Conversion of all DO degrees to MD, and ending separation of medicine

[homeboy]

Actually, YES! If it's not Hyppocrates it's Osler or Rush or any other bleeder in history. When I received viewbooks from allopathic med schools, they ALL had some sort of quote from Hyppo, Osler or such. So the answer is yes.

wow, that's amazing...how about JAMA articles.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Shinken]

Stinkin, my point was merely that referencing AT Still as the gold standard of "osteopathic wisdom" is getting rather old.

Homeyboytoy. Ah, of course. Now you think I was only picking on you and decided to call me a name. I'm so proud to have people like you as my future colleagues.


WAAAH! WAHHH! I'm going to a school based on the founding ideas of AT Still but I don't want to hear about him! I want to hear about allopathic physicians, which is what I want to be in the first place! WAAAAAH!

 

[czanetti]

Homeboy and Shinken

Ok... there will be no below the belt punches or kicks, no biting of the ear, and no killing your wives and writing a book about it after you have been acquitted. Ok fight!!

 

[Dr JPH]

Quotes from anyone can be overdone in a hurry.

If every lecture starts with a Still quote as a means of "rallying the troops" around osteopathy...could get old quickly.

Did I just agree with homeboy??

 

[homeboy]

Homeyboytoy. Ah, of course. Now you think I was only picking on you and decided to call me a name. I'm so proud to have people like you as my future colleagues.


WAAAH! WAHHH! I'm going to a school based on the founding ideas of AT Still but I don't want to hear about him! I want to hear about allopathic physicians, which is what I want to be in the first place! WAAAAAH!

sorry...you know how close the "H" and "T" are on the keyboard...

Anyway, your typical response is expected: anyone who questions or is critical of practices / modalitites of the AOA or osteopathic school in general is a whiney MD-reject.

All of the 'osteopathic principles' are basic tenets of science, anatomy and physiology, and to suggest that these principles set us apart because we supposedly 'focus' on them more than MDs is lame.

It's like we're the group of scientists who thought the world was round before everyone knew it was, but even when everyone else realized it was round and we could scientifically prove it, WE still think we have some inherent superiority becuase WE knew the world was round. 100 years after the fact, it doesn't matter...we're on the same track and working towards the same goal so why focus on inane details and inflated common knowledge?

Yes, AT was a well-rounded physician and had accurate complaints about medicine at the time. But this is over 100 years later...the problems he focused on are no longer problems, and his understanding of healing and unity are general common assumptions in medicine as a whole.

 

[homeboy]

JP, every now and then, we open our book to the same page.

 

[Dr JPH]

All of the 'osteopathic principles' are basic tenets of science, anatomy and physiology, and to suggest that these principles set us apart because we supposedly 'focus' on them more than MDs is lame.

I kinda agree.

100 years after the fact, it doesn't matter...we're on the same track and working towards the same goal so why focus on inane details and inflated common knowledge?

Yes, AT was a well-rounded physician and had accurate complaints about medicine at the time. But this is over 100 years later...the problems he focused on are no longer problems, and his understanding of healing and unity are general common assumptions in medicine as a whole.

I think the osteopathic profession takes his importance and his (at that time) new thoughts and does inflate it a bit.

Although at the time what AT Still did revolutionized the way some patients were treated, his original thoughts and ideas dont hold much relevance today.

I think its more the spirit of looking to do more that inspires me, not so much the lymphatic pump for typhoid.

 

[Dr JPH]

JP, every now and then, we open our book to the same page.

And I get scared!

 

[czanetti]

so this is what wikipedia meant when they said one of the future challenges of Osteopathic medicine was "the field continues to struggle with core identity issues".... I get it now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic#Future_challenges

 

[hyperbaric]

Anyway, your typical response is expected: anyone who questions or is critical of practices / modalitites of the AOA or osteopathic school in general is a whiney MD-reject.

All of the 'osteopathic principles' are basic tenets of science, anatomy and physiology, and to suggest that these principles set us apart because we supposedly 'focus' on them more than MDs is lame.

