DO - Degree Change ...

[UCFMOP]

I don't think anyone believes that changing the initials behind your name will change your skills as a doctor. I think the main issue here is the "MD" will allow us to avoid explaining to patients what the DO degree means and protects Osteopathic and Allopathic physicians from encroaching professions such as "Naturopathic Physicians", PAs, NP, and so on. In other words, We could say to the public "Make sure your doctor has an MD" in order to protect agaisnt midlevels and other aspiring health professions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Concubine]

I don't think anyone believes that changing the initials behind your name will change your skills as a doctor. I think the main issue here is the "MD" will allow us to avoid explaining to patients what the DO degree means and protects Osteopathic and Allopathic physicians from encroaching professions such as "Naturopathic Physicians", PAs, NP, and so on. In other words, We could say to the public "Make sure your doctor has an MD" in order to protect agaisnt midlevels and other aspiring health professions.

Still, don't you think this is a bit of a superficial problem? I see where you guys are going in that many of us are proponents of merging allopathic and osteopathic medicine...I just see the discrepancies between the two degrees going much deeper than the initials. I think the osteopathic world should learn to integrate some allopathic educational attributes (such as attached teaching hospitals, more research, lower tuition, etc.) just like allopathic should integrate some osteopathic educational attributes (such as attracting more rounded applicants, evidence based OMM, hotter chicks, etc.).

 

[EastWestN2grt]

So according to my schools student assoc president, during the COSGP(Council of Osteopathic Student Government Presidents) meeting this year (Kansas City??Cant remember details or date), the two issues of degree change and opening AOA residencies to MDs were two SEPARATE issues voted upon and NOT linked together. COSGP voted AGAINST the degree change, and voted FOR the opening of AOA residencies. The votes I believe are only a preliminary position which will then be brought forth to the AOA House of Delegates in July.

Im not sure who heard these two issues were linked together, but I am hearing that they are not-they are independent issues. I looked at the COSGP website for clarification but its all outdated info from last year, no info about this year.

While I do think for fairness opening AOA residencies to MD students is the "right thing", Im not sure what benefit it provides to the DO profession.

Hey others out there should try and talk with their presidents and get more info and share...

 

[scpod]

....While I do think for fairness opening AOA residencies to MD students is the "right thing", Im not sure what benefit it provides to the DO profession....

While there may be no immediate effect, it's the first step towards a combined match. That would allow students to truly rank their choices in order and would be a major benefit. In addition, a combined match may lead to the adoption of other long-term beneficial changes. The change of the DO degree designation, however, would lead to none of those.

 

[MichiganDO]

You dont need the AOA, COCA, ect. to change the DO degree.

You need one lawsuit against a state medical board indicating DOs
should be rightfully able to practice with the initials MD just as:
MBBS, MBChB, BMBCh, BMed, MB BChir, MD, MDCM, BM BS, Dr.MuD do.

These degrees are all awarded rights to practice with an MD title after passing the USMLE., allo residency, ect.
If an osteopathic physician passes the USMLE and completes these steps as well, it seems only logical and fair
that state courts should allow that DO to practice with MD initials as well (just as the FMGs above).

MD is branded b/c in the US we convert every medical degree (except for DO) to MD for public understanding (>20% of US MDs).

Its absurd that all these other degrees practice with MD initials the American health care system and yet the second an osteopathic physician/student suggests he/she would like equal privilege, they are slammed for it by both DOs and MDs.
Im proud to be a DO, but ignoring the realism that the degree is misunderstood is simply ignorant.

Pursue the state boards for a change in the degree.
One lawsuit will change this whole silly debate.

 

[gasapple]

Wrong.

FACT: Studies show that the vast majority of allopathic physicians have a favorable attitude towards manual medicine, and have no problem recommending it to their patients.

• Physicians' and patients' attitudes toward manual medicine: implications for continuing medical education.
• Allopathic family medicine residents can learn osteopathic manipulation techniques in a 1-month elective.

Pre-meds: be very careful who you listen to in this discussion. People make claims without backing them up with verified sources.

Interesting discussion about the degree change idea in this months, DO magazine. Certainly more articulate than the discussion here, which quickly devolves into " If you don't want a 'DO' after your name, don't go to an osteopathic school." For those of you reading, their are plenty of us who are very into the osteopathic profession who want to discuss the degree change, and we don't need to hide behind an SDN avatar to do it.

