Unification of Residencies

[Hamhock]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm not even a DO, but just leave it be and go troll somewhere else.

I say let him speak. There's an aspect of trolling, but he is bringing up a topic that is worth discussing.

Although I don't think we need a MD vs. DO battle, I do think an in-depth discussion of OMM (especially cranial) is needed.

Too often I feel that when people begin to expose OMM, the DOs become defensive and MDs (and some DOs) fear trashing OMM...kind of a fear of "blasphemy" or something.

If I was a DO, I would be leading the charge AGAINST OMM, or at least for a standardization and a strong call for high-quality research.

As it stands, part of a DOs education is OMM...and part of OMM, as I understand it (admittedly not from a fully-educated point of view and from an allopathic background), is cranial...

This SHOULD be discussed...and if it takes a troll to bring it up, then I support the troll (for now)...

HH

 

[bad virus]

I say let him speak. There's an aspect of trolling, but he is bringing up a topic that is worth discussing.

Although I don't think we need a MD vs. DO battle, I do think an in-depth discussion of OMM (especially cranial) is needed.

Too often I feel that when people begin to expose OMM, the DOs become defensive and MDs (and some DOs) fear trashing OMM...kind of a fear of "blasphemy" or something.

If I was a DO, I would be leading the charge AGAINST OMM, or at least for a standardization and a strong call for high-quality research.

As it stands, part of a DOs education is OMM...and part of OMM, as I understand it (admittedly not from a fully-educated point of view and from an allopathic background), is cranial...

This SHOULD be discussed...and if it takes a troll to bring it up, then I support the troll (for now)...

HH

Good point. I think you are right that I was probably just trying to avoid having the thread turn into a DO vs. MD bash fest. If it can be discussed in a mature fashion, then by all means, your post was spot on.

My apologies.

 

[deleted103644]

Good point. I think you are right that I was probably just trying to avoid having the thread turn into a DO vs. MD bash fest. If it can be discussed in a mature fashion, then by all means, your post was spot on.

My apologies.

I have nothing against DO students, I have a serious issue with quackery.

I tend to be somewhat anti-AOA, but that's only because I see them as agents of quackery.

I'm just as anti-CAM, but there's no flavor of physician out there that is mandated to study (eg) acupuncture and pass a test on acupuncture that includes trivia about the founder of acupuncture...

The founding principles of osteopathy simply have no place in modern medicine. I know many DO students just see the pathway as a way to get licensed and I can respect that, but too many then buy into the BS and then act to propagate it in kind.

DO schools should just ditch OMM and become MD schools. That's all.

 

[gutonc]

What do you mean by 'take it in the shorts'?

Well...since Dr Mom came along and burst my bubble (pointing out that it won't be a combined match, at least initially), it's kind of a moot point.

But what I meant is that (assuming a combined match) a lot of moderately competitive DO students who previously matched AOA will now apply to, and rank more allo programs. The osteo programs are unlikely, at least initially, to take MDs at all, especially IMGs. And since there's not going to be any real increase in residency spots, with the allo spots becoming more competitive, IMGs, particularly the Carib kids, are going to be on the sh** end of that stick.

All of this assumes a situation not currently in the works. But I can't imagine that a combined Match is that far down the road.

 

[Hamhock]

I have nothing against DO students, I have a serious issue with quackery.

DO schools should just ditch OMM and become MD schools. That's all.

I also have nothing against DOs -- just a serious issue with quackery.

And I completely agree that there should just be medical school -- call it allopathic, osteopathic, or pyschopathic -- I don't care. If you think some aspects of OMM should be included in medical school and post-graduate training, fine. Show us why it should be included over something you feel is less worthy and let's discuss.

HH

 

[TheBlueBlazer]

I hate to fuel the flame war, but can't resist. I'm a DO, and somewhere in the middle of the road re: my opinions on OMM, as I believe most DOs are. And have a few disorganized thoughts:

For some things, I believe OMM can truly help patients, even beyond the placebo effect, and I would go out on a limb and say that a lot of things we do in medicine that are taken as gospel aren't that much more effective than placebo. Look at the benefit of some of the cardiac and chemotherapeutic drugs we spend BILLIONS of dollars on, and the benefit we derive from them. Studies showing that they work get them approved do so because they have marginal benefits, but a high disease burden. How many millions of patients do we have with musculoskeletal pain? If OMM helped 5%, that would do better than a significant number of drugs on the market.