It's like we're the group of scientists who thought the world was round before everyone knew it was, but even when everyone else realized it was round and we could scientifically prove it, WE still think we have some inherent superiority becuase WE knew the world was round. 100 years after the fact, it doesn't matter...we're on the same track and working towards the same goal so why focus on inane details and inflated common knowledge?

Yes, AT was a well-rounded physician and had accurate complaints about medicine at the time. But this is over 100 years later...the problems he focused on are no longer problems, and his understanding of healing and unity are general common assumptions in medicine as a whole.

Agree x 4 with da homeboy.

 

[YupGypsy]

DO versus DO!

Stinkin & homeboytoy - those names were a hilarious read.

 

[YupGypsy]

Sorry to be arrogant and stereotypical, but that quoted sentence by you honestly makes me want to know now. Are you an "MD reject?"

<braces self for flame war>

No need to ask that, just ask for his stats. Simple.

I kid.

 

[bth7]

MD's are superior because they don't have to do cranial

then again, they don't get to feel up their female classmates for 2 years.

Palpating old people during third year makes DO's and MD's equal again...

My MD does cranial. And so do a lot of other ones.

 

[Brany]

My MD does cranial. And so do a lot of other ones.

The person who applies a modality of treatment doen not justify its validity, scientific research does!

 

[Al2VCOM]

A 4th year knows TONS more than a 3rd year just starting in the hospitals. Remember this post a year from now. Take a look at how inexperienced you are with medicine now and compare it to how much knowledge you have gained as you start your 4th year. Take into account that JP is (was?) an OMM fellow and I'll take his well informed opinion based on experience over an average 3rd year's opinion any day (I'm just a 2nd year, but this is what all the 4th years have told me).

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with billing for OMM. It's a service a DO is providing. The fact that you don't believe in it means nothing to the rest of the world. There are patients who swear by it. Some of it is bs (cranial), other manuevers with a rational theory behind them can be effective (counterstrain, muscle energy). Even if you think it's effectiveness is due to a placebo effect (which i don't believe it is) - so what? It makes the patient feel better, has a medical/scientific theory behind it, so use it if you're good at it.

JP wasn't bragging - it takes a good experienced doctor 5 minutes or less to diagnose a cold.

Prove to me that the patient who had a URI for a week, started a Z-pack, and started feeling better 2 days later had a bacterial infection that resolved due to antibiotic therapy as opposed to a viral infection that took longer than normal to clear. Just because you don't have clear cut evidence written in stone doesn't mean you should withhold treatments that can potentially help, especially OMM, which in the hands of a good doctor has virtually zero risk of negative effects.

Wow, someone knows the tennants of osteopathic medicine. The body kills bacteria (Z paks are macrolide, 50s, ringing any bells). If manipulation can help keep the immune system primed, it is beneficial. A common cold is often a virus, will anti-virals help you get over your cold faster, or will the infection have yielded to the immune system. I wouldn't say that drugs don't work, we know they do by experience. Same with OMM. I agree, the JAOA is hard to swallow sometimes, but does that erase the experience. Instead of throwing articles with the conclusion you like, read it all.

 

[docbill]

Oh Boy the rare time I come on here these days, I am always facinated by some of the things people post.

Yes, we start some lectures with A.T. Still our leader... and yes... sometimes I point my finger at my head and pull the trigger. Ironically we start some lectures with W.Osler MD .... that kind of makes things better. Not because he is MD only.. but because he is Canadian. Ehhhh!!!

If anyone things research and validation for any science (including OMM) is not required. Please let me know, that way I can add you to my ignore list and forget you.

 

[docbill]

My MD does cranial. And so do a lot of other ones.

Reaallllyyyy good for him... if you pay me money I will do on you too.

Whatever brings home the meat and potatoes???? You want me to give you sented stuff and call it therapy.. fine.. whatever makes you feel better... I don't mind. Placebo effect works just fine with me.

