What is Osteopathic Philosophy?

[osteodoc13]

As a graduating student, I have had the last 4 years to ponder and research the osteopathic philosophy. Through reading osteopathic literature and discussing the topic with as many "old" doctors as I could find, I have come to the conclusion that the key to the osteopathic philosophy is not "we treat the whole body" or "treating people, not symptoms", but it is "the search for the cause." When I read Still's writings, it appears to me that the true impetus for his search for osteopathy is that the physicians of his time were only treating symptoms, and inneffectually at that. Still wanted to get past the symptoms and get to the root cause of disease. He found that the cause, or a contributing factor, very often lies in the musculoskeletal system. He was not treating pain when he performed manipulation. He was practicing medicine as surely as if he was writing a prescription. OMM was not the defining element of osteopathy, it was just Still's way of treating the cause of the problem. I see this reflected today in physicians (MD and DO) who are willing to go the extra step with their patients and find the root cause of their illnesses. They don't necessarily use OMM.

I was wondering what all of you out there feel is the true osteopathic philosophy. Let's get a good dialogue going without this degenerating into one of those "OMM has no scientific basis" threads, huh?

Brian Loveless, MSIV, COMP

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Nick]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by osteodoc13:
•I see this reflected today in physicians (MD and DO) who are willing to go the extra step with their patients and find the root cause of their illnesses. •••••Interesting post.

My only comment would be that finding the root cause of a patient's disease should not be considered an "extra" step. Rather it should be the focus of pretty much any clinical encounter.

 

[LovelyRita]

Good Morning,
I agree. I believe that the patient/consumer is yearning for a doctor who will go beyond the symptoms and find the root cause. HMO's and short staffing have left patients feeling like they are at the short end of the stick. It is a fact that many commom illnesses are caused by other problems either mental or physical. It's our job to be reliable hosts of information to the patients we treat, rather than drive-thru medical treatment.

Thoughts and philosophies shift in our lifetimes (as they should, otherwise life would be quite mundane), yet Still had it right. I don't think he would disagree with our evolved thoughts on the integration of the many systems. But I have to say that I am very fascinated with his treatments and can't wait to learn more. I read "Touch of Life" by Robert Fulford, D.O. It makes me feel really good about becoming an osteopathic physician.

 

[jabroni108]

I too feel that prevention and investigation of medical conditions are components of a physician--MD or DO; however, there are instances when this is irrelevant. In emergency medicine or any type of surgery, defining and curing the immediate symptom is the focus. In other instances, such as a family doctor (MD or DO), a different approach can be warranted. I know surgeons (DO's and MD's) who use the traditional allopathic angle (if it exists), and I know family physicians who use a more osteopathic approach. I feel that physicians, MD or DO, must practice scientific medicine. How you treat your patients is up to the individual. The thing that I don't like about osteopaths is that they say they treat the whole person and not the symptom. Well I bet there are plenty of allopaths that do the same. I am not bashing the DOs (I am going to be one), I just want to say that how you treat your patients is up to the physician.

 

[Stillfocused]

What about "finding the health" in a patient as the cornerstone of Osteopathic Philosophy?

This concept is like the search for causality but perhaps not as fraught with as many epistemological pits falls. Usually, true causality is almost impossible to find in science. And, strong correlations are the best we can hope for. See David Hume.

When people talk about "finding the health" in a patient they are talking about connecting with a patient's innate capacity to heal; to be integrated, to be whole.

Instead of only treating disease processes (which are manifest as symptoms) Osteopathy implores physicians to help facilitate the healing power of nature or vis medicatrix naturae (Honor the healing power of nature).

For this to happen the physician must truly "attend" to the patient to connect and listen with "knowing, thinking fingers." This requires the deepest understanding of what Still calls ?anatomy? but actually means all the sciences (ways of know) that teach about the form and function of human life.

Thus, healing can be facilitated by whatever technique is best suited for the practitioner and for the patient. The technique could be a script, a scalpel or a stillpoint induction. The technique does not ultimately matter. The profound, knowing connection does.

I think this is why Still's writings are almost entirely philosophical and I see this as the most cogent reason for being a DO.

What do you think?

Does anyone here read Inter Linea?????????????

 

[Stillfocused]

If you can manage to look past all the acid induced kitsch, check out the "Scared Mirrors" exhibit at <a href="http://www.alexgrey.com" target="_blank">http://www.alexgrey.com</a>

Some osteopathic thinkers contend that this is a very close representation of Osteopathic knownig/vision/understanding.

 

[Mr. happy clown guy]

He scares me daddy! Someone hold me.

 

[Freeeedom!]

Yeah, I think this guy listened to a bit too much Pink Floyd during his formative years.