Just about any DO will recall a situation where they've "seen it work" which is the lowest form of evidence, but often what helps to develop pilot studies and development of legitimate therapies. RCTs are nigh-impossible to develop because of the nature of OMM, and the bias and confounding that are inherent in every study, so we will never be able to "prove" it works without someone pointing out how the study was somehow flawed.

Do we hold surgical treatment to these same RCT-proven-or-quackery standards? We accept development of surgical technique based on the skill of the surgeon and the underlying anatomical and physiological principles. Do surgeons have giant randomized double-blinded trial to hang their hat on? Of course not, and surgery is exponentially more dangerous than OMM, has a ton of long-term adverse effects and a pretty high failure rate.

David Newman and others have approached medicine from the number needed to treat vs number needed to harm paradigm, and I believe that all of medicine needs to shift towards this paradigm. Simply put, even if you question the NNT of OMM, the NNH is quite high. Why fight something that even if it helps 1 in 10, has almost no side effects, no risks, and is reasonably cheap.

Anyway, my 2 cents. Take it for what you will.
/threadjack off

 

[deleted109597]

I hate to fuel the flame war, but can't resist. I'm a DO, and somewhere in the middle of the road re: my opinions on OMM, as I believe most DOs are. And have a few disorganized thoughts:

First, you're not a DO. You're a DO student.

For some things, I believe OMM can truly help patients, even beyond the placebo effect, and I would go out on a limb and say that a lot of things we do in medicine that are taken as gospel aren't that much more effective than placebo. Look at the benefit of some of the cardiac and chemotherapeutic drugs we spend BILLIONS of dollars on, and the benefit we derive from them. Studies showing that they work get them approved do so because they have marginal benefits, but a high disease burden. How many millions of patients do we have with musculoskeletal pain? If OMM helped 5%, that would do better than a significant number of drugs on the market.

Lots of drugs are more effective than 5% above placebo. I'm not saying that your idea is wrong, but your data is.

Just about any DO will recall a situation where they've "seen it work" which is the lowest form of evidence, but often what helps to develop pilot studies and development of legitimate therapies. RCTs are nigh-impossible to develop because of the nature of OMM, and the bias and confounding that are inherent in every study, so we will never be able to "prove" it works without someone pointing out how the study was somehow flawed.

Flawed studies are flawed. You're already claiming bias on studies that haven't happened? That's a mighty big chip on your shoulder

Do we hold surgical treatment to these same RCT-proven-or-quackery standards? We accept development of surgical technique based on the skill of the surgeon and the underlying anatomical and physiological principles. Do surgeons have giant randomized double-blinded trial to hang their hat on? Of course not, and surgery is exponentially more dangerous than OMM, has a ton of long-term adverse effects and a pretty high failure rate.

Your inexperience is evident here. Yes, they actually do study surgical techniques. Recently they just studied decompressive craniotomies vs medical management. Shockingly, medical management actually has better outcomes. While it may take time for this to because accepted practice (and moreso, to prevent the "we have to do something" problem that many of us have), it doesn't mean it isn't studied. Just because you haven't read the studies doesn't mean they don't exist.

David Newman and others have approached medicine from the number needed to treat vs number needed to harm paradigm, and I believe that all of medicine needs to shift towards this paradigm. Simply put, even if you question the NNT of OMM, the NNH is quite high. Why fight something that even if it helps 1 in 10, has almost no side effects, no risks, and is reasonably cheap.

I don't care that people do it. I care that they proclaim it's effectiveness. You skate dangerously close to chiropractors with some of the claims. You used to be a lot closer before the Flexner report. The difference is that MD schools, while 10 years behind, don't test on leech therapy or balancing humors.

Doctors in Russia get paid so little that they often have boutique massage parlors built in, because that's a cash business. Maybe you should look into that.

 

[Hypomanics]

I love/hate quackery, and I realize this is totally anecdotal, but I pulled a muscle in my lower back once during medical school. It happened when I bent over to pick something up and immediately had to freeze from the pain that shot through my back. I then slowly and pathetically slumped to the floor so I could lay there until I got the courage to move again. I made an appointment with this doctor across the street from where I lived for the next day. Turns out he was a DO. I went in expecting to leave with pain meds +/- muscle relaxant. However, he literally just moved my legs around, and when I got up the pain was completely gone. It was a miracle.

