you aren't going to find any additional or different medical teachings at a D.O. school other than OMM. The reason D.O. schools continue to advertise these so called differences is to try and maintain some sense of autonomy and independence from the general medical field. Medical school is medical school. It is repeated over and over again on these boards. I'm not quite sure what some of the pre-med are looking for that is going to be so dramatically different and/or better. If there was something, you can be sure the allopathic schools would have adopted it by now.

 

[JaggerPlate]

DO schools train physicians. Period. I know I haven't even entered medical school, but I can tell you this for a fact. You are trained in Western medicine, with a subtle, additional tool in your bag known as OMM. You are not philosophically different than the MD at the school a few towns over. He isn't some jackass who throws pills, antibiotics, and surgery at the 'disease' and doesn't treat the 'whole person.' People can argue that certain schools are more osteopathic than others, etc ... but I'm positive that people go to DO school for the same reason they go to MD school ... to become modern physicians.

 

[JaggerPlate]

By the way ... I will now have this song stuck in my head for hours (due to thread title), so you all should also ...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzllVlzzeuo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Semicolon]

I feel that pre-meds almost need to have something valid that distinguishes osteopathic medicine from allopathic medicine. They want to believe that they're applying for a reason that applies to their personal beliefs and justifies them (such as being more "holistic" and treating the "whole person", as Jagger stated). Many pre-meds are close-minded and pretentious, thinking that osteopathic medicine serves as a back-up for allopathic, and the pre-meds that genuinely choose to apply to osteopathic schools need something to defend their decision with. So they eat up this philosophy propaganda in the hopes that it's true. 'Cause if there really isn't some advantage to going to a DO school, then those pretentious pre-meds think you're just doing it because it's "easier".

I don't know if any of that made sense; it's late and I'm tired. 🙂

 

[Bacchus]

I'll have a classmate that chose DO over Uconn... does that make him a maverick?

 

[Bleurberry]

I'll have a classmate that chose DO over Uconn... does that make him a maverick?

According to SDN wisdom, he's just a fool. I reserve the right to comment further on this assessment after M1.

 

[MossPoh]

I'll have a classmate that chose DO over Uconn... does that make him a maverick?

I respect that person for choosing a school they like based on what they want and need rather than the letters they sign after their name. I've met a few that have turned down MD for DO. It is a little more rare, but it does happen.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

I'll have a classmate that chose DO over Uconn... does that make him a maverick?

No. Who knows what it makes him, besides himself? Whether he thinks he's a maverick or not is up to him, not everyone else. Who cares what we think. Last time I checked, society's view on status of the physician had nothing to do with outcomes of the patient.

I agree. I would love to hear about any legitimate and significant differences in philosophy, meaning elements that uniquely distinguishes one from the other (other than learning OMT in medical school, because that's the obvious distinction).

Every physician is taught this now-a-days and it's purely common sense. You can't teach structure w/o delving into function and vise versa; it's called anatomy, histology, biochemistry, and physiology, and clinical coursework elements as well as coursework in pathology and pathophysiology tie them together. The whole promotion of self-healing thing is something any good physician should be cognizant of as it is inherent in the understanding of how the body works on several levels. I would say that one more unique element to DO's is that we are taught that we can promote self-healing through manual therapy. Whether or not we use that after finishing school, or whether these techniques are truly efficacious, though, is something completely different.

Since the education is nearly identical, whichever school you attend,the question becomes how will you apply these concepts/approaches when you are practicing physician? What kind of physician will you be?

You are answering your question of whether or not there is something unique/special about the philosophy of Osteopathic medicine, separate from that of an M.D. They can believe in the structure/function relationship etc., just as D.O.s do, but what can they do to practice what they believe/teach? That is precisely the difference. D.O.s can facilitate that natural healing process. And on another note, who here has taken classes at an M.D. school? They may have subtle, or large differences in how they teach structure/function.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you aren't going to find any additional or different medical teachings at a D.O. school other than OMM. The reason D.O. schools continue to advertise these so called differences is to try and maintain some sense of autonomy and independence from the general medical field. Medical school is medical school. It is repeated over and over again on these boards. I'm not quite sure what some of the pre-med are looking for that is going to be so dramatically different and/or better. If there was something, you can be sure the allopathic schools would have adopted it by now.

OMM is the difference. Are you all looking for something new b/c it has lost it's trend? This is the foundation of Osteopathic philosophy. Whether allopathic docs believe the same thing, they CANNOT perform OMM. And allopathic schools have not ubiquitously adopted OMT (yet...).

 

[spicedmanna]

According to SDN wisdom, he's just a fool. I reserve the right to comment further on this assessment after M1.