 

[FutureNavyDOc]

My MD does cranial. And so do a lot of other ones.

An MD prediatrician in my hometown slept with his patients, and so do a lot of other MD's, in fact I would bet you a year's tuition a lot more MD's sleep with their patients than do Cranial.

But thanks again for yet another ringing anecdotal reason we should all rush out and do cranial on the entire world.

I think the osteopathic profession takes his importance and his (at that time) new thoughts and does inflate it a bit.

As a buddy and I determined last year, there's a reason the technique where you assess motion, go indirect, then EXAGGERATE is called Still technique

 

[czanetti]

Haha, that’s funny its almost like some of the pharmaceutical companies saying that there product is great but its really **** and they spin, or doctor scientific data to get FDA approval. But that can never happen when there are big money lobbyist groups and big business having no association with the FDA. vioxx would be a good example.

http://www.mynippon.com/vioxx/2005/01/vioxx-death-estimate-revised-upwards.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n2_v30/ai_18175441

http://www.newstarget.com/001298.html

http://www.public-i.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=792

Here is a funny thought, these imperfect science situations cause thousands to die how many people does cranial kill a year?

Now this is not an outcry for people to not use medication I'm NOT saying that at all. I'm just presenting the case that a standard treatment for pain for instance can end up killing thousands because of situations like this. There are exaggerations in many realms of medicine. Especially when big business is involved.

I was watching the news tonight and they finally decided to put BIG warning labels in florescent color on acetaminophen bottles because there has been an increase in the amount of OD in the past few months. People asked why this hasn’t been done earlier. Wasn’t in the best interest of the Pharmaceutical company at the time and the FDA ended up dragging there shoes.

 

[OHMAN0125]

I like your strategy: throw, duck and run.
Again, you haven't given me any facts other than personal experience and hypothetical situations. I've repeated this about 3 times to no answer.
Don't give me this "i've proven it time and time again" garbage. Geez, this is ridiculous.

J15...the '5 minute' reference was to a hx, PE, dictation, rx writing, etc...no doc does all that in 5 minutes. Sure you can rush and prob'ly get it done in 5 min, not on avg. Gosh who cares...it's a mute point. You're focusing on 1 unimportant detail.

Critical dissent is differentiated from 'whining and bitching'; and I'm not namecalling--I'm defending myself from personal cuts by using personal cuts.

Arguing with me is no more pointless than arguing with you, or anyone else on this forum for that matter. It's a freakin blog--people express their opinions, not try to win hearts and minds.

You guys are hilarious! Get back to the topic at hand.
I vote no change. It would be ******ed and too many ppl from either side would be opposed to it. DOs... have some pride in your degree (for those that dont obviously). By having pride, it will show MDs that you are on the same level and don't need to change the degree to make urself feel better. All in all, physicians (MD and DO) need to stick together to fight against changes in medicare, insurance reimbursements, malpractice, etc.

 

[gerido]

You guys are hilarious! Get back to the topic at hand.
I vote no change. It would be ******ed and too many ppl from either side would be opposed to it. DOs... have some pride in your degree (for those that dont obviously). By having pride, it will show MDs that you are on the same level and don't need to change the degree to make urself feel better. All in all, physicians (MD and DO) need to stick together to fight against changes in medicare, insurance reimbursements, malpractice, etc.

With DO being what it is today, I see no point in separation beside stupid politics - AOA administration don't want to give up their glory, simple as that. It's inefficient not only in term in term of licensing, but also for students, of which many must take two separate exams because there are not enough DO residency spots.

All this BS about DO having a different philosophy and OMM is essential is bullcrap - if the AOA are so incline to take physical therapists' job, then allow for additional year of OMM fellowship for anyone who's interested. 100 years ago, there's no reason for DO to merge with MD because they were actually killing less people than the traditional poison prescribing, blood letting practice of medicine. There was something to proud of, but today... it's the same ****, just different title.

 

[Big Cat]

I mean seriously, isn't all this arguing a bit ridiculous? How does this make our profession, and our respective institutions, look? And if I recall, isn't the whole DO vs. MD fighting like this against the principles of SDN?

