Two Schools of Thought - There is a difference!

[brody17]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am relatively new to this forum but I am already sick of the DO vs. MD crap. If there is one thing we must all recognize is the difference that exists between the two philosophies. There is a difference! If there was not a difference then DO schools would just be schools with lower averages. I decided to apply to only osteopathic schools because I disagree wholeheartedly with the approach of allopathic medicine. I believe that many diseases develop from maintenance issues such as dehydration and cells? starvation of nutrients. Osteopathic medicine is appealing because it offers a comprehensive didactic and clinical education that will focus on the musculoskeletal system and holistic methods. I want the option to prescribe medications though I do not believe that toxic chemicals are always viable treatments. I believe in the body?s ability to heal itself and I want to attend a school that will teach me to be innovative in that respect with my patients. If that means that I will have a DO after my name and not MD then so be it. More and more we are seeing MDs break from tradition and praise alternative medicine because they realize how limited they are as doctors. This information is not encouraged in MD programs. Unfortunately, this is probably due to the ridiculous amount of research money pumped into these programs by pharmaceutical companies. I?m sure I will be attacked by countless premeds about this but after years spent talking with physicians (MD and DO) and researching what is out there, this is my truth. So each premed student must evaluate which method they believe is the best in treating patients. Everyone will have their opinion about which is right but that is what is so great. We have choices. This is why it is so frustrating when students apply to both types of schools. They are not just different schools; they are different schools of thought. If you are confused about which method you think is better, than that is one thing, but using DO as a ?safety school? is only going to be unfulfilling to you and unjust to the people that believe in osteopathic medicine. Do not underestimate the decision. It is the first of many that today?s physicians are forced to make.

 

[DireWolf]

sorry. there is no difference.

the only difference lies within individuals.

 

[brody17]

Unfortunately, many premeds who do not truly believe in the osteopathic philosophy have attended osteopathic schools and are practicing with DO after their name. Many did not and do not practice the philosophy because they never truly believed in it. This is why your reply is predictable.

 

[DireWolf]

My reply may be "predictable", but it is also accurate. You are obviously speaking from your heart and that is admirable. However, you also speak from ignorance. When you actually go through the schooling and then interact with your allopathic colleagues, you will see the truth. There is no difference between the two schools of education. The only exception being 3 hours/week of OMT class during the first two years.

Of course some DO physicians may practice in a different light, but this is solely individual preference. Just as there are MD physicians that practice non-mainstream philosophy.

 

[Shinken]

Unfortunately, many premeds who do not truly believe in the osteopathic philosophy have attended osteopathic schools and are practicing with DO after their name. Many did not and do not practice the philosophy because they never truly believed in it. This is why your reply is predictable.

Brody17, congratulations on your decision. I too explored MD and DO schools, and ended up DECLINING an opportunity to attend an MD in favor of a DO school.

Yes, many people that attend DO schools will end up becoming MD's with a different title, but believe me, if you choose to become a DO instead of an MD with a DO title you can. There are plenty of differences in DO school that can set you apart. Direwolf mentioned the obvious: OMT. There are many OMT techniques that are useful and will make patients come to you. There are also differences in the clinical approach to patients. There's added emphasis in the psychosocial aspects of the patients that MD schools might touch on or mention in passing before starting to think about which drug is the best for the patient's headache. Perhaps the headache is caused by stress at work? or at home? or some chemical at work? Who cares, right? Give him drugs! Not so in DO school. You'll learn to explore the entire "sphere" of the patient to try to find the root cause for the disorder, not just treat the symptoms of the chief complaint. As a patient of both MDs and DOs, I've experienced these different approaches firsthand.

It sounds corny and sounds like an AOA slogan, but after just six weeks in DO school, there's definitely a difference in the approach to the patient. It's just a matter of whether you're open to embrace the difference or simply dismiss it in your way to become an MD with a DO title.

 

[DireWolf]

There's added emphasis in the psychosocial aspects of the patients that MD schools might touch on or mention in passing before starting to think about which drug is the best for the patient's headache. Perhaps the headache is caused by stress at work? or at home? or some chemical at work? Who cares, right? Give him drugs! Not so in DO school. You'll learn to explore the entire "sphere" of the patient to try to find the root cause for the disorder, not just treat the symptoms of the chief complaint. As a patient of both MDs and DOs, I've experienced these different approaches firsthand.

I don't disagree with your comments. However, I do know of just as many MDs that practice this "approach" as DOs.

 

[LovelyRita]

OP: if you want to practice using this philosophy someday, that's your perogative.

While in school and training however, you will not receive any unique knowledge other than OMT.

The professors do not stand up before every lecture and say, "now, considering that the body can heal itself..." and proceed onto the lecture.