The mass has rarely been the wisest, and who is SDN by a mass of people? He made a choice, obviously one he thought would serve him best. You can't really argue with that. I respect anyone willing to make that kind of choice, even if it goes against mass wisdom, or at least the perception of it.

 

[spicedmanna]

You are answering your question of whether or not there is something unique/special about the philosophy of Osteopathic medicine, separate from that of an M.D. They can believe in the structure/function relationship etc., just as D.O.s do, but what can they do to practice what they believe/teach? That is precisely the difference. D.O.s can facilitate that natural healing process. And on another note, who here has taken classes at an M.D. school? They may have subtle, or large differences in how they teach structure/function.

The facilitation of the healing process is something that every physician does and every physician puts structure/function into practice, every day. It is not unique to osteopathy...it's modern medicine. You are stretching the OMT difference. Yes, we are required to learn OMT, which allows us a manual modality by which to use in the treatment of patients. That's about the only difference I or most people can come up with. Yet, a lot of people keep coming here claiming there is some kind of unique philosophy being taught in osteopathic medical schools and if there is, I haven't seen it. Everything is identical as far as I know, the only difference being that we are taught OMT.

Have I taken classes at an MD school? Subtle differences in basic science classes? Are you kidding me? How about my brother is an MD, my best friends are MD's, I talk with medical students from both traditions, and I've worked in hospitals w/ a lot of MD's (and DO's, too), and neither they nor I can tell the difference between what I'm learning and what they've learned. How about both traditions use all the same basic science text books, use the same board review prep material and companies (Kaplan uses professors from both MD and DO schools for their Intense Prep classes), we can take the USMLE, are tested on all the same subjects (except we have OMT), train in the same hospitals, under the same attendings, and in some instances, even use the same professors. I have a couple professors that are MD's and most of my basic science professors are PhD's, who also taught previously at MD schools. There's absolutely nothing different that they are teaching or doing to make it uniquely osteopathic. The only difference is when we get taught OMM didactic and practical information, which amounts to 3 hrs per week, 2 hrs of lab and 1 hr of lecture. That's the only difference in content. You, my friend, are seriously reaching for a difference. The only difference you are going to get is OMT and the rest is modern medicine and basic science. Don't buy what the propaganda machine is selling you. Go see for yourself when you enter M1. Tell me what differences you see after that year.

OMM is the difference. Are you all looking for something new b/c it has lost it's trend? This is the foundation of Osteopathic philosophy.

That's exactly what I'm saying. OMT is the only difference, and no it's not the foundation of Osteopathic philosophy, but it's actualization. My question, and I believe a lot of people's question is, "is that difference worth maintaining a separation?" I don't know. What exactly is the "DO difference," any more? Most osteopathic physicians don't use OMT and a majority are now entering ACGME residency programs. It's a bit of a crisis, if you ask me. I have no answer for you here.

It's obvious that OMT has lost it's trend, given that only a small percentage of practitioners will use it regularly. I'm not looking for anything, but a lot of pre-meds are. I could care less at this point in my training. I see myself using OMT as a adjunct in treating certain conditions, musculoskeletal complaints in particular, but I'm not going to use some of the more fringe treatments that have no proof whatsoever that they have any efficacy.

Whether allopathic docs believe the same thing, they CANNOT perform OMM. And allopathic schools have not ubiquitously adopted OMT (yet...).

There are avenues by which MD's can learn OMT. So far I don't see them lining up in droves to learn it.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

SpicedM- I agree 100% that basic sciences/foundations of medicine are taught identically at osteo and allo schools alike. What I am saying is that OMT stands alone.

And what are some examples you know off the top of your head how M.D.s facilitate this natural healing process? Curious... I am too tired to think right now.

 

[spicedmanna]

SpicedM- I agree 100% that basic sciences/foundations of medicine are taught identically at osteo and allo schools alike. What I am saying is that OMT stands alone.

There is a big question then. Is OMT worth all the hoopla, because it's all there is to define the difference? Most DO's don't think so.

And what are some examples you know off the top of your head how M.D.s facilitate this natural healing process? Curious... I am too tired to think right now.