Check it out: DO degree change, May 2008 (These are the responses to the original article on the degree change. You can read the original article here: Letter Perfect, Can a new degree lead to more recognition for DOs?.)

bth

I like the way BTH consistently cites sources.

 

[cyclohexanol]

These are exactly my thoughts. It not like it would be asking for extra privileges, just equal to those who complete the same steps.

However, from some initial research it seems this has been done before, at least in California, and has been shot down.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Granted, this case was decided in 1983 and things may have changed, but it seems like a better route may be through the state legislature to -introduce- the appropriate new laws regarding title, instead of fighting existing statutes.

edit:

forgot new jersey:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/673/673.F2d.671.81-1717.html


If nothing else, these are just interesting reads and are good summaries of the history of medical licensing, training, and laws regarding to licensing.

You dont need the AOA, COCA, ect. to change the DO degree.

You need one lawsuit against a state medical board indicating DOs
should be rightfully able to practice with the initials MD just as:
MBBS, MBChB, BMBCh, BMed, MB BChir, MD, MDCM, BM BS, Dr.MuD do.

These degrees are all awarded rights to practice with an MD title after passing the USMLE., allo residency, ect.
If an osteopathic physician passes the USMLE and completes these steps as well, it seems only logical and fair
that state courts should allow that DO to practice with MD initials as well (just as the FMGs above).

MD is branded b/c in the US we convert every medical degree (except for DO) to MD for public understanding (>20% of US MDs).

Its absurd that all these other degrees practice with MD initials the American health care system and yet the second an osteopathic physician/student suggests he/she would like equal privilege, they are slammed for it by both DOs and MDs.
Im proud to be a DO, but ignoring the realism that the degree is misunderstood is simply ignorant.

Pursue the state boards for a change in the degree.
One lawsuit will change this whole silly debate.

 

[ceftazidime]

While I do think for fairness opening AOA residencies to MD students is the "right thing", Im not sure what benefit it provides to the DO profession.

In order to get medicare funding to pay the residents, the residency spots must fill. If residency spots go unfilled year after year, there goes the funding and eventually the whole program along with it. For the last match, approximately 50% of DO residency spots went unfilled, since more students are applying to allopathic spots. (I don't know the exact number). If the residencies want to maintain their existence, they HAVE to eventually open them up to MDs. What will likely happen first is that FMGs will fill these spots.

I'm all for this. But honestly, if we're simply going to allow MDs to participate in a DO residency, what does that tell you? That our "uniqueness" as DOs is just a farce. Now that the AOA is fighting for the survival of its residencies and willing to accept students that didn't attend osteopathic schools, it's finally admitting that MDs are just as qualified and no different from DOs. (which everyone's known all along, aside from the OMM)

 

[Iquitos]

In order to get medicare funding to pay the residents, the residency spots must fill. If residency spots go unfilled year after year, there goes the funding and eventually the whole program along with it. For the last match, approximately 50% of DO residency spots went unfilled, since more students are applying to allopathic spots. (I don't know the exact number). If the residencies want to maintain their existence, they HAVE to eventually open them up to MDs. What will likely happen first is that FMGs will fill these spots.

I'm all for this. But honestly, if we're simply going to allow MDs to participate in a DO residency, what does that tell you? That our "uniqueness" as DOs is just a farce. Now that the AOA is fighting for the survival of its residencies, it's basically admitting that MDs are just as qualified and no different from us.

I agree

 

[Iquitos]

Because they couldn't get into an allopathic school.

Broad, sweeping generalizations make even the smartest people look stupid...

 

[MDANDERSON'SBOY]