You have expressed your opinions. Leave it at that. Go and enjoy yourselves as I am sure that now everyone is on some sort of Christmas break, unless you are a practicing doctor, which I am still willing to wager you get some sort of time off.

Let's just stop the infighting and do what we all sought out to do in the first place, and be the best doctors we can be.

Happy Holidays!

The Cat

 

[homeboy]

I mean seriously, isn't all this arguing a bit ridiculous? How does this make our profession, and our respective institutions, look? And if I recall, isn't the whole DO vs. MD fighting like this against the principles of SDN?

You have expressed your opinions. Leave it at that. Go and enjoy yourselves as I am sure that now everyone is on some sort of Christmas break, unless you are a practicing doctor, which I am still willing to wager you get some sort of time off.

Let's just stop the infighting and do what we all sought out to do in the first place, and be the best doctors we can be.

Happy Holidays!

The Cat

I understand your frustration with the futility of these arguments, but they at least spark conversation where conversation is usually absent (mainly, on campuses).

True that much of the rhetoric spewed back and forth is nothing less than irritated rants, but it's not unhealthy for students to express feelings and opinions on a blog like this. This is a great outlet for frustration where you can find people to listen and agree/disagree with no fear of repercussion.

 

[Mixmaster]

usually these polls are close to 50/50. But something to think about: In California far more than 50% of DO's decided to change.

 

[medhacker]

usually these polls are close to 50/50. But something to think about: In California far more than 50% of DO's decided to change.

What year was this?

 

[Shinken]

What year was this?

1961.

According to Bob Jones' excellent book, 2400 DOs accepted the offer (including a former AOA president, Dr. Vincent Carroll). 260 DOs decided to keep their degrees.

 

[NickRiviera]

1961.

According to Bob Jones' excellent book, 2400 DOs accepted the offer (including a former AOA president, Dr. Vincent Carroll). 260 DOs decided to keep their degrees.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,874340,00.html

 

[jp104]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,874340,00.html

Wow! That is very cool. Thanks NickRiviera!

 

[DNA Helicase]

I think if there were two medical degrees, MD and MDO, it would probably be more clear to people that a DO is a fully trained medical doctor, alleviating some of the confusion and occasionally awkward questions. I personally think it's kind of silly, but at the same time, we really ARE dealing with a public perception a lot of times. Why should we have to explain the differences? I've noticed a couple of times when shadowing DOs that their patients ask them what osteopathy is. If anything it is a distraction for the patient, one which could lead to them having questioning your care, especially if this is their first visit with you (i.e. "Is she a 'real' doctor?") or unwarranted extra confidence ("Ooh, my doctor is a "special doctor."). I know this is anecdotal evidence, but from my perspective, it does seem that it could make a difference if the degree was modified to reduce / potentially eliminate confusion in those members of the public less willing to do the research on their own.

There do seem to be very few differences in practice between a DO and MD (which I'm sure we can all agree with). I can see their being pros to the conversion of the degree, but can't really see any cons. While I recognize some might be unwilling to usher in a change due to it potentially causing osteopathic medicine to lose it's identity, I also wonder why it NEEDS an identity. Why does it NEED to be distinctive? It's almost as if their is a desire to exaggerate the differences. I know a lot of people on these boards like to claim the differences, but I really haven't seen many. Maybe I'm just shadowing the wrong doctors. I wish I could get it into my head that the difference in degrees is significant. Maybe someone can say something to change my mind.

I think it could also lend to a lower frequency of MD>DO or DO>MD arguments. Of course, there will always be people who want to feel superior than others, so maybe not. I think that at this point the training and practice of MDs and DOs is converging so much, it's kind of silly to perpetuate distinction. I know this is just an opinion, so probably not very valuable, but maybe I've said something of interest.