We, as medical students, study the normal functioning of the human body, what happens when that function goes awry, the possible mechanisms by which it goes awry, by a variety of possible etiologies, and ways to address it and/or prevent it. The idea is that when things go awry with disease, we make interventions that bring us back into health, wellness, and wholeness, or to prevent the disease in the first place. There are different ways to do this. You can give drugs, or make physical interventions, that help your immune system better handle pathogens, give vaccinations that augment your immune response, modulate feedback mechanisms, reduce inflammation, mimic, block, or induce certain pathways, block excesses, make the patient more comfortable, remove pathological barriers to healing, stop or slow a disease process or progression, apply splints and casts, recommend rehab and PT, and supplement what is deficient, directly or indirectly. You can counsel the patient in making lifestyle changes and changes in diet and exercise. You can counsel the patient and help the patient address his critical psychosocial issues and stressors. As just about anyone will tell you, and as it has been said over and over again, if you listen carefully, the patient is going to tell you what's wrong and how to address it...how to bring him or her back into health, if possible. Heck, just listening non-judgmentally is going to be of benefit.

The only thing that being a DO allows you to do that most MD's can't, is that you can perform OMT as an intervention. It's quite good in some cases and to address certain conditions, but there many conditions where it won't address, and it certainly isn't my first line therapy for anything other than appropriate MSK-related issues, but as an adjunct.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

Thanks for the insight.

 

[spicedmanna]

Thanks for the insight.

The one thing that I think we could all do more of, both MD's and DO's, is implement more preventive care. Although there has been improvement over all, it's still lacking. However, I see this more as a systemic problem with our current health care system. Another issue is that by the time we see someone, their disease process generally falls in the area of secondary prevention, and there are generally co-morbidities. We are trying to prevent the disease process from getting worse.

 

[Semicolon]

There is a big question then. Is OMT worth all the hoopla, because it's all there is to define the difference? Most DO's don't think so.

So would you suggest that, eventually, the DO and MD degrees should become merged as one? If there truly are no differences between the two degrees (A = B), then aren't they technically the same degree? Would OMT literally be the only thing stopping a DO degree from becoming an MD degree?

It can be disheartening to hear the "reality" of the situation, when you want to enter the field for reasons that seem to be of good intent only to find out you'll be like everyone else anyway.

 

[spicedmanna]

So would you suggest that, eventually, the DO and MD degrees should become merged as one?

I don't have an easy answer for you. Some people would want that. However, I think there is significant resistant from the AOA on merging and they appear to be doing all they can in order to justify their own existence and the existence of osteopathic medicine as a distinctive tradition.

In the advent of modern medicine, the differences between the two traditions has become all but historical. The trend is toward convergence, but there is a strong political force from the osteopathic organizations and traditionalists to keep the distinction, even if it is only hanging by a thread. Once you have power and control, it's never easy to let it go.

As for myself, I don't know where I stand on that. I just want to be the best physician I can be and I don't care too much about aesthetics or the like...never did. As long as I can keep doing the physician thing to the best of my ability, I don't care what my designation is. Am I proud of my tradition? Yes, I'm proud of my osteopathic heritage. Do I think there is a significant distinction to justify a separate degree... The further along I get, the less I think so.

If there truly are no differences between the two degrees (A = B), then aren't they technically the same degree?

Yes, it's mostly there. OMT remains the last bastion of osteopathic medicine. Yet, most DO's do not use it. That means for all practical purposes, there isn't any difference at all, expect in terms of historical roots.

Would OMT literally be the only thing stopping a DO degree from becoming an MD degree?

I don't know. If that's all there is that separates the two and basically nobody uses it, then it seems silly to keep things separate, but apparently the AOA and staunch traditionalists are holding the line. I don't know what's right here. I'm too busy trying to pass my medical school classes and my boards.

It can be disheartening to hear the "reality" of the situation, when you want to enter the field for reasons that seem to be of good intent only to find out you'll be like everyone else anyway.

Yes, I agree. Better to hear it now, then later, though, in my opinion.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

The one thing that I think we could all do more of, both MD's and DO's, is implement more preventive care. Although there has been improvement over all, it's still lacking. However, I see this more as a systemic problem with our current health care system. Another issue is that by the time we see someone, their disease process generally falls in the area of secondary prevention, and there are generally co-morbidities. We are trying to prevent the disease process from getting worse.

Yes, agreed. That is how medicine has shaped throughout the course of history. Plague, cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, smallpox etc
used to be the main cause of death in the U.S., and the world. Europe's black death killed over 20 mil people (1/3 of their pop.). In 1900, all it took was clean water to help end epidemics as the leading cause of death. Cities developed water purification systems. Individual acute infections (pneumonia, meningitis, skin infections) then became the target. In 1941 Fleming discovered Penicillin, and now acute individual infections were being treated and cured. By 1950, chronic diseases became more prevalent (e.g. cancer, stroke, heart disease, diabetes) as acute individual infections subsided due to medical innovations. Our pattern of medical care has changed over time with disease patterns. Our healthcare system today was developed when acute individual infections were considered the major problem. So each episode of illness was treated as separate and distinct from other episodes of illness. It is designed as a short-term stopgap. So chronic disease has been treated as a series of individual, separate acute episodes. We need to fix it, and preventive medicine is very important.