 

[Arcan57]

I love/hate quackery, and I realize this is totally anecdotal, but I pulled a muscle in my lower back once during medical school. It happened when I bent over to pick something up and immediately had to freeze from the pain that shot through my back. I then slowly and pathetically slumped to the floor so I could lay there until I got the courage to move again. I made an appointment with this doctor across the street from where I lived for the next day. Turns out he was a DO. I went in expecting to leave with pain meds +/- muscle relaxant. However, he literally just moved my legs around, and when I got up the pain was completely gone. It was a miracle.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[DreamingTheLive]

wait, this is for all specialties right?

If so, I kinda feel like MD students will get short straw.

 

[TallScrubs]

Zissou and Rock-- for people who consider yourselves in the '50% who are ambivalent' you surely don't sound like it.

The EBM for OMT is shoddy at best and is straight-up hearsay at worst. The reality is, OMT doesn't have a place in most specialties--you think any of these attendings is going to check Chapman's points on a guy having a STEMI? (BTW, I know first hand of an old attending yelling at a resident for not checking Chapman's on a patient having a STEMI).

If I was in primary care, yeah I'd use for patients with back pain since it takes one minute to HVLA someone; but even in primary care, where you are 10 minutes per patient, what doc is going to want to spend 25 minutes doing a full 'osteopathic' exam.

What makes people call OMM 'quackery' is when people claim it does things it cannot.

 

[gasolino]

I think there are some OMT papers published in JAOA.

 

[gasolino]

If I was in primary care, yeah I'd use for patients with back pain since it takes one minute to HVLA someone; but even in primary care, where you are 10 minutes per patient, what doc is going to want to spend 25 minutes doing a full 'osteopathic' exam.

Business side: you could bill for OMT
Medical side: if it helps the patients

 

[deleted103644]

wait, this is for all specialties right?

If so, I kinda feel like MD students will get short straw.

Why? This changes nothing for them.

The only DO students who will be added are those that were borderline for matching at all in ACGME - the good ones were already in the ACGME match.

If DO programs start accepting MD students, this will be bad for DOs who want to match in competitive specialties.

 

[TeamZissou]

Zissou and Rock-- for people who consider yourselves in the '50% who are ambivalent' you surely don't sound like it.

The EBM for OMT is shoddy at best and is straight-up hearsay at worst. The reality is, OMT doesn't have a place in most specialties--you think any of these attendings is going to check Chapman's points on a guy having a STEMI? (BTW, I know first hand of an old attending yelling at a resident for not checking Chapman's on a patient having a STEMI).

If I was in primary care, yeah I'd use for patients with back pain since it takes one minute to HVLA someone; but even in primary care, where you are 10 minutes per patient, what doc is going to want to spend 25 minutes doing a full 'osteopathic' exam.

What makes people call OMM 'quackery' is when people claim it does things it cannot.

I think we feel similarly. I get very irritated when people start talking about OMM for STEMIs or any other serious medical condition. I'm a believer/patient of it's effectiveness in MSK areas. No it will never have the data to support it that other aspects of medicine have but so what? If it works and patients like it and there is no contradicting data then why not? If some FP wants to spend his 15 min doing OMM while getting the Hx then who am I to tell them it's a waste of time?

Like I said, I don't plan on using it often in practice since it's not applicable in the specialties I'm interested in. But I do enjoy having it done on me from time to time.

So if you want to call cranial quackery.... I'll say maybe.

If you want to call all of OMM quackery... then I'll try to discuss it with you. If you are an MD who has no experience with it and just can't fathom why something like manipulation would make a difference then I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

 

[deleted103644]

If you want to call all of OMM quackery... then I'll try to discuss it with you. If you are an MD who has no experience with it and just can't fathom why something like manipulation would make a difference then I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

You see, you simply don't understand the point.

No one is denying that physical contact can have a positive impact or that the placebo effect is strong.

But the entire framework of OMM is based upon the belief that all physical ills can be fixed through manipulation. This is why AT Still founded osteopathy.

If you think some manipulations can be helpful, that's fine, just investigate them outside of the osteopathic philosophy, since that philosophy is pseudoscientific garbage.

 

[DreamingTheLive]

Why? This changes nothing for them.