My question to those of you who do not support a change in the degree is why? And secondly, do you have any clue or tangible experience that would give you a solid platform to make your argument. I'm sorry, but this whole idea of distinction and that DO's are different is not only hogwash, but it is not beneficial to your future medical practice in my opinion. Those who claim that DO's are only DO's because they couldn't get the MD may be right in some cases, but who cares. I think many of you are blind to where medicine is heading. MD's who feel that the prestige of their degree is being threatened are certainly correct. With the rise of the P.A., N.P., N.A., etc phenomena, an MD will be just another white coat running the halls of our nation's hospitals. If your concern is about the prestige or instant credibility that an MD earns you, then you're your getting in the game 30-40 years too late. I think those days are coming to an end. Don’t get me wrong, it is still an honorable profession, but I just don’t see there being another Debakey type figure in American medicine.
DO's who want to be distinct can be. They argue that a degree change will not benefit the profession. I argue will it hurt the profession? I think not. The old timers are yelling from the rooftops to save the profession. Save it from what? A “merger” with their allopathic colleague’s brand of medicine? It's already happened. It appears that a lot of Osteopathic grads are going allopathic for training. Some figures point towards 60%. I feel that a kid graduating from NYCOM who then completes a radiology residency at an allopathic program is only osteopathic in the sense that he took a couple semesters of OMM the first years of Med School. How then can an argument be made that he is not entitled to at least some designation that makes it clear to all that he is trained the same as his MD counterpart. Is he going to use OMM as a radiologist? Doubtful.
If you're an Osteophile that's cool. Rock your D.O. with pride, becuase you damn sure earn it. This isn't about vanity. This is really more about equal opportunity to compete in the business that medicine ultimately is. Changing the degree is not selling out the profession, it’s only making it more relevant to an ignorant population who do not understand what it is. Do more pressing problems exist. Perhaps. But I think it is one of many that deserves a second look by the powers that be.

 

[bth7]

From some initial research it seems this has been done before, at least in California, and has been shot down.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Granted, this case was decided in 1983 and things may have changed, but it seems like a better route may be through the state legislature to -introduce- the appropriate new laws regarding title, instead of fighting existing statutes.

forgot new jersey:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/673/673.F2d.671.81-1717.html

If nothing else, these are just interesting reads and are good summaries of the history of medical licensing, training, and laws regarding to licensing.

Extremely interesting reads. Thank you for posting!

bth

 

[Anton Chigurh]

These are exactly my thoughts. It not like it would be asking for extra privileges, just equal to those who complete the same steps.

However, from some initial research it seems this has been done before, at least in California, and has been shot down.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/708/708.F2d.1466.81-5343.html

Granted, this case was decided in 1983 and things may have changed, but it seems like a better route may be through the state legislature to -introduce- the appropriate new laws regarding title, instead of fighting existing statutes.

edit:

forgot new jersey:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/673/673.F2d.671.81-1717.html


If nothing else, these are just interesting reads and are good summaries of the history of medical licensing, training, and laws regarding to licensing.

Thanks for sharing! It seems as if the main reason why the courts ruled against both physicians in their respective states was that they both tried to use the MD designation without acknowledging that they were also trained in osteopathic medicine. The majority of people clamoring for the degree change seem to want the MD + (X), where X is an acknowledgment of their osteopathic training, and NOT an outright change to MD.

 

[J1515]

My question to those of you who do not support a change in the degree is why?

There are many more important things that deserve the attention. Focusing energy and money on trying to change a couple of initials is not going to make us better doctors. We all entered medicine to "help people", as per our interviews.

And secondly, do you have any clue or tangible experience that would give you a solid platform to make your argument.

As a third year that has been through the hospitals, yes. So do the residents who have posted.

Those who claim that DO's are only DO's because they couldn't get the MD may be right in some cases, but who cares.

The truth hurts, but it's just that...the truth. They should be thanking their lucky stars that they are going to become a doctor, period. Those of us who CHOSE to become DOs (not because they're different than MDs, but due to location, education, clinical affiliations) and want to become the best doctors possible should not be punished because a bunch of MD rejects think they won't "oooh" and "ahhh" people with a DO degree. I want to spend our money and resources on closing the poor quality residencies and opening new ones that will provide a sufficient education for residents. I would like to see certain aspects of OMM that have never been validated dropped from the curriculum so we can spend that time focusing on evidence based medicine. These are the things that will help us be better physicians, improve our education, and provide better treatments for patients. Changing our initials will do NONE of the above. Once all of the above is accomplished, if you want to argue and fight to change the DO designation then fine.

 

[MichiganDO]

Great articles on some interesting court cases. Those are the classics.
In terms of todays medical world it seems that with around 60% of our grads now entering ACGME programs, the lawsuit should be retried.
I have heard talk of it in Michigan about some interest in pursuing similar cases.

Secondly, for those that oppose this issue I understand, and those that are for it I understand too. Its not the most important topic in health care, but it still has value.