I chose DO because of the differences in student culture (which seems to be less competitive and more cooperative) and OMT. The differences are subtle. I feel that human physical contact drastically improves the way a person feels emotionally, which has a holistic effect on the patient's health. I view this as being the "more holistic" aspect of the profession, perhaps different from the holistic approach professed by the AACOM. So in this way, among others, OMT is a useful tool. But I don't kid myself into thinking they are that drastically different, especially when many DOs do not utilize OMT. The DO of 100 years ago is not the DO of today. I view osteopathy as a largely vestigial distinction. Again, just my perspective. I know certain aspects of osteopathy can mimic a religion for some, so I'm not trying to step on any toes here. I respect those of you which desire continued distinction, I just don't understand it.

 

[Taus]

I think if there were two medical degrees, MD and MDO, it would probably be more clear to people that a DO is a fully trained medical doctor, alleviating some of the confusion and occasionally awkward questions. I personally think it's kind of silly, but at the same time, we really ARE dealing with a public perception a lot of times. Why should we have to explain the differences? I've noticed a couple of times when shadowing DOs that their patients ask them what osteopathy is. If anything it is a distraction for the patient, one which could lead to them having questioning your care, especially if this is their first visit with you (i.e. "Is she a 'real' doctor?") or unwarranted extra confidence ("Ooh, my doctor is a "special doctor."). I know this is anecdotal evidence, but from my perspective, it does seem that it could make a difference if the degree was modified to reduce / potentially eliminate confusion in those members of the public less willing to do the research on their own.

There do seem to be very few differences in practice between a DO and MD (which I'm sure we can all agree with). I can see their being pros to the conversion of the degree, but can't really see any cons. While I recognize some might be unwilling to usher in a change due to it potentially causing osteopathic medicine to lose it's identity, I also wonder why it NEEDS an identity. Why does it NEED to be distinctive? It's almost as if their is a desire to exaggerate the differences. I know a lot of people on these boards like to claim the differences, but I really haven't seen many. Maybe I'm just shadowing the wrong doctors. I wish I could get it into my head that the difference in degrees is significant. Maybe someone can say something to change my mind.

I think it could also lend to a lower frequency of MD>DO or DO>MD arguments. Of course, there will always be people who want to feel superior than others, so maybe not. I think that at this point the training and practice of MDs and DOs is converging so much, it's kind of silly to perpetuate distinction. I know this is just an opinion, so probably not very valuable, but maybe I've said something of interest.

I chose DO because of the differences in student culture (which seems to be less competitive and more cooperative) and OMT. The differences are subtle. I feel that human physical contact drastically improves the way a person feels emotionally, which has a holistic effect on the patient's health. I view this as being the "more holistic" aspect of the profession, perhaps different from the holistic approach professed by the AACOM. So in this way, among others, OMT is a useful tool. But I don't kid myself into thinking they are that drastically different, especially when many DOs do not utilize OMT. The DO of 100 years ago is not the DO of today. I view osteopathy as a largely vestigial distinction. Again, just my perspective. I know certain aspects of osteopathy can mimic a religion for some, so I'm not trying to step on any toes here. I respect those of you which desire continued distinction, I just don't understand it.

regardless of how I feel about this issue....in the eyes of the AOA, the difference b/w the two degrees is the reason for its existance and they will fight "to the death" to maintain their distinctiveness.....that is why you see all of the exagerations and bold proclamations of "the difference"

among other factors, I chose DO school for the same reasons as you

 

[pimpmybones]

This is so dumb...If you want to be and MD go to an allopathic school if you cant get into one here there are plenty in the carribean schools tht will take you as long as you have money...If your a DO be proud ...be a trailblazer.

If you ask me MD's should convert to DO..tht will end the seperation

 

[Pansit]

This is so dumb...If you want to be and MD go to an allopathic school if you cant get into one here there are plenty in the carribean schools tht will take you as long as you have money...If your a DO be proud ...be a trailblazer.