 

[Stillfocused]

I thought that this was could have been an interesting thread.

I am posting in the hope of resuscitating it.....

How do you understand Osteopathic philosophy?

Is Osteopathy mainly about getting to the "causes" of illness or is it about "finding the health" in patients.

Is this a dichotomy that parallels other historical splits in osteopathic medicine (structuralist vs. functionalist, "pure" osteopaths vs. "liberals", etc.)?

Still uses both analogies.

How do you read Still? Do you see him as an embarrassing 19th century kook?

Or, do you see A.T. Still as profound, relevant thinker whose writing requires a patient, careful, contextual reading?

How important is Osteopathic philosophy in your experience of osteopathic medicine?

 

[osteodoc13]

I have found that every time I read Still I find new messages in his writings. I suppose that my concept of "finding the cause" is probably just the latest incarnation of Osteopathy for me. I have seen my interpretation change over the last 4 years, and there is no reason to think it won't change many times again in the future.

I think that "finding the health" to me is an embodiment of "finding the cause," because it speaks to the fact that the normal state of the human body is not disease but health, and finding the cause of the disease is my way of helping them return to health.

It may be a chicken and egg thing between Stillfocused and I, but I think that we are both speaking the same language. I have found that, for instance at the Convocation, you can have many osteopaths who use many different techniques, but when they talk they are all speaking the same language.

My purpose in starting this thread was to get some other viewpoints on philosophy, and to start to show people that the personal interpretation of Osteopathy is not important because we are all really saying the same thing.

 

[Stillfocused]

Hey Brian,

I think that we are saying pretty much the same thing also.

However, I do disagree that, "the personal interpretation of Osteopathy is not important because we are all really saying the same thing."

There are some core principles of Osteopathic philosophy. Sometimes people go outside them whether in the direction of conventional or alternative medicine.

This is not to say that Osteopathic principles need not change and grow. But, when a practitioner is doing Reikei with no grounding in OPP they are not practicing Osteopathy; the same holds true if a surgeon is cuts without regard for structural integrity.

Has anyone read Trowbridge's biography of A.T. Still; it presents a very good view of his intellectual lineage.

Does anyone read Inter Linea, the independent Osteopathic Philosophy Journal?

One of the unfortunate aspects of Osteopathic history is that since Still so much energy has been focused toward securing practice rights and respectability that Osteopathic philosophy not been nourished. Now that those battles are largely won, one of the key ways that we can secure our future as a distinct school of medicine is to grow our philosophical roots.

Discussions like this are important.

This was written by a Brittish trained DO/French trained MD. Much of his other work is way too out there for me. However, this is an interesting essay on the intellectual strains and tensions in Osteopathy. Its long worth reading.

<a href="http://www.connective.org/Burning%20brain.doc" target="_blank">http://www.connective.org/Burning%20brain.doc</a>

What did you think of the Alex Grey art and Osteoopathic "seeing"?

 

[osteodoc13]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Stillfocused:
•
However, I do disagree that, "the personal interpretation of Osteopathy is not important because we are all really saying the same thing."

There are some core principles of Osteopathic philosophy. Sometimes people go outside them whether in the direction of conventional or alternative medicine.
•••••I guess I wasn't clear with that sentence. What I meant to say is that although personal interpretations of Osteopathy are different, the core belief in the self-healing power of the body and the interactions between the musculoskeletal, visceral, and psychic systems. Thus we shouldn't argue over whose interpretation is correct, but share so we can all grow.

Yes, I do read InterLinea. I met Dr. Paulus and Dr. Gintis last year at the Cranial Academy convention, and I complemented them on their tremendous publication. Although I am not practicing on the same level as they are (ie the biodynamic one,) I still learn from each issue.

I had trouble with the Alex Grey site because I have a dial-up connection and my system kept freezing.

 

[osteodoc13]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Stillfocused:
•
However, I do disagree that, "the personal interpretation of Osteopathy is not important because we are all really saying the same thing."

There are some core principles of Osteopathic philosophy. Sometimes people go outside them whether in the direction of conventional or alternative medicine.
•••••I guess I wasn't clear with that sentence. What I meant to say is that although personal interpretations of Osteopathy are different, the core belief in the self-healing power of the body and the interactions between the musculoskeletal, visceral, and psychic systems. Thus we shouldn't argue over whose interpretation is correct, but share so we can all grow.

Yes, I do read InterLinea. I met Dr. Paulus and Dr. Gintis last year at the Cranial Academy convention, and I complemented them on their tremendous publication. Although I am not practicing on the same level as they are (ie the biodynamic one,) I still learn from each issue.

I had trouble with the Alex Grey site because I have a dial-up connection and my system kept freezing.