The only DO students who will be added are those that were borderline for matching at all in ACGME - the good ones were already in the ACGME match.

If DO programs start accepting MD students, this will be bad for DOs who want to match in competitive specialties.

Many ACGME residencies already accept at least some DO students (or have in past). DO residencies have never accepted MD students. Hence, this won't really be much of a change for ACGME residencies outside of fact that they'll get a lot more DO applicants, but this will be a major change for DO residencies and I envision the change will be slow. But, I could be wrong.

just a thought, but do DO residencies incorporate OMM-type practices into their curriculum?

 

[Akail]

nvm

 

[Glitterbox]

I'm not gonna lie, based on the anecdotes shared here, I'm actually kinda interested in this whole OMM thing.

 

[gasolino]

But the entire framework of OMM is based upon the belief that all physical ills can be fixed through manipulation. This is why AT Still founded osteopathy.

If you think some manipulations can be helpful, that's fine, just investigate them outside of the osteopathic philosophy, since that philosophy is pseudoscientific garbage.

Osteopathic Physicians don't believe that ALL physical ills can be fixed through manipulation. That's why we also learn pharmacology, physiology, pathology, surgery, etc, etc.

Osteopathic physicians for AT still's time practiced differently than Osteopathic Physicians today... Just like allopathic physicians from AT Still time practiced differently than today's allopathic physicians

If u want a real discussion, stop the name calling

 

[deleted103644]

Osteopathic Physicians don't believe that ALL physical ills can be fixed through manipulation. That's why we also learn pharmacology, physiology, pathology, surgery, etc, etc.

Osteopathic physicians for AT still's time practiced differently than Osteopathic Physicians today... Just like allopathic physicians from AT Still time practiced differently than today's allopathic physicians

If u want a real discussion, stop the name calling

Most DOs went that route not out of a belief in the founding principles of AT Still, but just as a back door to becoming normal practicing physicians.

Nothing wrong with that.

What I take issue with is osteopathy, which is essentially another flavor of chiropractic and equally delusional.

As a principle, yes, osteopathy does imply the belief that all ills can be fixed through physical manipulation.

Most sane people recognize this is stupid, but AT Still did not and osteopathic schools have to continue to play lip service to his philosophy.

I just think it's about time for AT Still's legacy to die.

Convert DO schools to MD, grant every practicing DO an MD, and stop having Medicare reimburse OMM (as well as acupuncture, etc).

I'm not calling anyone but AT Still names here (but yes, he was a nut).

 

[TeamZissou]

Most DOs went that route not out of a belief in the founding principles of AT Still, but just as a back door to becoming normal practicing physicians.

Nothing wrong with that.

What I take issue with is osteopathy, which is essentially another flavor of chiropractic and equally delusional.

As a principle, yes, osteopathy does imply the belief that all ills can be fixed through physical manipulation.

Most sane people recognize this is stupid, but AT Still did not and osteopathic schools have to continue to play lip service to his philosophy.

I just think it's about time for AT Still's legacy to die.

Convert DO schools to MD, grant every practicing DO an MD, and stop having Medicare reimburse OMM (as well as acupuncture, etc).

I'm not calling anyone but AT Still names here (but yes, he was a nut).

The funny thing is his MD counterparts at the time were still using mercury etc

I dunno what level in your education you are, but you seriously need to be more open minded to types of medicine that might not be your cup of tea. Many physicians themselves get regular manipulative treatments. If you don't think they can help then by all means don't seek it when you have whiplash from your fender bender.

 

[deleted103644]

The funny thing is his MD counterparts at the time were still using mercury etc

MDs have abandoned their 19th century BS, why do you celebrate yours?

I dunno what level in your education you are, but you seriously need to be more open minded to types of medicine that might not be your cup of tea. Many physicians themselves get regular manipulative treatments. If you don't think they can help then by all means don't seek it when you have whiplash from your fender bender.

I would advise reading up on the scientific method and its importance in modern medicine.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to give me more anecdotal evidence?

 

[RustedFox]

MDs have abandoned their 19th century BS, why do you celebrate yours?


I would advise reading up on the scientific method and its importance in modern medicine.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to give me more anecdotal evidence?

Sizzzzle.

