Well IMO, I believe that this article and articles like these give Americans, Pre-Meds, Physicians, and anyone else for that matter a false image of osteopathic manipulation and osteopathic medicine in general. Whether you agree with OMM or not, it is not some sort of mystical thrown together witchcraft voodoo the author of this Time article seems to suggest. Also the financial argument of the article maybe 100% correct but that does not negate the fact that OMM is scientifically justifiable. Some may argue that OMM is not 100% effective or scientifically proven. I would completely agree. BUT can every modern or traditional medical practice, procedure, technique, point of view be scientifically validated with solid scientific method or deemed 100% effective? NOPE. But this point is a completely different topic all together.
My point is that as an osteopathic student, and future DO...articles like these really matter. Even if 2 people read it, these articles make a difference. Ripples eventually make waves. Osteopathic manipulation is a major factor differentiating "us from them." Discrediting OMM is discrediting DOs, even if the rest of his article makes sense. Also, IMO, OMM does not just encompass cracking backs, feeling for cranial motion, or using muscle energy etc etc. OMM has many facets like the simple use of palpation that we do not realize we do. Dr. Jadick "Hero, MD" or really "Hero, DO"...the DO guy in the Navy from the Newsweek article makes a great speech about this in an address he gave to the AOA (this speech was online...maybe someone has the link). And also I don't care if 1, 5, 10, 99.9999 percent of practicing DOs use or never use OMM....that's really not the point. When someone discredits OMM and makes light of the use....it shows ignorance toward our field of osteopathic medicine. Whether you chose to be a DO because you couldn't get into MD school or you chose to be a DO b/c you actually wanted to be, or anywhere in between...I think articles like these are important. Even if the author's main objective was finance and not OMM.
So to finish this up, I think anyone involved or interested in osteopathic medicine should look at this Time article and frown upon it. This is no "who cares...so what" article. Our profession should not be discredited nor taken lightly. Ideas like these are some of the reasons preventing many skilled DOs from being evaluated equally for highly competitive residencies. Even if you are a DO who hates OMM or uses it every single day...OMM is one of the major reasons that makes our degree different from MD. Articles like these are what give PDs, attendings, MDs, residents, interns, medical students, pre-meds, the general public, and even some of the current people involved in the osteopathic field the wrong idea. These kinds of articles give people the impression that osteopathic medical schools or osteopathic physicians come from the "minor leagues" or an inferior "conference" of medicine. Much like Boise State for collegiate football. Boise State defeating Oklahoma was no fluke...osteopaths can and do perform just as well as the "top tiered" medical students or physicians. I do not want my profession to be envisioned as the minor leagues of medicine b/c we are not. I just hope that everyone involved in osteopathic medicine would agree with me and maybe one day everyone else will also...