 

[Stillfocused]

His stuff is very kitschy, psychadelic and weird but also kinda cool. Basically, its a lot of accurate anatomical figures, overlayed with maps of various psychic engery systems.

Trying viewing the site in html (non-flash) format.

<a href="http://www.alexgrey.com/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.alexgrey.com/index.html</a>

Also, try emptying Temporary files first (Tools, Internet Options, Settings, View Files, select all, delete all). Or, use the T1 line at school/hospital.

 

[Stillfocused]

Has anyone read any interesting osteopathic theory lately?

Has anyone read "Anatomy of Potency" by Nicholas Handoll, D.O.? I have not. I looks interesting but I would love to see a review before I drop the $50 for it. Its here:

<a href="http://www.stillnesspress.com/books/anatomy_of_potency.htm" target="_blank">http://www.stillnesspress.com/books/anatomy_of_potency.htm</a>

Has anyone read Erich Blechschmidt's original work, especially Biokinetics and Biodynamics of Human Differentiation. His work is the basis for Jealous's "Biodynamic Osteopathy." But is also cited by creationists......

 

[osteodoc13]

I have to admit that a lot of the philosophy is over my head. I'm still a pretty mechanical osteopath. I'm not worried, though, because if you read "the elders" (Dr. Jealous's term) they all began with a very mechanical approach. If you read The Cranial Bowl, Sutherland makes very little mention of Potency, the fluid within the fluid, or the Breath of Life. He grew, as I have grown over the past 4 years.

I wonder what you think about these students today who begin working on a biodynamic level during the third or fourth year, without gaining a thorough understanding of the mechanics of the body? Maybe you can ask the DO you know what his feelings are? I tend to promote a stepwise learning, with a mastery of each level before moving on to the next.

 

[Stillfocused]

?As you contemplate studying this science and have asked to know the necessary studies, I wish to impress it upon your minds that you begin with anatomy, and you end with anatomy, a knowledge of anatomy is all you want or need, as it is all you will ever use in your practice although you may live one hundred years,?

A.T. Still ?Philosophy of Osteopathy?

I doubt that one can effectively work at the biodynamic level without Knowing (with thinking, feeling fingers) the structure and function of the body. All they would be doing is something like Reiki.

I am not in favor of keeping knowledge forbidden, hidden or esoteric, however. Students should know that there are biodynamic aspects human beings but should not be expected to work on this level early on. That is simply poor teaching. When I brought up some of the more mysterious aspects of OCF to the DO I am working for, he handed me a much-used copy of the British Gray's Anatomy and said, "This is Osteopathy, know it." That said, he says also is "aware" of "all this aspects" of his patients during a treatment.

The article by European trained Dr Alain-Abraham Abehsera DOMD that I posted earlier is excellent on this point. It is a long essay titled "The One Hundred Year Osteopathic Wars" and it is well worth one's time and attention.

<a href="http://www.connective.org/Burning%20brain.doc" target="_blank">http://www.connective.org/Burning%20brain.doc</a>

Some of his other work and essays are a little too out there for me.

TY JGH

 

[osteodoc13]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Stillfocused:
•I am not in favor of keeping knowledge forbidden, hidden or esoteric, however. Students should know that there are biodynamic aspects human beings but should not be expected to work on this level early on. That is simply poor teaching. When I brought up some of the more mysterious aspects of OCF to the DO I am working for, he handed me a much-used copy of the British Gray's Anatomy and said, "This is Osteopathy, know it." That said, he says also is "aware" of "all this aspects" of his patients during a treatment.

TY JGH•••••I agree that it is important to be exposed to all aspects. This is one reason why I am in favor of teach OCF in all schools, even though many students will not be able to feel exactly what is going on. I feel, though, that it is important to become well-versed in all approaches to Osteopathy. I know some students who jump right in to Biodynamics without ever becoming fluent in cranial mechanics. I don't doubt that they are operating at a Biodynamic level, because I have been treated by them, but I fear they see it as an "easy" approach to treating the patient, because the body does all the work. I don't know if I will ever be a Biodynamic worker, but I want a thorough knowledge in all of Osteopathy.

 

[osteodoc13]

Great article by Dr. Alain-Abraham Abehsera. He does a great job of reviewing the history of AT Stills discovery.

The only argument I have with him is that he lumps under the term 'cranials' people who do myofascial, straight cranial, and biodynamic. There are many people who do cranial without doing biodynamics. There are also many people who combine 'structural cranial' with biodynamic approaches. Thus the strict separation he implies doesn't really exist in practice.

I think many physicians are living up to Still's philosophy as he (Dr. Abehsera) describes it.

Still, good food for thought.