 

[brody17]

Direwolf, I don't understand your stubborness to this issue. Have you ever attended a DO school or spoken to a DO student that is truly interested in osteopathy? I think medical school is what you make of it but the resources you are looking for must be there in the first place. I do not want to be taught be MDs who are not open to alternative treatment. I know there are some that are open, I have met them, but I guarantee the percentage of physicians that I would like to learn from are greater at DO schools.

I heard a reputable MD once say, "Is a headache caused by a deficiency in aspirin? Then why would you treat it with aspirin."

When I work with allopathic physicians, I will still maintain my beliefs. I plan to design my own medical education focusing on nutrition and preventive medicine and these subjects are held in higher regard at osteopathic schools. This is not to say that MDs are not caring individuals and they too can "approach" patients in different ways. But again, like you said everyone is different.

 

[LovelyRita]

these subjects are held in higher regard at osteopathic schools.

I would like to know where you have obtained this information from.

 

[DireWolf]

Direwolf, I don't understand your stubborness to this issue. Have you ever attended a DO school or spoken to a DO student that is truly interested in osteopathy? I think medical school is what you make of it but the resources you are looking for must be there in the first place. I do not want to be taught be MDs who are not open to alternative treatment. I know there are some that are open, I have met them, but I guarantee the percentage of physicians that I would like to learn from are greater at DO schools.

I heard a reputable MD once say, "Is a headache caused by a deficiency in aspirin? Then why would you treat it with aspirin."

When I work with allopathic physicians, I will still maintain my beliefs. I plan to design my own medical education focusing on nutrition and preventive medicine and these subjects are held in higher regard at osteopathic schools. This is not to say that MDs are not caring individuals and they too can "approach" patients in different ways. But again, like you said everyone is different.

Yes. I do attend a DO school and know many DO students. Obviously the same cannot be said of yourself.

 

[brody17]

Honestly, I do not understand why either DOs or MDs feel they need to defend or attack osteopathy. Let it be. In my opinion, those who do not agree with me on this post are being extremely negative. Obviously, professors will not stand up on their soap box all day, praising osteopathy. And obviously, every lecture does not begin with "because the body can heal itself..." That is just a negative comment. But if I were to approach this same professor and ask a question, I feel confident that his answer would be more along what I was looking for.

If you want to attend an MD program, be my guest. You'll probably become a wonderful doctor, not a doctor I would want to see, but a wonderful doctor for someone else. Health is a personal issue, I choose to approach it more naturally, with less medication, and therefore, your approach would not be desirable for me. There are people who will like your methods and people who would like mine. What does it matter to you? You do your thing, I'll do mine. All I was saying is that there is a difference. The fact that you can't see it probably supports why you should not have anything to do with the osteopathic philosophy.

 

[DireWolf]

I am simply voicing my opinion on your thread, which is what a public forum is designed for.

You may view my opinions as negative, but that is what I believe.

Also, I do not see a difference because it doesn't exist. Talk to me in a few years when you have experienced medical school firsthand. Then we can have a more educated discussion.

 

[brody17]

I have no problem with anyone voicing an opinion but you are trying to assert a fact. Fortunately in this world, your fact does not have to be my fact. But please do not act like your comments are not stubborn and forceful. If it is fact in my mind, then it is fact to me.

All this time, you sounded like someone who did not chose osteopathy. I would love to know why you decided to attend your school and continue a career in something you don?t believe in. I know I could never do that.

 

[DireWolf]

I believe in medicine. I chose my school based on a variety of factors. These included in no particular order:
1. Location
2. Cost of Living
3. Facilities
4. Preclinical professors
5. Clinical rotation sites
6. Board pass rates
7. Residency placement

Based on the above criteria, I came up with the following rankings:
1. MD school (waitlisted)
2. MD (waitlisted)
3. DO (accepted = OSU)
4. MD = accepted
5. MD = accepted
6. DO = accepted
7. DO = accepted

I chose to attend the highest ranked school I got accepted to (personal rankings), which happened to be a DO school.

MD vs. DO had no part in my decision. Because there is no difference.

 

[brody17]

There will be a lot of people in this world who have differing opinions. I feel there is a difference but I respect that you don't. I hope your medical education is all you hoped it would be.

 

[DireWolf]

There will be a lot of people in this world who have differing opinions. I feel there is a difference but I respect that you don't. I hope your medical education is all you hoped it would be.

Thank you. And I wish you all the best in your medical endeavors.

 

[Freakingzooming]

sigh.... if there could be any more pairing of idealism vs cynicism in this forum it would be between the op and direwolf.

i agree that the philosophy differences are what attracted me to want to apply to DO but I know what to expect, hearing from what people have said and gone thru at Western and other schools. To me, the upbringing and atmosphere you're brought up in determines your philosophy or outlook on things... so if Western is going to be promoting a holistic philosophy I think I would at least consider or be influenced by it. I think anyone can be make something out of what they want so if you're strong minded on this issue, it'll be hard to convince you otherwise.

