- Joined
- Apr 22, 2017
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 10
“DO’s treat the person as a whole”, “DO’s are holistic”, “DO’s are trained to use their hands to bring relief to their patients”.
Such phraseology peaked your interest and you gravitated towards the profession. Who wouldn’t want to treat their patient “as a whole”? If you are still reading, then there is a high probability that you are an osteopathic physician, osteopathic medical student, or prospective medical student. Keep reading, I have 3 important points that you need to know about osteopathy.
I am an osteopathic medical student. I earned an above average MCAT score, and great grades. I could have chosen an allopathic (M.D.) school, but I wanted to be prepared to treat my patients holistically.
1) My school has done a wonderful job at teaching me to treat my patients as a whole. However, I have learned from my MD colleagues that their schools stress the exact same point. This becomes deeply paradoxical for an osteopath because this is partly what make their profession seemingly “distinct”.
2) Historically, between the 1800s-1960s doctors – notably (MDs) – justified their decision making based on patriarchal hierarchies. The doctor “was right”, because he was the doctor and should not be questioned. Fortunately, western medicine evolved to incorporate evidence-based-medicine and scientific-proof for the justification or modern medical decision making. To make my point: MDs got their act together, abandoned cave-man medicine and now society benefits from the most powerful medical system ever known to man.
What about the osteopaths? Have they evolved too? The answer is two-fold.
a. First: most osteopath physicians working in hospitals do not incorporate the “hands on” OMT techniques, and prefer to treat their patients using the same scientific approach as alongside their MD colleagues. Bravo.
b. Second: A patriarchal hierarchy still exists within the religious osteopathic community. Students are taught to revere A.T. Still – the great founder of osteopathy. Students are tested on Still’s birthday and the “day he flung to breeze the banner of osteopathy”. The theme is force down osteopathic medical student’s throats: “you shall not question osteopathy, because the great god A.T. Still said it was so over 100 years ago”. The students are then taught to memorize the names of great osteopaths – Sunderland – father of the “cranial technique”… The students learn dozens if not hundreds of ancient osteopaths names and their “contribution” to the non-scientific timeline of osteopathy. I have seen osteopathic faculty try to solidify their place on the osteopathic timeline by coining terms.
At my osteopathic school. Mild hierarchical competition exists between the OMM faculty. Osteopathic faculty strut around the room – telling students that they “sense an irregularity”, it is “subtle”, and “everyone has a deformity”. One osteopathic faculty went around the room claiming he could see when student’s faces are in flexion or extension just by looking at them. He found students with rounder faces and said “you are in flexion”, and those with thin faces “you are in extension”. Apparently, a student asked him “how can you observe the effects of cerebral spinal fluid changing the shapes of skull bones from a distance”. His response was “I can tell, I have been doing this for 30 years”… Yes, it is convenient that you are proud to call it an “Art”, because nobody can scientifically question an “art”. (Or a religion for that matter.) Oddly enough, the newest trend in osteopathic academia is osteopathic “research”. Which is strange, because some are saying it’s an art – not science – and now others are trying to use science to legitimize their artistic claims. Osteopathic “research” is full of holes. The methodological approaches are biased to create evidence to combat nay-sayers. One day, universities like Harvard and Yale will review osteopathic “literature”, replicate experiments and find the research to be completely flawed. There are some benefits to having a hands on approach. Research on both sides shows patient-centered-care has improved results. This is why more and more MDs are approaching their patient’s with a psychosocial model.
3) This hierarchy. It is dangerous to the profession. Osteopaths at the top are not interested in a merger, because then they would lose power. Therefor the osteopathic pedagogy remains: You will respect the dogma. You will not question the art. This hierarchy is just as arrogant as 19th century western medicine. When are rational osteopath physicians going to stand up for evidence-based-medicine? Most osteopathic physician would support taming the exaggerated difference in osteopathy and the adoption of evidence-based-medicine combined with approaching the patient with a psychosocial view – just like the allopaths. Those at the top fear that a distinction must be made between allopaths and osteopaths. After all, what makes us different? Something has to make us different? Otherwise we are obsolete… DOs at the top deny that allopaths look at a patient’s spiritual, work, and family dynamics. They deny that allopaths treat their patient’s holistically because they define “holistic” as using hands to feel magic vibrations that can be manipulated.
To the osteopathic physician: Urge your DO colleagues to evolve with 21st century medicine. If you don’t do this, western medicine will evolve too quickly for the osteopathic profession. The profession runs the risk at becoming abolished as technology will one day catch up to refute the divine ancient teachings.
To the osteopathic medical student: We are the future of medicine. We do not have to believe in some of the techniques just because they were taught 50 years ago. Appreciate the hands on focus. But be informed that your future MD colleges are going through an extremely similar education. MD students also touch people during school.