If you ask me MD's should convert to DO..tht will end the seperation

Well this discussion is not about allopathy vs. osteopathy, just because someone wants MD in their initials doesnt mean they secretly hate osteopathic medicine and hoping to be in the allopathic circles...the problem I have is with consistency...they just recently changed the degree from Doctor of Osteopathy to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine....so it would seem reasonable to change DO, which means Doctor of Osteopathy to initials that have an M designation, whether it be MDO, MD-O, MD (ost.), MD,DO...whatever...are we still doctors of osteopathy or Medical Doctors taught in the art of osteopathic medicine? Do you see where there is some inconsistency in the designation which needs some sort of fixing...either we go back to getting a Doctor of Osteopathy degree or we change the DO to include the fact that we are in fact medical doctors...makes sense to me...here is a link about this debate with Dr. Strosnider of the AOA, according to him, if the students put in enough of an organized collaborated effort it can be done...but it will take a lot of work. I personally like DO, MD or MD, DO which shows our training as Medical Doctors and in Osteopathic principles/applications. I am almost sure that a lot of the stigma will somewhat decline because we will be seen as Medical Doctors, not to mention the fact that applications would most likely increase (its anecdotal but I think it would happen) in competition and hence increase the supposed "numbers" at the schools, decreasing more of the stigma, increasing the residency opportunities, and further advancing osteopathic medicine in general...I dont see how a change of designation can negatively affect osteopathic medicine, but I do see positives it were to be done.

http://blogs.do-online.org/aoapresident.php?itemid=2065&catid=15#c

 

[Mixmaster]

Many organizations have mottos or mission statements. The 'converted' DO schools that would be MD could still have principles that revolve around the whole person, or patient not symptoms bull*&$%. I heard that Loyola had a mission statement that was very 'holistic'. Hey they can even teach OMM and people at MD schools that dont teach OMM can do electives at MD w/ OMM schools. Hey, maybe even fellowships can be done at different institutions. Not every med school MD or DO has the same curriculum. Some teach ethics (some dont), some have biostats (some dont), and some will teach OMM, and some wont. But why an entire organization and separation of medicine because of OMM? I will never get this.

 

[Pansit]

Many organizations have mottos or mission statements. The 'converted' DO schools that would be MD could still have principles that revolve around the whole person, or patient not symptoms bull*&$%. I heard that Loyola had a mission statement that was very 'holistic'. Hey they can even teach OMM and people at MD schools that dont teach OMM can do electives at MD w/ OMM schools. Hey, maybe even fellowships can be done at different institutions. Not every med school MD or DO has the same curriculum. Some teach ethics (some dont), some have biostats (some dont), and some will teach OMM, and some wont. But why an entire organization and separation of medicine because of OMM? I will never get this.

The separation exists because of Historical circumstances, in which there was a large disparity between osteopathic medicine and allopathic medicine...it is not based solely on OMM per se...but nowadays the lines have definitely blurred and with over 50% of DO's going to allopathic residencies, it will just continue to get blurry until at some point, when all allopathic schools start incorporating OMM, the only thing left would be the "more hands on approach" or more "holistic" medicine, which is not reason enough for the separation because like OMM, allopathic schools can incorporate those as well.

 

[BklynWill]

I appreciate when this debate tends to avoid the concept of a "merger" and rather emphasizes clarification. I support the idea of an MD, DO degree and it looks as though we currently need an eager SGA from any of the COMs to light this spark.

Any takers?

Anyone willing to write a letter that we can present to our SGAs?

If this is a local (state) issue, then it looks as though it doesn't go through the AOA. Somehow that provides me with some optimism .

 

[Mixmaster]

Merger is better. The LCME is well respected and the only organization that can give an M.D. in the US and Canada. The lower respect that D.O. schools get is not because of the D.O. name but because of the lower standards (in admission, accreditation of schools/residencies, and education standards). I hate to say it but it's a reality, and many M.D. attendings have told me. Just read what the Anesthesiologist D.O. from Mississippi had to say. Some of the rotations/residencies would never be approved by the LCME or ACGME.
The NBME is the standard in medical examinations around the world. I dont think anyone would argue about the quality of the exam. The NBOME on the otherhand needs some work. I think most of us know this. At least the ACGME program directors know this.
I am not trying to bash everything D.O. but we need to realize what others already have. In California ~90% of D.O.'s and a former AOA President payed $65 to change their degree!
We deserve the same respect. We as students and doctors have earned it. There are too many geniuses that are D.O.'s that are being held back because of the AOA. Yes, some overcome those hurdles but others cannot. Even FMG's sometimes have a better shot here than D.O.'s; and at least non-medical people know what their degree means.