 

[LovelyRita]

This is not about cynicism.

It's about the mistaken assumption that DO represents an embracement of integrative medicine.

This is false.

 

[brody17]

DrMaryC, what are you doing in this forum? Your attitude is awful. Why are you so spiteful?

 

[Shinken]

DrMaryC, what are you doing in this forum? Your attitude is awful. Why are you so spiteful?

Well, don't be so harsh. Everyone's opinions and experiences are different in this regard. DrMaryC always has good things to contribute to this forum, and her experiences just happen to be different to what you want to hear.

In my personal experience as a patient, there's definitely a different approach between MDs and DOs (could be because I live in the Midwest, which is "DO heaven"). My DO school also places an emphasis on the more intangible aspects of osteopathic medicine. Every school is different.

There's nothing wrong with becoming an MD or a DO. One isn't better than the other, just different approaches to medical care. Some MDs practice like DOs, many DOs practice like MDs. What approach do you want to take when caring for your patients? You decide. Just make sure you become the physician you want to become, regardless of whether your med school encourages it or not.

 

[LovelyRita]

Well, don't be so harsh. Everyone's opinions and experiences are different in this regard. DrMaryC always has good things to contribute to this forum, and her experiences just happen to be different to what you want to hear.

Thanks, Shinken.

OP: I was the president of the Integrative Medicine Club at KCUMB last year.

For 7 years I worked in an apheresis unit and collected stem cells for bone marrow transplant. I saw many sick people suffering the effects of chemo toxicity on a daily basis. I saw babies, young adults, adults, and elderly die. I saw the sincere lack of attention paid to lifestyle and nutrition on behalf of the doctors and the patients.

I share your views on holistic medicine.

I am going to suggest that you pursue a career as a naturopathic physician. You will be able to practice holistic medicine to your heart's content.

As for me, I embrace ALL of medicine. I love it all. I just don't think that certain principles such as health and nutrition should be left out.

But understand that in going to a DO school, you cannot elect out of taking pharm. You will learn about every toxic drug and treatment out there, and then go to the OPP lab and learn how to do manipulation.

As far as medical school goes, you will have a traditional education whether you go MD or DO. As I stated before, if you choose to practice with a holistic philosophy someday, that is your perogative.

As I'm sure you are familiar, the medical community in this country places little to no value overall on holistic medicine. Therefore to say that DO=holistic somewhat 'devalues' the degree.

That is my point.

Good luck

 

[Ypo.]

I am relatively new to this forum but I am already sick of the DO vs. MD crap. If there is one thing we must all recognize is the difference that exists between the two philosophies. There is a difference! If there was not a difference then DO schools would just be schools with lower averages. I decided to apply to only osteopathic schools because I disagree wholeheartedly with the approach of allopathic medicine. I believe that many diseases develop from maintenance issues such as dehydration and cells? starvation of nutrients. Osteopathic medicine is appealing because it offers a comprehensive didactic and clinical education that will focus on the musculoskeletal system and holistic methods. I want the option to prescribe medications though I do not believe that toxic chemicals are always viable treatments. I believe in the body?s ability to heal itself and I want to attend a school that will teach me to be innovative in that respect with my patients. If that means that I will have a DO after my name and not MD then so be it. More and more we are seeing MDs break from tradition and praise alternative medicine because they realize how limited they are as doctors. This information is not encouraged in MD programs. Unfortunately, this is probably due to the ridiculous amount of research money pumped into these programs by pharmaceutical companies. I?m sure I will be attacked by countless premeds about this but after years spent talking with physicians (MD and DO) and researching what is out there, this is my truth. So each premed student must evaluate which method they believe is the best in treating patients. Everyone will have their opinion about which is right but that is what is so great. We have choices. This is why it is so frustrating when students apply to both types of schools. They are not just different schools; they are different schools of thought. If you are confused about which method you think is better, than that is one thing, but using DO as a ?safety school? is only going to be unfulfilling to you and unjust to the people that believe in osteopathic medicine. Do not underestimate the decision. It is the first of many that today?s physicians are forced to make.

While I agree that people should not just choose DO as a backup plan to MD - they are not that different from each other - I'm afraid that even the AACOM itself recognizes a need to become more distinct from MDs. And while I love the tenets of osteopathic philosophy and would love to live in a bubble world - it is true that the medical education is virtually identical in both MD and DO schools- except that DO's get training in OMT. DO schools don't train to do acupuncture or ayurvedic medicine or anything else. The DOs I shadowed prescribed drugs just like MDs - the only difference I saw was that they seemed to touch their patients a little more. Most of them don't even use OMT. As we can see, some of the pre-DO and DO students around here appear to be even somewhat disdainful of the osteopathic principles and don't seem open to alternative medicine.