I practice in a state (MI) that has the highest proportion of DOs/MDs in the nation (~20%). Even in Michigan, people still don't get it. I will always practice under DO regardless of this debate, its my roots, but believing that a change is not in order just seems silly to me.

AT Still created the title of DO before the expansion of allopathic medicine, Greys Anatomy, and WebMD. Ignoring the need to readjust our title to the reality of todays public perception of a physician, is just ignorant and somewhat arrogant on our professions behalf.

Again, for those that want to see this happen, pursue the legal aspect through your state medical boards. It is unlikely that the AOA/COCA/ect. will ever budge on this issue, at least in the short term.

 

[cyclohexanol]

Great articles on some interesting court cases. Those are the classics.
In terms of todays medical world it seems that with around 60% of our grads now entering ACGME programs, the lawsuit should be retried.
I have heard talk of it in Michigan about some interest in pursuing similar cases.

Secondly, for those that oppose this issue I understand, and those that are for it I understand too. Its not the most important topic in health care, but it still has value.

I practice in a state (MI) that has the highest proportion of DOs/MDs in the nation (~20%). Even in Michigan, people still don't get it. I will always practice under DO regardless of this debate, its my roots, but believing that a change is not in order just seems silly to me.

AT Still created the title of DO before the expansion of allopathic medicine, Greys Anatomy, and WebMD. Ignoring the need to readjust our title to the reality of todays public perception of a physician, is just ignorant and somewhat arrogant on our professions behalf.

Again, for those that want to see this happen, pursue the legal aspect through your state medical boards. It is unlikely that the AOA/COCA/ect. will ever budge on this issue, at least in the short term.

Concur with bolded items above. Also consider state legislature to introduce/change laws regarding use of title. It's likely that despite changing trends in GME, societal tendencies re: MD branding (esp. as a result of increased volume and speed of information access), and the threat of midlevels holding doctorates, the courts will still look to the same cornerstone cases for guidance. By going to the legislature, it may be possible to avoid those reference cases. Just a thought.

It would definitely be interesting if a state adopted licensing laws that allowed DOs to use the MD title, either by completing the same steps as FMGs (ACGME res + USMLE 1-3), or just by recognition of being professional equivalents. I'd be curious to see if it resulted in increased DO applicants in that state, or increased # of out of state physicians looking to obtain licensure in that state.

 

[CorpuSpongiosum]

should be MD, DO. We claim we are equal w/ something extra that sets us apart. That is it.

I agree let's drop the Cranial garbage as well as much of the somatic dysfunction junk or at the very least conduct large randomized trials.

Neck pain, joint pain, lower back pain are common complaints where we can legitimately add something. As I believe asthma, pneumonia, lymphatics, tension headaches, perhaps common colds w/ thoracic outlet and "milking techniques." But let's conduct large trials. n= at least 1,000/ study

 

[bkpa2med]

Seriously, OMM needs a large population to come up with some statistical evidence. Where is the p score?

 

[misery]

My question to those of you who do not support a change in the degree is why? And secondly, do you have any clue or tangible experience that would give you a solid platform to make your argument. I'm sorry, but this whole idea of distinction and that DO's are different is not only hogwash, but it is not beneficial to your future medical practice in my opinion. Those who claim that DO's are only DO's because they couldn't get the MD may be right in some cases, but who cares. I think many of you are blind to where medicine is heading. MD's who feel that the prestige of their degree is being threatened are certainly correct. With the rise of the P.A., N.P., N.A., etc phenomena, an MD will be just another white coat running the halls of our nation's hospitals. If your concern is about the prestige or instant credibility that an MD earns you, then you're your getting in the game 30-40 years too late. I think those days are coming to an end. Don’t get me wrong, it is still an honorable profession, but I just don’t see there being another Debakey type figure in American medicine.
DO's who want to be distinct can be. They argue that a degree change will not benefit the profession. I argue will it hurt the profession? I think not. The old timers are yelling from the rooftops to save the profession. Save it from what? A “merger” with their allopathic colleague’s brand of medicine? It's already happened. It appears that a lot of Osteopathic grads are going allopathic for training. Some figures point towards 60%. I feel that a kid graduating from NYCOM who then completes a radiology residency at an allopathic program is only osteopathic in the sense that he took a couple semesters of OMM the first years of Med School. How then can an argument be made that he is not entitled to at least some designation that makes it clear to all that he is trained the same as his MD counterpart. Is he going to use OMM as a radiologist? Doubtful.
If you're an Osteophile that's cool. Rock your D.O. with pride, becuase you damn sure earn it. This isn't about vanity. This is really more about equal opportunity to compete in the business that medicine ultimately is. Changing the degree is not selling out the profession, it’s only making it more relevant to an ignorant population who do not understand what it is. Do more pressing problems exist. Perhaps. But I think it is one of many that deserves a second look by the powers that be.