 

[jhug]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...874340,00.html

maybe we could do it like immigration...every 20 years or so provide full amnesty and those who want can make the jump...
i loved at the very end it says "Nationwide, osteopaths operate six colleges and 400 hospitals"...i wonder how soon it will be before we get closer to 400 schools and 6 hospitals!

 

[the1doc]

I read Dr. Strosnider's blog regarding this issue. This was my favorite part:

So as previously stated, if I wanted to see if a change was warrented and supported by a great majority of the state then I sould go to the dean and ask for the procedure to be investigated. If a COM decided to pursue this change, then approval from COCA, and the various state agencies would need to be received. For those states without COMs then the state society would most likely need to be the one to investigate and go to the various state agencies to attempt recognition of the change.

Now THAT is leadership...evasion and deflection typical of the worst of politicians..."if YOU want something to happen, DON'T ask for help from the one person who has the MOST ability to promote change." He has pages and pages of blogs from students and DOs who are requesting that this issue is investigated. Why doesn't HE take some initiative and see if change is "warrented"? Or he could just do NOTHING about it like past presidents...let's give him a pat on the back for at least taking the time to babble about all the hoops that WE would need to jump through if WE want this to happen....

 

[homeboy]

ditto 1doc...thanks alot Stros.

and i agree whole heartedly with what mixmaster said: it's not a technical matter of simply changing initials...we're AOA and MDs are LCME.
Standards are not identical across the board, for the most part considerably lower on our side (in terms of med school admission and board scores...the COMLEX was a horrible test compared to the USMLE in terms of organization, quality of questions, and completeness in covering 1st and 2nd year material).

that's not to say lower standards equates to lower level of care (I don't think test scores correlate with professional success or doctoring skills), but when 5,000 people apply for 100 spots, they have to use some baseline. and it sucks, no doubt about it. i don't deny the fact i would have accepted an MD spot had applications / interviews / waitlists turned out different.
but now that i'm past all the crap, i'm in the hospital with allo students / MDs, and what's the difference?

Bottom line: med school applications will remain a crap shoot, for both DO and MD schools, but training--especially considereing OVER 50% OF DO GRADS WENT ACGME--would be better off if it was in the hands of the ACGME, and the AOA partnered up with the LCME to grant us a degree that is universally accepted (remember, DOs are for the most part only physicians in the US...try going to the UK and practicing medicine with a DO degree...)

and that's the only way we'd get away with changing our title to MD,DO or DO,MD, or (which seems the best option to me) MD-O.

 

[txkiteboarder]

read The DOs and you will find out why it hasnt happened...

 

[VTB]

Here are my feelings on the matter:

The truth is: MDO, MD-O or O-MD (excluding the DOM designation since it is already taken by alternative medical doctors) is a very bad idea and will not solve any of the problems that DOs face today.

The MD degree has had exposure since modern society and legalities came into existence. The DO degree has a little over a century of exposure and yet, struggles with acceptance.

Osteopathic medicine is a fantastic path to medicine for a person who wants to be the well rounded physician and know that extra 'plus' of OMT. Whether a student chooses to pursue the DO designation in medicine for this reason, or other reasons regarding acceptances/rejections, inspirations from osteopathic medicine, or any other reasons (which all are in reality just fine), they should be recognized as a physician or surgeon- a master of medicine, a person of science and ultimately a healer.

The three lettered designation will further decrease the acceptance of the osteopathic physician. Patients will disregard these physicians as non-doctors, people who obtained an alternative medicine degree from some online program or some 200 hour course, or something of that nature.