I hope that you are right - that their philosophy means DO schools will be more open to alternative medicine and not so heavily brainwashed by pharmaceutical companies like MD schools are (no offense, anyone). This is all I want. I know MD schools feel threatened by any other form of medicine they can't control (thus explaining the battle for so long between DO/MD/holistic/and other kinds of medicine). I think its great that DO schools continue to assert their independance - but maybe they should practice what they preach and incorporate some classes in acupuncture, ayurvedic and chinese medicine. That would make me really happy. We need more studies to prove the efficacy of these other types of medicine, too.

OP-I totally am with you on your reasons to choose DO - but you are overestimating how different osteopathic school is going to be from medical school. I hope for you that you will be able to focus on your alternative medicine ambitions in addition to the already overwhelming course load- and that your teachers will be supportive and encouraging of your interest in alternative medicines- that is the type of environment I dream about as well. Good luck! 🙂

 

[Sense]

I think its great that DO schools continue to assert their independance - but maybe they should practice what they preach and incorporate some classes in acupuncture, ayurvedic and chinese medicine.

Well all I can say is that it would be an even harder courseload bordering on more than 40 units a semester if we also had to take those classes. Right now for my first semester, our classes are as follows:

-Microbiology w/ lab
-Anatomy w/lab
-Biochemistry
-Histology (w/lab) and Embryology in one class
-Pathology
-Pharmacology
-Physiology
-Immunology
-OP&P

That's just above 30 units. I am pretty sure MD schools take all of those classes except OP&P. OP&P is just a lecture and lab where we learn the principals of OMM and we practice it in lab.

I would have to agree with the majority in that I don't really see that much of a difference between what is taught at DO schools vs MD schools.

 

[Ypo.]

Thanks, Shinken.

I am going to suggest that you pursue a career as a naturopathic physician. You will be able to practice holistic medicine to your heart's content.
:

This wouldn't work for the OP-he already expressed that he wants to be able to prescribe medications when necessary.

And, just because the medical community places little value on holistic medicine does not mean the DO degree is devalued by association with a holistic approach. The whole reason naturopath schools exist is because of the public's demand for it. Certain regions are much more into naturalpath than other forms. But much of the public does not know there are less invasive forms of medicine that are efficacious, or they adopt the negative attitude of the "medical community" (which is threatened by older, more tested forms of medicine that they just don't understand and which may be competing with them for patients -and money). In my opinion, "traditional" medicine still has a long way to go before it strikes an even balance between treating symptoms/causing side effects and truly healing someone. I do hope DO schools start incorporating more alternative medicine into their curriculum. There are a lot of good treatments in Chinese, Ayurvedic medicine (and acupuncture is proven to help many medical problems).
If the medical community changed its stance a little instead of being suckered in by drug companies - perhaps the public would start thinking more holistically and preventatively about their health instead of eating french fries and watching drug commercials. But, even though incorporating more holisitic and preventative medicine into the powerful techniques of modern medicine would give patients the best possible health care, I guess its just easy to give the public what pharmaceutical companies have promised them...the magic pill. Not to mention that focusing on preventative medicine would mean more healthy people and less clients for traditional practicioners.

After all, doctors have to make a living too, don't they? 🙄

 

[Ypo.]

Well all I can say is that it would be an even harder courseload bordering on more than 40 units a semester if we also had to take those classes. Right now for my first semester, our classes are as follows:

-Microbiology w/ lab
-Anatomy w/lab
-Biochemistry
-Histology (w/lab) and Embryology in one class
-Pathology
-Pharmacology
-Physiology
-Immunology
-OP&P

That's just above 30 units. I am pretty sure MD schools take all of those classes except OP&P. OP&P is just a lecture and lab where we learn the principals of OMM and we practice it in lab.

I would have to agree with the majority in that I don't really see that much of a difference between what is taught at DO schools vs MD schools.

Hey Sense,
But perhaps these courses could be listed as not required - or even you could take extra time to do a specialty in them. Just having the option there would be great.

 

[brody17]

This is exactly the type of conversation I hoped to engage when I started this thread. If people want to think that there is no difference, then that is their business. It is nice to know that there are some people who want to embrace the philosophy. I know that I will surely be a little disappointed by DO school but I know it will be more open to my suggestions than an MD program. I hope to one day help osteopathy spread its message and separate itself from tradition like AT Still first intended.Sometimes you have to take your education into your own hands.

And by the way, I was a chemistry/biochemsitry undergraduate...taking the pharm classes will be nothing new. I know the toxic nature of pharmaceuticals...and this is why I do not want to be expected to prescribe them...how you do think I decided to become a DO in the first place?

