Titles and wording

[proudtobeDO]

I recently visited an undergraduate college website which described opportunities for
their graduates. What slightly agitated me in regards to medical school admissions was
the title they used to refer to DO?s: Doctors of Osteopathy. Now, I know this was a
previous title, but it has changed and for specific reasons. The new title, Doctors of
steopathic Medicine, is (I believe) more descriptive of the profession.

I also browsed through a 1998 Kaplan/Newsweek ?How to get into graduate school? guide. The guide had a large section on medicine and the challenges it faces, but in none of its observations did it discuss DOs. The section on other healers did list ?Osteopathy? as an option, next to physical therapy and PAs. The small description below it, I must admit, gave a somewhat accurate and positive analysis of the profession and its
prospects, but the description was short. They also had a photograph of an osteopathic
physician: the physician is wearing a small white coat and a red badge (which I?m
assuming stated the title), standing in front of a spine model, in a non-clinical setting, and conversing with some person (I?m assuming a patient). The narration reads: An osteopath
focuses on muscles and the skeletal system. Now, compared to the photograph of the MD
physician, with the long white coat which clearly states his title and dept., in front of a patient laying in a hospital bed, this doesn?t leave a good impression for the undergrad contemplating a future in osteopathic medicine.

A young undergrad who reads this information for the first time may become discouraged
from pursuing a career in osteopathic medicine because of the title used (which should not play a factor), and also because of the portrayal of a DO (which is inaccurate).

In addition, I also have to question the wording used to describe osteopathic medicine
(i.e. hi-touch, OMT, OMM etc.). Didn?t Norman Getiz discuss a survey, about an
advertisement campaign for osteopathic medicine, which made apparent the idea that
some male patients were turned off by the word hi-touch, and females were intimidated
by the word manipulation. In my opinion, the AOA and osteopathic schools should avoid using words that carry negative connotations for potential patients. And adopt words like holistic and manual medicine which are more inviting and less frieghting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[njdevil]

I agree with sensitive wording.

After all MRI=magnetic resonance imaging, but that is simply a way of say nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) without using the word nuclear which scares the patients.



[This message has been edited by njdevil (edited July 15, 1999).]

 

[turtleboard]

The title, Doctor of Osteopathy, as well as the picture and description which appeared may be different, but isn't that what some DOs (perhaps most) want emphasized? If the picture used to portray the DO was similar to that of the MD picture you described, would that then help the DO profession distinguish itself from the MD profession? Absolutely not, but that's what the osteopathic profession wants.

From my standpoint, while I'm not an osteopathic medical student (not even a matriculated medical student as of yet), the publication does a great service to the profession, but perhaps it could tweak a couple of things here and there to more accurately present the profession.

As far as I know, it was only until recently that all 19 colleges of osteopathic medicine were issuing degrees of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.

Tim of New York City.

 

[UHS2002]

Hmmmmm, so enlighten me, what great service does it do to the profession?

 

[prefontaine]

FYI: not all 19 schools issue the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, at least two still issue the Doctor of Osteopathy.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

Image is every thing. It is always getting better or getting worse. All that you can do is to stay positive and encourage others to do the same. There are many misperceptions in this country that you will have to repeatedly deal with effectively. Attitudes and opinions tend to change. As a profession it is up to us to try to change negative opinions. Our success or failure depends entirely on what we do and say and write.

 

[turtleboard]

To all:

Yes, the image of the profession rests on the members of the osteopathic profession. So if you guys were to change the image of osteopathic physicians in that publication, what would you have done differently? Would you have called them "Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine" rather than "Doctors of Osteopathy?" Would you have used a picture to portray the DO similar to the picture used to portray the MD?

 

[Gregory Gulick]

Well, I would at least have given the DO a longer coat.