On a tangiental note: I've given up teaching my patients the actual science behind why I do what I do, and why we choose certain treatment plans/courses of action. They don't like that, because (and I've said this before), "science is hard". They prefer white magic, so I give them a little of it just to keep their yaps shut and my satisfaction scores up.

I'll write a thread about some of the things that I say that get them to take the bait.

 

[TeamZissou]

MDs have abandoned their 19th century BS, why do you celebrate yours?


I would advise reading up on the scientific method and its importance in modern medicine.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to give me more anecdotal evidence?

.... and this is when I stop responding to you. Good day sir.

 

[deleted103644]

.... and this is when I stop responding to you. Good day sir.

Enjoy.

I bear you no ill will, but seriously wish you would reconsider your glorification of pseudoscience.

 

[RustedFox]

MDs have abandoned their 19th century BS, why do you celebrate yours?

What really bakes my noodle is that the vast majority of people out there celebrate their 1st century (or older) BS.

I want to see less houses of worship and more houses of science.

 

[deleted103644]

What really bakes my noodle is that the vast majority of people out there celebrate their 1st century (or older) BS.

I want to see less houses of worship and more houses of science.

No argument here, but wrong forum to get into that...

 

[RustedFox]

No argument here, but wrong forum to get into that...

I know. Anyone who wants to argue can just go read... whatever.

Some of the folks in my group were delighted to learn that I would voluntarily be working the Winter Solstice Sun Myth Holiday and its Eve. One said that he'd - "pray for me".

 

[TeamZissou]

I have one of those Jesus fish outlines on my car...

Except mine is sprouting legs and reads "Darwin" inside 😉

 

[RustedFox]

I have one of those Jesus fish outlines on my car...

Except mine is sprouting legs and reads "Darwin" inside 😉

One very particularly religious individual at my shop asked me just "how" I could live with a giant "hole in my soul where faith should spring eternal."

First, I corrected her mixed metaphor. It is "hope" that usually "springs eternal".

I then gestured at the TV in one of the patient's rooms, playing CNN and giving the "woe" story of the day. I said - "imagine... the next war might be averted if we could just get people to agree that there's no reproducible or independently verifiable support for who has the 'best' imaginary friend."

Science FTW.

 

[cbrons]

Wait, so DO students get to apply, without any extra hoops, to the Allopathic spots now, but Allopathic students still have to have background in this quackery known as OMM? Sounds like a bad deal for MDs...

M.D. students are not going to want to learn OMM.

I just think it's about time for AT Still's legacy to die.

Convert DO schools to MD, grant every practicing DO an MD, and stop having Medicare reimburse OMM (as well as acupuncture, etc).

I'm not calling anyone but AT Still names here (but yes, he was a nut).

I agree. I read "The DOs" a couple years ago when I was applying to med school in preparation for interviews at DO schools (I'm an MD student, but I did interview at both schools). The book was written by a person who was an obvious supporter of osteopathic medicine, and wrote what might be described as a positive review of A.T. Still. Even with all of that, he seemed like nothing more than a quack to me. Definitely more genuine than DD Palmer (who was a con-man, so far as I can tell) but a quack none-the-less.

Hopefully the single match is a step toward unified boards, and a unified medical degree for physicians in the US. We need more unity in a time when faux clinical doctorates ("Doctor" of Nurse Practice, etc.) are being passed off as equivalent.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

The issue with wholesale disregard to OMM is that your metaphorically "throwing out the baby with the bath water" Yes many areas of OMM lack research supporting their effectiveness however their are treatment methods that do have basis in science and can be effective in SOME patients/situations. Muscle energy techniques for example play off of muscle spindle fiber and Golgi tendon actions to relieve chronic muscle spasm and can give MSK relief to the back/spine and other places. Forget what AT Still preached most current physicians who use OMM will tell you that it cannot cure all ills. It has a place in the treatment of SOME MSK issues and is viewed as another option for treatment. Not the end all be all in patient care.

 

[deleted103644]

The issue with wholesale disregard to OMM is that your metaphorically "throwing out the baby with the bath water" Yes many areas of OMM lack research supporting their effectiveness however their are treatment methods that do have basis in science and can be effective in SOME patients/situations. Muscle energy techniques for example play off of muscle spindle fiber and Golgi tendon actions to relieve chronic muscle spasm and can give MSK relief to the back/spine and other places. Forget what AT Still preached most current physicians who use OMM will tell you that it cannot cure all ills. It has a place in the treatment of SOME MSK issues and is viewed as another option for treatment. Not the end all be all in patient care.