 

[kahoo99]

To the OP and all the other active ones on this forum...I've read everybodies' posts and I don't really think the "negative" ones have been very cynical. I've visited a bunch of schools, talked to a bunch of students, and done as much research as i can muster between work and school on both md and do schools. the truth of the matter is for me, it seems like schools vary from one to the next in acceptance of alternative thought-be it at an md or do school. Yale and Stanford and UCLA have interesting more holistic options--UCLA even has a post-bach accupuncture degree for doctors, just as UCSD is stright by the books or COMP. Some schools emphasize competition other non-competition, but the overall curriculum other than the OMM/OMT is the same.

And by holistic on some level i mean a deeper understanding of the patient as a person and the of the student as a person. drug perscribing will be up to us either way.

 

[Ypo.]

John A Burns School of Medicine in Hawaii is also open to alternative medicine-especially Hawaiian medicine. I had a talk about alternative med. with the assistant dean. Thats cool that UCLA has a post-bac acupuncture program for doctors.

All I know is I don't want to end up close minded to other forms of medicine. I hate quackery and I'm a firm believer in evidence-based medicine-but in order to see if there is something to "natural path" medicine, we have to first be open to it.

 

[DD214_DOC]

I don't know if there's a difference or not. I think there is a difference amongst individuals, and DO schools just seem to attract more individuals of a certain type.

Honestly I don't care. I feel I "belong" more with the DO's than the MD's. That was enough for me.

 

[daveyboy]

This is exactly the type of conversation I hoped to engage when I started this thread. If people want to think that there is no difference, then that is their business. It is nice to know that there are some people who want to embrace the philosophy. I know that I will surely be a little disappointed by DO school but I know it will be more open to my suggestions than an MD program. I hope to one day help osteopathy spread its message and separate itself from tradition like AT Still first intended.Sometimes you have to take your education into your own hands.

And by the way, I was a chemistry/biochemsitry undergraduate...taking the pharm classes will be nothing new. I know the toxic nature of pharmaceuticals...and this is why I do not want to be expected to prescribe them...how you do think I decided to become a DO in the first place?

Just go to a Naturopathic school, or take a reiki class. Really. You will never have to deal with "toxic" pharmaceuticals, and you may even get an aloe enema with you tuition. GOOD LUCK!!

 

[Jinyaoysiu]

There is no difference between the two schools of education. The only exception being 3 hours/week of OMT

There is no difference between a man and a woman. The only exception being man has a penis and woman has a vigina.

 

[Ypo.]

Just go to a Naturopathic school, or take a reiki class. Really. You will never have to deal with "toxic" pharmaceuticals, and you may even get an aloe enema with you tuition. GOOD LUCK!!

Wouldn't work for him-he already said he wanted to be able to prescribe as well, which I applaud because it says to me that he is not being close minded and is striving to be able to provide the most effective and noninvasive health care he can. Good for him.

I'd just like to post a quote here by Dain Tasker, DO in the early 1900s when he was trying to expand osteopathic medicine to include more than just OMT and obstretics and minor surgery-
"In order to be truly scientific we must love truth better than we love our preconceived ideas of what truth is."

As physicians, MD and DO, I think it is our duty to discover options that help our patients achieve their best state of health. If we are close minded-then we shoot down other health care options before we get a chance to investigate them. If we are not open to the idea that othe kinds of medical care may have some useful knowledge-then we won't recognize a good treatment alternative even if it hits us right between the eyes.

There is nothing wrong with thinking your form of health care or school of medicine is the best option available in the present-thats usually why we choose it both as doctors and as patients, but to say that western medicine or any other form of medicine could not be improved upon by adopting techniques from other schools of medicine, is not only foolish and ignorant, but also wrong and arrogant. This kind of attitude really pi$$e$ me off for two reasons - 1. Its depreciates the quality of care a patient gets and limits their realistic options, and 2. I just hate close minded people. I've met this kind of attitude in MDs, DOs and natural paths (some of the natural paths I have met were really close minded to western medicine).

Science has grown and built on studies done all over the world. It is this kind of cooperation that has allowed us to make such progressions. Why shouldn't medicine do the same and learn to build upon what each school of medicine and discipline has to offer?

 

[jhug]

If there was not a difference then DO schools would just be schools with lower averages.

😕 😕 😴 😴 😕 😕
what????
the biggest differences i see are obviously OMM...for those of us that will actually use it...and the fact that there are some DO's that have to keep cramming this "we treat patients better" crap down everyones throat!!!!
how you treat someone as a physician is up to YOU! one thing i love about working with MD's is that they aren't constantly trying to convince you how good they are with stupid comments like "my training is better than your training" (then again, as previously stated, these comments tend to stop once you are out in the working field and you realize that ANYONE can be a good/poor physician regardless of training/degree...and those that keep saying things like this don't understand why everyone detests them)
be proud of who/what you are...i'm ecstatic to be a DO someday...but i'm not going to make enemies by erroneously claiming that my training will make me better than someone else...just because i feel there needs to be a difference!

