- Joined
- Nov 4, 2000
- Messages
- 7,637
- Reaction score
- 361
(please forgive the rambling post - I'm bored)
What if..... clinical studies on the efficacy of OMM reveal no significant positive effects on patient outcome? Where does this leave the osteopathic profession is the medical community? I want to be perfectly clear that I'm starting this thread to soley for the purposes of discussion. I am a pre-DO student and cannot wait to practice medicine as a DO. That said, the next 10 to 15 years should prove to be piviotal in the direction osteopathic takes for the next 50. Everyone (at least almost everyone) agrees that it's time for DO's to jump into the research world. This is true of the basic medical sciences common to all medicine and OMM. It is very possible that OMM will not live up to it's billing my some of it's proponents. It's also possible that OMM will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the treatment of some disorders. I'm going to share my views and I hope that other pre-med/med students (both DO and MD) will share there views.
Osteopaths need to jump onto the research wagon. As physicians, DO's (and MD's) owe it to their patients to make sure that whatever treatment they provide is effective. This should be determined by the best methods available. In the case of OMM this means providing both clinical and physiology research to support the use of OMM. I know that a lot of people praise OMM and feel the research isn't needed because "they can feel it." I do feel that as long as a patient wants a procedure performed and there is no chance of a negitive result, the procedure should still be performed. However, if a procedure does work, physicians need to prove this so that will become common medical practice and is used help many many more patients.
For whatever reason, DO's have become associated with both homeopathy and other forms of non-western medicine. Rather than shy away from this, I believe osteopaths should expend some of their growing research effort proving or disproving the efficacy of "traditional" treatments. Drug discovery is a particuarly promising field for osteopaths to enter from this angle. Asprin comes from the bark of a tree, as does Taxol. Traditional Chinese medicine uses the bark of many types of trees (as well as many different "natural" preparations. It seems silly to not be exploring these treatments as people have trusted these therapies for hundresd of years. The odds of finding pharmacologically active compounds in tradtional therapies would seem to be significantly higher than the odds of finding an important compound by screening random plants. Maybe people do this, and in that case I think more people should.
Osteopathy has more to offer patients than just OMM. The generalist first training is, in mind, a very valuable thing. Every specialist should know how to perscribe antibiotics and function competently as a primary care physician. Even if this isn't the focus of a DO's practice, it can only help patients lead happier, healthier lives. To this end, I promote the intern year for all DO students. The caviot is that it's generally accepted that most DO residencys are not quite as good as most of the MD programs (at least that's the feeling I've picked up). DO programs need to up the ante both in research and teaching. This is, in my eyes, one of the most important things the profession can do to help ensure a fruitful future. Many DO students choose to go the MD route for post-graduate training. While it's great that MD's recognize the equivilent level of training, DO programs need to do the same. MD's should be able to apply for DO programs as well. I know that they don't have the OMM training, but if/when DO's (or anyone else) can prove that it's effective, then it should be taught to MD's for the good of patients everywhere. Currently only some DO students are considered "good" enough to go MD. Wouldn't it be great if only "some" MD students were good enough to go DO (I saw this tounge-in-cheek... I don't believe there is really a difference in the level of med school education).
Hmm.... it has just occured to me that I've basically just described a merger for the two schools of medicine while trying to promote the indepentent of DO education. Hmmm... damn, this is really a conundrum. There are a few things that come to mind that make DO schoosl unique from MD schools. DO schools are generally much more interested in non-traditional students than MD schools. I appauled this competely. Besides, with the average life expectancy approaching 80, what does it matter if you don't start med school till 40? DO schools also generally seem to place a very high premium on the personality of applicants. I hope that the MD students don't beat me down for that comment, but I really feel it's true. This is not to say that there aren't jackass DO's or that the majority of MD's aren't super nice (in my expereince they are). I think that patients really appriciate the difference. I was a semi-frequent flyer to ER's when I was younger (accident prone... i.e. clumsy). Before I knew that there were MD's and DO's I did know that I liked some of the doctors in the local ER more than the others. Some years later, during shadowing experiences, I learned the Dr.'s I really liked were DO's and the ones I really didn't like were MD's. It's anecdotal, but it's been my experience.
As mentioned earlier, the intern year needs to be ubiquidous amoungst DO's. My opinion. I know some DO students will disagree with me. Please explain why???