If you're still calling whatever you're doing OMM, you're still doing it wrong.

The "theory" behind OMM is pure bull****, so even if some of the maneuvers have benefits, it still doesn't validate OMM.

Do research into physical manipulations all you want, I just want to see someone salt and burn the bones of AT Still first.

 

[bravotwozero]

I then gestured at the TV in one of the patient's rooms, playing CNN and giving the "woe" story of the day. I said - "imagine... the next war might be averted if we could just get people to agree that there's no reproducible or independently verifiable support for who has the 'best' imaginary friend."

Science FTW.

thread hijack:

The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in human history, and most of those wars had nothing to do with religion.

 

[bad med advice]

I think this thread went down the wrong path before the topic became OMM. This combined match is really a huge power play by the ACGME and the AOA. By consolidating power, they are taking complete control of post-graduate medical training. The biggest losers in this move are the IMGs and FMGs.

DO Benefits:
One match, excellent opportunities for training, better access, potentially less testing (with COMLEX being trimmed back), VETO power on the board, and OMM-specific residencies.

MD Benefits:
Commanding power and influence over all US residency programs, standard and stringent standards for the license, shuttering of many inadequate, underexposed osteopathic clinic-based residencies, assistance in lowering cost for training (DOs do just about everything cheaper), justification for shutting non-US allo grads out of top residency programs.

Regardless of how the details shake out, the number of undergraduate medical students in the US has been growing faster than the number of residency spots for decades. Caribbean, Israeli, and European medical grads who want to return to the US to train will be suffering tremendously. Right?

 

[TrumpetDoc]

Any thoughts on if this will change the AOA required internship required in MI, WV, OK, FL, and PA?
Will this make it easier to get our allopathic R1years approved?

 

[TeamZissou]

thread hijack:

The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in human history, and most of those wars had nothing to do with religion.

Religion or religion based politics are the same to me.

I would include Hitler's outlook in that...

 

[RustedFox]

thread hijack:

The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in human history, and most of those wars had nothing to do with religion.

Riiight. The whole terrorism thing has absolutely nothing to do with fundamentalist radical religious ideologies and isn't in danger of becoming a much, much bigger, bloodier problem.

See also: Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina (sp?), Armenian genocide, WWII, "Honor Rape", "Honor Killing", Six-Day War, 9/11 World Trade Center attack, PanAm Flight 103, Darfur.... etc, etc, etc.

This idea of a benevolent old man sitting on a cloud sure makes people do some nasty things. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we used our adult senses to agree that there's probably no such thing ?

 

[NOsaintsfan]

This idea of a benevolent old man sitting on a cloud sure makes people do some nasty things. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we used our adult senses to agree that there's probably no such thing ?[/QUOTE]

If a convincing argument could be made to explain creation of matter/energy from nothing (think pre/post Big Bang) then I could buy into atheism. Forget evolution and the spontaneous creation of life, explain how the atom and its subunits came to be. Before you answer I realize that it all comes down to belief and no one can prove anything either way. For me I find it more plausible/comforting to think their is something like a "God" behind it all. Does he actively involve him/herself in human affairs? That's a matter of faith, but someone started it all (as to my belief).

 

[RustedFox]

If a convincing argument could be made to explain creation of matter/energy from nothing (think pre/post Big Bang) then I could buy into atheism. Forget evolution and the spontaneous creation of life, explain how the atom and its subunits came to be. Before you answer I realize that it all comes down to belief and no one can prove anything either way. For me I find it more plausible/comforting to think their is something like a "God" behind it all. Does he actively involve him/herself in human affairs? That's a matter of faith, but someone started it all (as to my belief).

Science is working on it. Sure as hell is more plausible to think that we can "figure it out" eventually, rather than to be willfully ignorant and just say - "Nahhh.... it HAS to be God. There's just nooo other waaay." Its that precise type of willful ignorance that is poisonous to the continued existence of the human race, as we face and overcome challenge after challenge. Imagine if those who discovered electricity/the subatomic particles/antibiotics/percutaneous intervention listened to the naysayers who called it "the sorcery of the devil". Where would we be ?