 

[docbill]

I guess it doesn't matter what your degree training is, at the end of the day it is your patient and their healthy that will be the judge of things. If one chooses to practice the DO phil (DO or MD) that is fine, OMM that is a plus++, if not, nothing wrong with that either. Remember there are good and bad physicians no matter where or what you are tought.

I work with a lot of MDs and the more experienced ones (that I know) are now trying to lecture the important need for a whole patient approach.. and in my field regenerative medicine... I will say loosely.. that yes the body does have the ability to repair itself, to a limit (I don't want 10 smart alexes getting on my case about saying that... there is pubmed and other websites that are out there to look up this topic). Our bodies where not meant to undergo extrem stress... such as obesity and chemical damage.. and their secondary effects... these are just examples.

DOs or MDs should both practice preventative medicine... you don't know how many cardiology conferences I go to ... and all I hear over and over again.. prevention is the key. Do physicians (both) practice this... Not even 25%... of the top of my head (not published or definit numbers... again.. just a guess... or observation).

I look forward to becoming a D.O. and will make it clear to people who agree or who don't agree with the phil. People have the right to their opinion. If you are a current DO or MD or etc... and just trying to get a rise out of people then maybe should find other means of dealing with your issues. I believe the other forum before is for MDs.. one is always welcome to go there and put DOs down all they want.

 

[DireWolf]

There is no difference between a man and a woman. The only exception being man has a penis and woman has a vigina.

this analogy makes no sense. try again.

 

[daveyboy]

Wouldn't work for him-he already said he wanted to be able to prescribe as well, which I applaud because it says to me that he is not being close minded and is striving to be able to provide the most effective and noninvasive health care he can. Good for him.

I'd just like to post a quote here by Dain Tasker, DO in the early 1900s when he was trying to expand osteopathic medicine to include more than just OMT and obstretics and minor surgery-
"In order to be truly scientific we must love truth better than we love our preconceived ideas of what truth is."

As physicians, MD and DO, I think it is our duty to discover options that help our patients achieve their best state of health. If we are close minded-then we shoot down other health care options before we get a chance to investigate them. If we are not open to the idea that othe kinds of medical care may have some useful knowledge-then we won't recognize a good treatment alternative even if it hits us right between the eyes.

There is nothing wrong with thinking your form of health care or school of medicine is the best option available in the present-thats usually why we choose it both as doctors and as patients, but to say that western medicine or any other form of medicine could not be improved upon by adopting techniques from other schools of medicine, is not only foolish and ignorant, but also wrong and arrogant. This kind of attitude really pi$$e$ me off for two reasons - 1. Its depreciates the quality of care a patient gets and limits their realistic options, and 2. I just hate close minded people. I've met this kind of attitude in MDs, DOs and natural paths (some of the natural paths I have met were really close minded to western medicine).

Science has grown and built on studies done all over the world. It is this kind of cooperation that has allowed us to make such progressions. Why shouldn't medicine do the same and learn to build upon what each school of medicine and discipline has to offer?

My sarcastic quip was made in reference to a statement made about the toxic nature of pharmaceuticals and a specific desire not to prescribe them. From this I derived my statement. If you reread the quote in my first post this should become apparent.I realize it was bad form for me to associate reiki with Naturopathic medicine, as there is a real basis for what NDs practice.

Regarding your hatred towards the "closed-minded", I must ask you to consider the possibility that these feelings may be irrational in nature. Furthermore, this is a prime example of being narrow-minded, much like the Naturopath example you gave. Maybe you are confusing a healthy level of skepticism with cynicism.

 

[DD214_DOC]

this analogy makes no sense. try again.

Nice way to avoid replying to his comment.

The only difference between a man (MD) and a woman (DO) is that a man has a penis and the woman has a vagina (OMM).

Obviously there are far greater differences between a man and a woman than the presence or absence of a penis or vagina. Unfortunately you can't really SEE these differences.

 

[Ypo.]

I work with a lot of MDs and the more experienced ones (that I know) are now trying to lecture the important need for a whole patient approach.. and in my field regenerative medicine... I will say loosely.. that yes the body does have the ability to repair itself, to a limit (I don't want 10 smart alexes getting on my case about saying that... there is pubmed and other websites that are out there to look up this topic). Our bodies where not meant to undergo extrem stress... such as obesity and chemical damage.. and their secondary effects... these are just examples.