Personally, when presenting information to premedical students in written form (like the above example) I prefer there be a generic "physician" section and that it include both MDs and DOs under the same heading. All too often I think that when we separate things like this for potential applicants, osteopathic medicine ends up looking like "that other profession." Or worse, we end up looking like some form of alternative practitioners.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

I think D.O.'s should emphasize the difference between D.O.'s and M.D.'s along philosophical grounds while expressing that there is much more that we have in common than not. I think we should start de-emphasizing the osteopathic manipulations as I see this becoming more of a sub-specialty rather than a generally practiced technique. My personal D.O. recommended I see a chiropracter when I injured my back. Why? Because, like anything, manipulations is something that must be practiced repeatedly. It is a specialty. Some D.O.'s choose not to perform manipulation at all. So should it really be the banner of our profession or rather an annotation?

AD

 

[proudtobeDO]

Thanks for all the replies! I gain a great deal of comfort knowing students in this forum will one day be future colleagues.

[This message has been edited by proudtobeDO (edited July 21, 1999).]

 

[turtleboard]

Perhaps the DO pictured was an intern or still a medical student. I notice many interns around New York Hospital who are relegated to wearing a short, white coat. Is that universal throughout the medical profession (allo/osteo is what I mean)?

In any event, I agree with Mr. DeLarge in that the osteopathic profession should be emphasizing its philosophical differences with the MD profession instead of relying on OMT as the only clear break from "mainstream" medicine. OMT is a tool, not the profession. DO = MD + OMT is absolutely false in other words.

What I don't agree with is when you say OMT should be de-emphasized (in a manner of speaking, do you mean to get rid of it in the osteopathic medical curriculum?) to any extent. OMT may not be the profession, but it certainly is, according to an osteopathic professor I met once, the "most powerful tool" of the DO. Why get rid of it or de-emphasize its importance in osteopathic training at all?

Tim of New York City.

 

[drusso]

The profession has an obligation to the public to maintain and enforce standards-even in manipulative medicine. All medical students are expected to learn how to do a thorough physical exam during medical school even if they enter specialties where they won't use all aspects of the physical exam (psychiatry for example). Similarly, all DO's should be competent in a limited repertoire of OMM techniques.

My mother recently injured her back called 5 DO's looking for one who did manipulation. On the fifth try she got lucky. One of the DO's said that he said sent his patients to a chiropractor he trusted, and the other recommended she see an MD physiatrist one town away who DID do manipulation! That's a pretty sad commentary. I realize that a lot of older DO's practicing today came up in a time when OMM wasn't fashionable; still, one consistent piece of advice I've gotten from my preceptors is to really get some bread-and-butter OMM down cold. There are patients out there who are educated about what DO's are and will seek you out for manipulation. He noticed an increase in requests for OMM a few years back and took a couple re-fresher classes "to wake-up his hands."

I also discovered that while OMM is not cost-effective for all physicians, it does pay fairly well (about as much as a minor dermatological procedure) and the last preceptor I worked with generated about 15% of his income doing OMT. Not bad...that'll pay the electric bill!

And, while osteopathic philosophy is certainly unique, the concrete difference between DO's and MD's is the 300-500 hours of training in manual medicine DO's get. It doesn't hurt to tell patients about both.

 

[cbeaty]

I think the the whole manipulation thing should be put in a bottom drawer...family practice and working in rural and underserved urban areas should be brought completely to the fore...this is our great strength as well as developing public health....

 

[turtleboard]

Maybe one day DO schools will all change their names to "Colleges of Family & Rural Medicine."

Tim of New York City.

 

[drhenderson]

Your message stating that Osteopathic medicine was listed as an alternative along with
physical therapy and PAs has prompted me to change my website to list oteopathic
medicine as a distinguished equal to allopathic medicine, as opposed to something like a
PA. Never thought about this before

Thanks,

Jim Henderson, MD of Medicalstudent.net

 

[drusso]

Cbeaty,

I wonder if you could elaborate a little more on your opinion. I think many people on this site would be interested in the reasons you believe, perhaps reasons the profession has overlooked, manipulation should be put in the "bottom drawer."

--dave