This is one of the most well done posts I've seen in the past couple years. It responds to every facet of this arguement. It's so time that we stop fighting amongst ourselves before the mid levels take our jobs. We spend to much time arguing in the physicians lounge to notice that half of the people in there now a days aren't physicians. Screw save the profession, save my job! Well said, I'm going to copy this and post it in every MD vs DO thread.

 

[bth7]

My question to those of you who do not support a change in the degree is why? And secondly, do you have any clue or tangible experience that would give you a solid platform to make your argument. I'm sorry, but this whole idea of distinction and that DO's are different is not only hogwash, but it is not beneficial to your future medical practice in my opinion. Those who claim that DO's are only DO's because they couldn't get the MD may be right in some cases, but who cares. I think many of you are blind to where medicine is heading. MD's who feel that the prestige of their degree is being threatened are certainly correct. With the rise of the P.A., N.P., N.A., etc phenomena, an MD will be just another white coat running the halls of our nation's hospitals. If your concern is about the prestige or instant credibility that an MD earns you, then you're your getting in the game 30-40 years too late. I think those days are coming to an end. Don't get me wrong, it is still an honorable profession, but I just don't see there being another Debakey type figure in American medicine.
DO's who want to be distinct can be. They argue that a degree change will not benefit the profession. I argue will it hurt the profession? I think not. The old timers are yelling from the rooftops to save the profession. Save it from what? A "merger" with their allopathic colleague's brand of medicine? It's already happened. It appears that a lot of Osteopathic grads are going allopathic for training. Some figures point towards 60%. I feel that a kid graduating from NYCOM who then completes a radiology residency at an allopathic program is only osteopathic in the sense that he took a couple semesters of OMM the first years of Med School. How then can an argument be made that he is not entitled to at least some designation that makes it clear to all that he is trained the same as his MD counterpart. Is he going to use OMM as a radiologist? Doubtful.
If you're an Osteophile that's cool. Rock your D.O. with pride, becuase you damn sure earn it. This isn't about vanity. This is really more about equal opportunity to compete in the business that medicine ultimately is. Changing the degree is not selling out the profession, it's only making it more relevant to an ignorant population who do not understand what it is. Do more pressing problems exist. Perhaps. But I think it is one of many that deserves a second look by the powers that be.

My personal favorite line in this is "Save it from what?"
this profession This really sums up my response to the old timers concern. From what exactly are we saving the osteopathic profession? What terrible fate will befall us? The attack of the evil MDs? This just doesn't compute to me, especially considering we live in a age when so many MDs are totally supportive of all the principles that we supposedly belief make us so unique.

 

[ctdocMD]

This is one of the most well done posts I've seen in the past couple years. It responds to every facet of this arguement. It's so time that we stop fighting amongst ourselves before the mid levels take our jobs. We spend to much time arguing in the physicians lounge to notice that half of the people in there now a days aren't physicians. Screw save the profession, save my job! Well said, I'm going to copy this and post it in every MD vs DO thread.

agreed...very good post that i enjoyed reading, if only everyone could have this mindset

 

[cyclohexanol]

i personally think this is ridiculous. DO's should not have the same degree as MD's. there is a reason why osteopathic students attend osteopathic schools and allopathic students attend allopathic schools. if there really was no difference, than the 2 degrees would cease to exist and it would unified as a single degree, meaning every osteopathic and allopathic medical school would award the same degree. however, im not sure if many allopathic students are open to this (i for sure am not) if osteopathic students are so concerned with the marketing of their degree, this is something that should have been addressed a long time ago.

my second problem is the fact that osteopathic students are in allopathic residencies. i have nothing against osteopathic students (they choose this degree on their own will and their just as capable as any other doctor) however, theyre osteopathic...remember that. therefore i think they should train in only their respective graduate medical education system...not allopathic. if your argument is that there is not enough residency spots for osteopathic students, well thats kind of too bad....the AOA should have addressed this and taken care of it by negotiating with teaching hospitals, i mean the AOA has been around only for a 100 yrs....

it just irritates me when osteopathic students complain about changing their degree to be more like an MD when the whole notion of the osteopathic medicine was to break off from the MD and to follow its own principles of medicine

Later...