DOs or MDs should both practice preventative medicine... you don't know how many cardiology conferences I go to ... and all I hear over and over again.. prevention is the key. Do physicians (both) practice this... Not even 25%... of the top of my head (not published or definit numbers... again.. just a guess... or observation).
QUOTE]

Very good point.

If doctors and the huge pharmaceutical companies that fund medical school research got behind the concept of preventative medicine, I think many Americans would follow suit and start thinking along preventative terms (the same way that many of them think they want the magic pills they see advertised on TV). But, as we are currently treatment oriented because thats what we're taught do in medical school, I think there is almost an automatic reflex there to prescribe. Its a vicious cycle reinforced by research funding that medical schools recieve from drug companies to create synthetic medicine that often only mask or treat symptoms. Drug companies wouldn't profit from healthy people or preventative medicine, so why would they pour a bunch of money into a media campaign for people to live more healthily and to take care of their bodies? They don't do this, because its easier to make a promise to Americans that the power of modern medicine will fix all their problems. And Americans are very sold on this idea, because it means they can live in a dream world and not do anything the hard way.
If the american public started screaming for (and buying) preventative medicine or "alternative" medicine, you can bet the drug companies would start capitalizing on Chinese herbs and marketing "natural" medicines- the same way that the big food companies started marketing organic foods, (and requiring everyone who said they were selling organic food to get their farm certified).


The AACOM says that DO philosophy is health-oriented rather than symptom oriented like MDs, this is just words and smoke- consider the fact that the curriculum is the same aside from OMT, and that most DOs don't even use OMT.
I TOTALLY AGREE with the people who have said that it's up to the individual what type of doctor they will be. But, I also think that because the people who are attracted to the tenets of osteopathic medicine go to DO schools, and that because they were attracted holistic medicine to begin with, (and not because of any superior training they received in a DO school) that maybe overall DOs might take a more "holistic" approach on average than MDs. But, I really don't know for sure and am just following what seems to me to be in good logic, and someone else got really mad at me for saying that in another thread. Of course there is really no way to tell for sure what the personal tenets of pre-meds/allopathic students are to begin with, so it is hard to make a realistic appraisal. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion on this?

 

[DD214_DOC]

The AACOM says that DO philosophy is health-oriented rather than symptom oriented like MDs, this is just words and smoke- consider the fact that the curriculum is the same aside from OMT, and that most DOs don't even use OMT.

Just because the curricula are the same does not mean the students learn the same approaches. For example, I had two different professors for physics I and physics II. With physics I, the professor stressed the importance of learning concepts rather than remembering formulae. Because of this, I became much more proficient in understanding how the physics worked and was able to apply this knowledge to solve problems I had never seen.

The physics II professor stressed learning formulae and working problems ad infinitum. Because of this, we all improved our skill in mathematics and recognizing when to use what formulae, but never really understood or learned the concepts behind it all. Most of us had trouble figuring out problems we had never seen.

Same class, different approaches.

 

[Ypo.]

Just because the curricula are the same does not mean the students learn the same approaches. For example, I had two different professors for physics I and physics II. With physics I, the professor stressed the importance of learning concepts rather than remembering formulae. Because of this, I became much more proficient in understanding how the physics worked and was able to apply this knowledge to solve problems I had never seen.

The physics II professor stressed learning formulae and working problems ad infinitum. Because of this, we all improved our skill in mathematics and recognizing when to use what formulae, but never really understood or learned the concepts behind it all. Most of us had trouble figuring out problems we had never seen.

Same class, different approaches.

Yes, I see your point, but you are not putting your reasoning into terms of the differences between the two schools of medicine. Do you think that all (or most) DO schools teach the first two years of classes in a way that is consistent with each other and different from MD schools? I don't think you do or else you would have given an example of it. I know that at MSUCOM, they share their actual classrooms with the MD students at MSUCHM.

If you don't have a more relevant example, then I'm afraid your above comment, though true as it stands by itself, is not very enlightening to the discussion at hand.

 

[DireWolf]

Nice way to avoid replying to his comment.

The only difference between a man (MD) and a woman (DO) is that a man has a penis and the woman has a vagina (OMM).

Obviously there are far greater differences between a man and a woman than the presence or absence of a penis or vagina. Unfortunately you can't really SEE these differences.

ok smart guy. I consider the difference between a man (penis) and a woman (vagina) to be very significant.

The only difference between MD and DO is OMT. I don't consider this to be of equal significance to the man/woman analogy.

Therefore, Jinyaoysiu's analogy makes no sense to me.

 

[Ypo.]

Regarding your hatred towards the "closed-minded", I must ask you to consider the possibility that these feelings may be irrational in nature. Furthermore, this is a prime example of being narrow-minded, much like the Naturopath example you gave. Maybe you are confusing a healthy level of skepticism with cynicism.