Well, that's it for the rant. I look forward to reading the replies.
What if..... clinical studies on the efficacy of OMM reveal no significant positive effects on patient outcome? Where does this leave the osteopathic profession is the medical community? I want to be perfectly clear that I'm starting this thread to soley for the purposes of discussion. I am a pre-DO student and cannot wait to practice medicine as a DO. That said, the next 10 to 15 years should prove to be piviotal in the direction osteopathic takes for the next 50. Everyone (at least almost everyone) agrees that it's time for DO's to jump into the research world. This is true of the basic medical sciences common to all medicine and OMM. It is very possible that OMM will not live up to it's billing my some of it's proponents. It's also possible that OMM will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the treatment of some disorders. I'm going to share my views and I hope that other pre-med/med students (both DO and MD) will share there views.
Osteopaths need to jump onto the research wagon. As physicians, DO's (and MD's) owe it to their patients to make sure that whatever treatment they provide is effective. This should be determined by the best methods available. In the case of OMM this means providing both clinical and physiology research to support the use of OMM. I know that a lot of people praise OMM and feel the research isn't needed because "they can feel it." I do feel that as long as a patient wants a procedure performed and there is no chance of a negitive result, the procedure should still be performed. However, if a procedure does work, physicians need to prove this so that will become common medical practice and is used help many many more patients.
For whatever reason, DO's have become associated with both homeopathy and other forms of non-western medicine. Rather than shy away from this, I believe osteopaths should expend some of their growing research effort proving or disproving the efficacy of "traditional" treatments. Drug discovery is a particuarly promising field for osteopaths to enter from this angle. Asprin comes from the bark of a tree, as does Taxol. Traditional Chinese medicine uses the bark of many types of trees (as well as many different "natural" preparations. It seems silly to not be exploring these treatments as people have trusted these therapies for hundresd of years. The odds of finding pharmacologically active compounds in tradtional therapies would seem to be significantly higher than the odds of finding an important compound by screening random plants. Maybe people do this, and in that case I think more people should.
Osteopathy has more to offer patients than just OMM. The generalist first training is, in mind, a very valuable thing. Every specialist should know how to perscribe antibiotics and function competently as a primary care physician. Even if this isn't the focus of a DO's practice, it can only help patients lead happier, healthier lives. To this end, I promote the intern year for all DO students. The caviot is that it's generally accepted that most DO residencys are not quite as good as most of the MD programs (at least that's the feeling I've picked up). DO programs need to up the ante both in research and teaching. This is, in my eyes, one of the most important things the profession can do to help ensure a fruitful future. Many DO students choose to go the MD route for post-graduate training. While it's great that MD's recognize the equivilent level of training, DO programs need to do the same. MD's should be able to apply for DO programs as well. I know that they don't have the OMM training, but if/when DO's (or anyone else) can prove that it's effective, then it should be taught to MD's for the good of patients everywhere. Currently only some DO students are considered "good" enough to go MD. Wouldn't it be great if only "some" MD students were good enough to go DO (I saw this tounge-in-cheek... I don't believe there is really a difference in the level of med school education).
Hmm.... it has just occured to me that I've basically just described a merger for the two schools of medicine while trying to promote the indepentent of DO education. Hmmm... damn, this is really a conundrum. There are a few things that come to mind that make DO schoosl unique from MD schools. DO schools are generally much more interested in non-traditional students than MD schools. I appauled this competely. Besides, with the average life expectancy approaching 80, what does it matter if you don't start med school till 40? DO schools also generally seem to place a very high premium on the personality of applicants. I hope that the MD students don't beat me down for that comment, but I really feel it's true. This is not to say that there aren't jackass DO's or that the majority of MD's aren't super nice (in my expereince they are). I think that patients really appriciate the difference. I was a semi-frequent flyer to ER's when I was younger (accident prone... i.e. clumsy). Before I knew that there were MD's and DO's I did know that I liked some of the doctors in the local ER more than the others. Some years later, during shadowing experiences, I learned the Dr.'s I really liked were DO's and the ones I really didn't like were MD's. It's anecdotal, but it's been my experience.
As mentioned earlier, the intern year needs to be ubiquidous amoungst DO's. My opinion. I know some DO students will disagree with me. Please explain why???
Well, that's it for the rant. I look forward to reading the replies.