Anyways, I'm just rambling b/c you reminded me of a program on the radio a couple of months ago that I listened to.

 

[Dissected]

OMM is the difference. Are you all looking for something new b/c it has lost it's trend? This is the foundation of Osteopathic philosophy. Whether allopathic docs believe the same thing, they CANNOT perform OMM. And allopathic schools have not ubiquitously adopted OMT (yet...).

not ubiquitously, but there are MD schools that offer OMM as an elective.

 

[Cp22kjer]

Thanks for the good read OP.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

not ubiquitously, but there are MD schools that offer OMM as an elective.

Yeah Texas Tech and UC Irvine (maybe Harvard if I remember right) are a few.

 

[drdave2be]

Wow! What an awesome thread, especially for idealistic pre-meds like myself. I think that we can learn a LOT from those that are going through school. I wish we could hear from some attending DOs. If I knew any that lurked in these forums, best believe I would be PMing them like crazy.

On a related note (perhaps this is better slated for a different thread), and especially a question for our shining role models:

In our personal statements, how do we address WHY we want to become DOs?
Further, and more importantly, in secondaries, how do we address, 'Why Osteopathic medicine vs allopathic?'

I believe the message that spicedmanna and others are telling us, for sure. I'm just curious what your opinions are regarding feeding the propoganda machine: ie ADCOM.

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Further, and more importantly, in secondaries, how do we address, 'Why Osteopathic medicine vs allopathic?'

That's the problem. You don't need to convince them of why you're choosing DO over MD. The main reason is that you haven't chosen anything yet. They know you're probably applying to many schools, and many of those schools could very well be allopathic schools. If you were so gung ho about DO, why would you even consider applying MD??!! You wouldn't. But, alas, here you and thousands of other pre-physicians are, gearing up to apply, and very likely to both sets of schools. You could be asked during interviews or secondaries (NSU) where you applied. You'd sound beyond ignorant/dishonest if you defamed MD schools in secondaries and later admitted to applying to them! 😉

I think it's a slippery slope to say that DO > MD in your secondary apps, or any other time, even if it might feel like that's what they want to hear. Your adcoms, interviewers, professors, colleagues, and classmates will be some mix of both DO and MD at some point in your career.

I found it better to take this approach: Why do I want to be a physician, and what might the advantages of becoming a DO be, in relation to my aspirations of becoming a physician? Giving personal examples of your own experience in healthcare, what you've observed, and perhaps issues you know of that you would be well-equipped to handle because of your training as a DO are good things to talk about.

Search around all the schools' sites for which you plan to apply. They all have slight differences in mission, and they love to hear about why you'd be a good fit. Worked in rural medicine before? Play that up for schools that state training rural docs to be a main priority. You get the point.

If any of this is unclear, let me know. Some of my points are important subtleties that may not translate well, outside of my head or my secondary essays. 😀

 

[Art Vandelay2]

Great advice as usual CB. I posted this in another thread, but I thought it may be helpful to those thinking DO in this thread. I went through every stage:

The 5 stages of pre-D.O.

1) Ignorance- This stage begins during the undergraduate years and is due to poor advising from pre-med clubs and advisors. The student has no clue that DO's exist (although mostly no fault of their own).

2) Exploration - This stage occurs later in the undergraduate experience (like maybe when you get your MCAT scores or your second C in ORGO). You begin to research DO's online and talk with friends/coworkers about this new possibility. AACOMAS will let me replace a grade? Awesome!

3) Anger - You get caught up on the anti-DO threads of SDN and think all that you will learn in school will be how to crack necks and backs, and that you will be stuck in suburban Alaska for residency. I'll never consider applying DO!

4) Questioning - You have now shadowed a few docs (MD and DO) and begin to contemplate the idea of having "D.O." after your name. Will I have to explain to everybody for the rest of my life that I'm not a chiropractor or an optometrist? You spend hours online browsing through residency programs around the country in your hopeful specialty to see if you find any residents with DO after their name. You find many in your home state and feel much better!

5) Acceptance - At this stage, you realize that advice from neurotic premeds is just insane. After speaking with current med students, residents and attendings, you now realize that 99% of patients want a thorough and conscientious doctor. You send in your deposit and are excited for school to begin. You will get out of med school what you put into it.

What stage are you at currently?

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Great advice as usual CB. I posted this in another thread, but I thought it may be helpful to those thinking DO in this thread. I went through every stage:

I went through them too. It's a fantastic post, too! 👍👍