I have bolded and italicized what you really mean to say, because that's what people want. They want something comforting. Science is hard. White magic is nice.

I can't imagine being in this line of work and trying to reconcile a professional life based on cold hard scientific evidence with a personal life that dabbles in magical thinking. To make it cartoonishly simple; its generally regarded as completely absurd that "demons" or "the devil" or "evil spirits NOS" are responsible for our suffering and ill health. Imagine saying to a patient's family... "I'm pretty sure that its the "devil" that is causing your father's chest pain." Most everyone will agree that this is childish, immature, and completely contrary to the well-held science of the day... nothing short of "impossible". Why then, is it so easy and generally regarded as completely plausible and even "elementary" to believe that "angels" or "God" or "good spirits NOS" are responsible for our health and salvation ?

Comfort.

Science is hard. White magic is nice.

Science is working on it.

 

[bad virus]

This thread rocks. Godwin FTW.

I love how it started off as acgme + aoa unifiction to OMM sucks to atheism to war.

 

[8654Marine]

Well it sorta ties together:

DO's are better than MD's cause OMM is white magic...cause it's comforting. Ergo, creation of hard fact.

 

[2planker]

Science is working on it. Sure as hell is more plausible to think that we can "figure it out" eventually, rather than to be willfully ignorant and just say - "Nahhh.... it HAS to be God. There's just nooo other waaay." Its that precise type of willful ignorance that is poisonous to the continued existence of the human race, as we face and overcome challenge after challenge. Imagine if those who discovered electricity/the subatomic particles/antibiotics/percutaneous intervention listened to the naysayers who called it "the sorcery of the devil". Where would we be ?

I have bolded and italicized what you really mean to say, because that's what people want. They want something comforting. Science is hard. White magic is nice.

I can't imagine being in this line of work and trying to reconcile a professional life based on cold hard scientific evidence with a personal life that dabbles in magical thinking. To make it cartoonishly simple; its generally regarded as completely absurd that "demons" or "the devil" or "evil spirits NOS" are responsible for our suffering and ill health. Imagine saying to a patient's family... "I'm pretty sure that its the "devil" that is causing your father's chest pain." Most everyone will agree that this is childish, immature, and completely contrary to the well-held science of the day... nothing short of "impossible". Why then, is it so easy and generally regarded as completely plausible and even "elementary" to believe that "angels" or "God" or "good spirits NOS" are responsible for our health and salvation ?

Comfort.

Science is hard. White magic is nice.

Science is working on it.

you better be right

 

[TeamZissou]

I love how it started off as acgme + aoa unifiction to OMM sucks to atheism to war.

I find all equally entertaining.👍

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Science is working on it. Sure as hell is more plausible to think that we can "figure it out" eventually, rather than to be willfully ignorant and just say - "Nahhh.... it HAS to be God. There's just nooo other waaay." Its that precise type of willful ignorance that is poisonous to the continued existence of the human race, as we face and overcome challenge after challenge. Imagine if those who discovered electricity/the subatomic particles/antibiotics/percutaneous intervention listened to the naysayers who called it "the sorcery of the devil". Where would we be ?

I have bolded and italicized what you really mean to say, because that's what people want. They want something comforting. Science is hard. White magic is nice.

I can't imagine being in this line of work and trying to reconcile a professional life based on cold hard scientific evidence with a personal life that dabbles in magical thinking. To make it cartoonishly simple; its generally regarded as completely absurd that "demons" or "the devil" or "evil spirits NOS" are responsible for our suffering and ill health. Imagine saying to a patient's family... "I'm pretty sure that its the "devil" that is causing your father's chest pain." Most everyone will agree that this is childish, immature, and completely contrary to the well-held science of the day... nothing short of "impossible". Why then, is it so easy and generally regarded as completely plausible and even "elementary" to believe that "angels" or "God" or "good spirits NOS" are responsible for our health and salvation ?

Comfort.

Science is hard. White magic is nice.

Science is working on it.

As I stated in my post it all comes down to faith. Their is just as much scientific evidence supporting a "God" as their is disproving one. Your belief in no God is based on faith weather you realize it or not, you site reason and logic as the basis for your belief (which I completely respect) however the idea that matter (atoms/energy) suddenly appeared from nothing sounds very like "white magic" to me. I respect your beliefs as I'm sure you do mine but its a little elitist to assume that believers in God are lacking in intellect which you imply by saying that someone going into medicine dabbles in magical thinking if they believe in a God.