It takes diligence, hard work, passion for science, a strong will and a love for humanity along with some strong nerves to become a medical doctor. A DO obviously has these qualities and has completed the medical course of training and study. DOs are complete medical doctors and accomplished surgeons, and personally- this has priority over a 400+ hours of the OMT course of training.


Osteopathic medicine MUST transform into a more versatile institution of medicine, if it wishes to ensure the continuation of its growth, so...

Osteopathic medicine, as a unified institution, should do either one of/or both of these things:

1. Work much harder to promote the profession, advocating for physician workforce equality, which includes: promoting specialization (not only primary care), promoting OMS's to undergraduate institutions, participate in more high-end research, and plan a more effective overall marketing strategy.

2. As I mentioned before: being a medical doctor comes before an added training of OMT (which is great, but this only ADDS to the physician's capabilities- it does NOT define the physician), so the degree designation MUST be, if it ultimately will be, changed to:

MD, DO
(Medicinae Doctor, Doctorate of Osteopathy)
​

 

[jonwill]

Very interesting poll and debate.

 

[Tired]

2. As I mentioned before: being a medical doctor comes before an added training of OMT (which is great, but this only ADDS to the physician's capabilities- it does NOT define the physician), so the degree designation MUST be, if it ultimately will be, changed to:

MD, DO
(Medicinae Doctor, Doctorate of Osteopathy)
​

As an MD student, I can tell you exactly how well that will go over on this side. I giggle at the thought of the verbose nonsense that our "doctors" running the AMA will publish in every newspaper in the country.

I urge you to try it, it would be fun to see that pathetic little group (AMA) try to shove their heads further up their own a$$e$.

 

[Critical Mass]

I would support a neutral change to a degree that needn't be an MD nor a DO, but I don't see anything like this happening anytime soon. I am in favor of a uniform licensing exam.

 

[homeboy]

again...

the only agency that can grant the MD degree is the LCME, so unless they absorb the AOA...something the AOA wouldn't let happen (yet)...the MD,DO title is not plausible.

 

[Red Beard]

Ditto what Homeboy said. Also, if you've read the discussion on the DO-online blog, Strosnider has made it quite clear that the AOA has zero say in the matter--it is up to the individual schools what degree they choose to award, and up to the schools and all practicing DOs in a given state to get the ball rolling in terms of putting the new degree on the law books and getting it recognized as a qualification for licensure.

In other words, any degree change must be a state by state process, pushed by osteopathic students/schools and that state's licensed DOs. The massive bureaucracy and potential opposition from state allopathic organizations would make this a long and daunting uphill battle.

For these reasons, I don't think the degree change is plausible. Wishful thinking among osteopathic medical students is no substitute for the momentum and coordination that would be needed to see this kind of project through.

 

[djnels01]

Ditto what Homeboy said. Also, if you've read the discussion on the DO-online blog, Strosnider has made it quite clear that the AOA has zero say in the matter--it is up to the individual schools what degree they choose to award, and up to the schools and all practicing DOs in a given state to get the ball rolling in terms of putting the new degree on the law books and getting it recognized as a qualification for licensure.

In other words, any degree change must be a state by state process, pushed by osteopathic students/schools and that state's licensed DOs. The massive bureaucracy and potential opposition from state allopathic organizations would make this a long and daunting uphill battle.

For these reasons, I don't think the degree change is plausible. Wishful thinking among osteopathic medical students is no substitute for the momentum and coordination that would be needed to see this kind of project through.

End of thread

 

[Shinken]

The solution to the problem is actually quite simple.

If you want an MD degree, go to an MD-granting institution.

If you want a DO degree, go to a DO-granting institution.

Simple, right?

 

[Mediocrates]

MD's are superior because they don't have to do cranial

then again, they don't get to feel up their female classmates for 2 years.

Palpating old people during third year makes DO's and MD's equal again...

Hahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!

 

[Typical]

any news why DOs are unique?