To the prospective medical student: This is what you are getting into if you are considering DO.
Such phraseology peaked your interest and you gravitated towards the profession. Who wouldn’t want to treat their patient “as a whole”? If you are still reading, then there is a high probability that you are an osteopathic physician, osteopathic medical student, or prospective medical student. Keep reading, I have 3 important points that you need to know about osteopathy.
I am an osteopathic medical student. I earned an above average MCAT score, and great grades. I could have chosen an allopathic (M.D.) school, but I wanted to be prepared to treat my patients holistically.
1) My school has done a wonderful job at teaching me to treat my patients as a whole. However, I have learned from my MD colleagues that their schools stress the exact same point. This becomes deeply paradoxical for an osteopath because this is partly what make their profession seemingly “distinct”.
2) Historically, between the 1800s-1960s doctors – notably (MDs) – justified their decision making based on patriarchal hierarchies. The doctor “was right”, because he was the doctor and should not be questioned. Fortunately, western medicine evolved to incorporate evidence-based-medicine and scientific-proof for the justification or modern medical decision making. To make my point: MDs got their act together, abandoned cave-man medicine and now society benefits from the most powerful medical system ever known to man.
What about the osteopaths? Have they evolved too? The answer is two-fold.
a. First: most osteopath physicians working in hospitals do not incorporate the “hands on” OMT techniques, and prefer to treat their patients using the same scientific approach as alongside their MD colleagues. Bravo.
b. Second: A patriarchal hierarchy still exists within the religious osteopathic community. Students are taught to revere A.T. Still – the great founder of osteopathy. Students are tested on Still’s birthday and the “day he flung to breeze the banner of osteopathy”. The theme is force down osteopathic medical student’s throats: “you shall not question osteopathy, because the great god A.T. Still said it was so over 100 years ago”. The students are then taught to memorize the names of great osteopaths – Sunderland – father of the “cranial technique”… The students learn dozens if not hundreds of ancient osteopaths names and their “contribution” to the non-scientific timeline of osteopathy. I have seen osteopathic faculty try to solidify their place on the osteopathic timeline by coining terms.
At my osteopathic school. Mild hierarchical competition exists between the OMM faculty. Osteopathic faculty strut around the room – telling students that they “sense an irregularity”, it is “subtle”, and “everyone has a deformity”. One osteopathic faculty went around the room claiming he could see when student’s faces are in flexion or extension just by looking at them. He found students with rounder faces and said “you are in flexion”, and those with thin faces “you are in extension”. Apparently, a student asked him “how can you observe the effects of cerebral spinal fluid changing the shapes of skull bones from a distance”. His response was “I can tell, I have been doing this for 30 years”… Yes, it is convenient that you are proud to call it an “Art”, because nobody can scientifically question an “art”. (Or a religion for that matter.) Oddly enough, the newest trend in osteopathic academia is osteopathic “research”. Which is strange, because some are saying it’s an art – not science – and now others are trying to use science to legitimize their artistic claims. Osteopathic “research” is full of holes. The methodological approaches are biased to create evidence to combat nay-sayers. One day, universities like Harvard and Yale will review osteopathic “literature”, replicate experiments and find the research to be completely flawed. There are some benefits to having a hands on approach. Research on both sides shows patient-centered-care has improved results. This is why more and more MDs are approaching their patient’s with a psychosocial model.
3) This hierarchy. It is dangerous to the profession. Osteopaths at the top are not interested in a merger, because then they would lose power. Therefor the osteopathic pedagogy remains: You will respect the dogma. You will not question the art. This hierarchy is just as arrogant as 19th century western medicine. When are rational osteopath physicians going to stand up for evidence-based-medicine? Most osteopathic physician would support taming the exaggerated difference in osteopathy and the adoption of evidence-based-medicine combined with approaching the patient with a psychosocial view – just like the allopaths. Those at the top fear that a distinction must be made between allopaths and osteopaths. After all, what makes us different? Something has to make us different? Otherwise we are obsolete… DOs at the top deny that allopaths look at a patient’s spiritual, work, and family dynamics. They deny that allopaths treat their patient’s holistically because they define “holistic” as using hands to feel magic vibrations that can be manipulated.
To the osteopathic physician: Urge your DO colleagues to evolve with 21st century medicine. If you don’t do this, western medicine will evolve too quickly for the osteopathic profession. The profession runs the risk at becoming abolished as technology will one day catch up to refute the divine ancient teachings.
To the osteopathic medical student: We are the future of medicine. We do not have to believe in some of the techniques just because they were taught 50 years ago. Appreciate the hands on focus. But be informed that your future MD colleges are going through an extremely similar education. MD students also touch people during school.
To the prospective medical student: This is what you are getting into if you are considering DO.