 

[RustedFox]

As I stated in my post it all comes down to faith. Their is just as much scientific evidence supporting a "God" as their is disproving one. Your belief in no God is based on faith weather you realize it or not, you site reason and logic as the basis for your belief (which I completely respect) however the idea that matter (atoms/energy) suddenly appeared from nothing sounds very like "white magic" to me. I respect your beliefs as I'm sure you do mine but its a little elitist to assume that believers in God are lacking in intellect which you imply by saying that someone going into medicine dabbles in magical thinking if they believe in a God.

1. No, it doesn't "all come down to faith".

2. Scientific evidence supporting the existence of a "God" ? Please, show me. Remember: the absence of an explanation other than "God" does not lend support to the idea of "God", and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

3. I did not say that atoms and energy suddenly appeared from nothing. That WOULD be white magic. What I'm saying is that: "science is working on that one." There are many, many theories out there that are more plausible than simply: "God! LOLZ!"

4. Belief in, and acting upon, any set of ideas that is completely unsupported by logic, reason, and objective reality is "magical thinking". We don't treat asthma with penicillin, or by rubbing rosary beads. That's just wrong, and is in most places, criminal. We have objective, independently verifiable, and reproducible evidence to do what we do in the field of medicine. Next time you have two cases of unstable angina/ACS... give aspirin to the one, and burn incense in front of the other. Betcha the outcome will be different, and betcha you'll be sued for "not following standard of care" for the incense burning. Seeing as how "God" doesn't co-sign my charts and absolve me from my legal responsibility to a fiduciary relationship, I can't rely upon him or her to help me out in such a situation. I need to act in my own (and in the patient's) long-term rational best interest, and I need to base those actions upon things (data) that everyone agrees ACTUALLY exists in a rational world. That is the only way to proceed to serve both my long-term best interest (not being sued and losing house and home) and the patient's best interest (continuing longevity).

5. Believers in "God" do not lack an intellect. I never said that. They are voluntarily rejecting the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, inference, history, and modern thought that suggests that there "most probably is no God, given the above", hence the term willful ignorance. They do this by and large because its more comforting (there's that word again!) to think that there is a supreme being of sorts that manages humanity and "looks after them". It helps them cope with the uncertainty and insignificance of being a bag of meat with limited perception spinning on a rock somewhere in a galaxy in the known universe. There are a multitude of other reasons why some choose "God" over "objective reason and scientific thought", but that seems to be the common terminal thread: cognitive dissonance of one sort or another. If you don't know what "cognitive dissonance" refers to, please look it up. Its very precise.

6. It is in my best long-term rational self-interest to "respect" everyone's beliefs, be they rational or not. However, I find that few if any "respect" the belief of nothing but objective reality and science. Atheists are regarded as the "lunatic fringe" when they are precisely the opposite; we believe in only what we can verify and reproduce, and nothing else. The theists or deists feel that whenever something goes "well" in the hospital... God be praised!... but whenever something goes "wrong" in the hospital .... well, which doctor screwed up and is liable ? Many theists do not "respect" that science has an acceptable error rate, and is not perfect, and is far from perfect. This is predicated on their belief that "because they are a 'good' person, that 'God' would not allow this to happen to them, and that some sort of external, ungodly, 'evil', adversarial force is responsible for their condition. This is nothing short of foolish, and is a direct extension of the concept of "willful ignorance".


In short, white magic feels good. Science is hard. People like white magic better.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

You articulate your points well and I appreciate the insight. There is much truth in what you write. I respect your faith and hope it guides you towards happiness and fulfillment.

 

[RustedFox]

You articulate your points well and I appreciate the insight. There is much truth in what you write. I respect your faith and hope it guides you towards happiness and fulfillment.

Thank you. I'd rather not use the word "faith". I don't want to "believe". I want to "know".


I was once like you. You may find that your feelings change when society places responsibility for their ills at your feet, instead of their God's.

 

[DrMom]

Any thoughts on if this will change the AOA required internship required in MI, WV, OK, FL, and PA?
Will this make it easier to get our allopathic R1years approved?

Oklahoma does not require an osteopathic internship. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=13245031&postcount=5

And apparently Florida doesn't either. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=13245049&postcount=6