"Hate" was too strong a word, and one that I considered replacing with "really dislike". However, people do often use it to describe something they strongly dislike or have distaste for, so I thought it would be alright.

I don't hate anyone in the true sense of the word. And I suppose I never really worried about hate being an irrational feeling-because I thought that feelings weren't rational to begin with. 😕

I think you were taking the word in that sentence a little too literally, but I understand its hard to understand a persons meaning without hearing tone or knowing that person.
I only meant to convey that I wish people wouldn't rule out the validity of other forms of medicine without first at least investigating the possibility that there may be nuggets of wisdom within them, and that I think both they and their patients would benefit from doing so. 🙂

 

[Ypo.]

My sarcastic quip was made in reference to a statement made about the toxic nature of pharmaceuticals and a specific desire not to prescribe them. From this I derived my statement. If you reread the quote in my first post this should become apparent.I realize it was bad form for me to associate reiki with Naturopathic medicine, as there is a real basis for what NDs practice.

QUOTE]

I had no problem with you associating reiki with naturopath medicine as they are two forms of "alternative" medicine in the eyes of Americans.
I also had no problem with you telling someone to get an aloe enema.
I was simply pointing out that getting an ND would prevent the OP from developing the ability to use the aspects of traditional medicine he had expressed a desire in.

However, assuming reiki has no "real" basis...that was pretty much exactly the kind of comment I was talking about that bums me out.
Have you have shadowed a reiki master, read books on it, and been treated by reiki? If so, then I would respect your educated and enlightened opinion (and your desire to consider a form of medicine that has been around for many years before rejecting it). 😉

 

[daveyboy]

QUOTE]

I had no problem with you associating reiki with naturopath medicine as they are two forms of "alternative" medicine in the eyes of Americans.
I also had no problem with you telling someone to get an aloe enema.
I was simply pointing out that getting an ND would prevent the OP from developing the ability to use the aspects of traditional medicine he had expressed a desire in.

However, assuming reiki has no "real" basis...that was pretty much exactly the kind of comment I was talking about that bums me out.
Have you have shadowed a reiki master, read books on it, and been treated by reiki? If so, then I would respect your educated and enlightened opinion (and your desire to consider a form of medicine that has been around for many years before rejecting it). 😉[/QUOTE]

To answer your question about my knowledge of Reiki......no, yes, yes. I have never shadowed a Reiki master(there are probably very few true masters in the US at any given moment), I have read about it, and I have had it demonstrated on my body several times, but never by anyone that could claim to be a master.

Additionally, I know two Chinese trained physicians and have had extensive conversations with them regarding TCM, and even some of the more esoteric healings arts. I am definitely open to other schools of thought, but I hold them to a very high standard. In other words, I don't want to hear about TCM from somebody who isn't really a physician in that discipline.

It is my general experience that Westerners that are into alternative medicine tend to attach magical thinking to it, which denegrates the amount of intellectual work put into these modalities. It seems like more of a social affect than a real interest in an established discipline. I realize that I am making a huge generalization, but this has been my experience more often than not. Ask a Chinese physician trained in Beijing to explain the concept of Qi to you, and then compare it to the explanation you would get from an American hippy wannabe. You will see exactly what I mean.

If anything, I think I have a very deep respect for the various schools of medicine throughout the world. I have no respect for poseurs......

 

[Sharky]

And OMT is a joke as far as I can tell.

You just disrepected the osteopathic profession with those words. There have been studies done particularly on back pain with OMT that point to the efficacy of it. I suggest you stop posting such garbage in the DO forums.

 

[Sharky]

So it might work for one or a few things but their is evidence that drugs work for a million conditions. But all I hear are DO's implying how they want to get away from using drugs to help patients??


/??




.

Well DOs prescribe all the drugs that MDs do. The difference is the DO has the ability to not only prescribe drugs but to use OMT when possible. With the addition of OMT and the drugs, this facilitates the healing process many times better than with just pain drugs.

OMT is not used on everything and only 5% of DOs use OMT anyway. The other 95% would just prescribe drugs like your typical MD.

 

[docbill]

Is this even worth answering? I don't think you even deserve a comment. But for open minded people... like I am sure you are. I will say, that in the future you might come back to this forum and mention how you may have over reacted with your comments. This shows a lack of professionalism and disrespect for your co-workers as well as medicine.

 

[Sharky]

Im sure massage therapy would do the same thing.


No?



.

No it wouldn't.

 

[Howard Roark]

good luck

 

[docbill]

why don't you go over to the other forum.. the Osteopathic or the MD ones and share your comments with them. Most people here are just trying to get into medical school... or do you have a problem with us calling a DO school medical school. If yes.. then you may stay here.... and share those comments. I would like a massage right about now... hmmmm dammm you.. now I need a massage.