My question to those of you who do not support a change in the degree is why? ...

agreed...very good post that i enjoyed reading, if only everyone could have this mindset

Change of heart, ctdoc?

 

[bkpa2med]

Later...





Change of heart, ctdoc?

 

[DdrumbumD]

How did this thread get so many posts?

 

[shamrokme]

Why does this matter? Why can't people just be proud to be a DO for once and leave it at that. You know what the general public will figure it out. They're not stupid. Overall most of them don't even know if their doctor is an MD or DO, they just know they're going to a doctor, unless it's been specifically explained to them or they've had OMM or been offered it and been explained to them oh I'm a DO or something of that sort. Just leave it be. There's a reason that our degree is different. Just leave it alone.

 

[bth7]

There's a reason that our degree is different.

There is a reason, to be sure. But is it a very good one? I believe that's the question being asked.

 

[strawberryfield]

You dont need the AOA, COCA, ect. to change the DO degree.

You need one lawsuit against a state medical board indicating DOs
should be rightfully able to practice with the initials MD just as:
MBBS, MBChB, BMBCh, BMed, MB BChir, MD, MDCM, BM BS, Dr.MuD do.

These degrees are all awarded rights to practice with an MD title after passing the USMLE., allo residency, ect.
If an osteopathic physician passes the USMLE and completes these steps as well, it seems only logical and fair
that state courts should allow that DO to practice with MD initials as well (just as the FMGs above).

MD is branded b/c in the US we convert every medical degree (except for DO) to MD for public understanding (>20% of US MDs).

Its absurd that all these other degrees practice with MD initials the American health care system and yet the second an osteopathic physician/student suggests he/she would like equal privilege, they are slammed for it by both DOs and MDs.
Im proud to be a DO, but ignoring the realism that the degree is misunderstood is simply ignorant.

Pursue the state boards for a change in the degree.
One lawsuit will change this whole silly debate.

EXACTLY...FMG's are labeled "MD" just for passing USMLE, then DO's should be able to do the same thing (if they want to)...since it's all equivalent with passing boards for practice rights, correct?

I foresee all of the boards/match stuff being whittled down to USMLE/NRMP only eventually, with perhaps a competency exam in OMM for those who are going to practice it. Times are definitley changing.

 

[farnsworth]

EXACTLY...FMG's are labeled "MD" just for passing USMLE, then DO's should be able to do the same thing (if they want to)...since it's all equivalent with passing boards for practice rights, correct?

I foresee all of the boards/match stuff being whittled down to USMLE/NRMP only eventually, with perhaps a competency exam in OMM for those who are going to practice it. Times are definitley changing.

No, you can't just use the MD degree title when you see fit. If they make the change, they should make it across the board and eliminate the use of "DO" altogether, not just when it suits you.

FMGs are either A) granted MD degrees overseas or B) granted degrees directly equivalent to MD degrees overseas, where a DO equivalent does not exist. If you want to use the MD title, either get a different degree (e.g. MBBS) from a country where the DO hasn't established itself as a separate but similar entity, or go to an MD school. The DO community has built up a separate identity for you all to hang your hats on, you can't just say, "we should be able to use MD too" after you've put so much work into stating how separate you are.

 

[Old_Mil]

You dont need the AOA, COCA, ect. to change the DO degree.

You need one lawsuit against a state medical board indicating DOs
should be rightfully able to practice with the initials MD just as:
MBBS, MBChB, BMBCh, BMed, MB BChir, MD, MDCM, BM BS, Dr.MuD do.

A word of advice to people who might actually consider doing this. Combined medical boards of licensure (the majority of states) have found it fit to allow DOs who pass all steps of the USMLE to practice without a rotating internship year, without taking Comlex III, and without getting any approval from the AOA, NBOME, or osteopathic licensing bodies.

For your professional life, this is a far more important development than changing the letters behind your name.

I'd think twice before I bit the hand that fed.

If you're going to sue anyone, sue the five states (excluding WV; they are taking steps last I heard to resolve this) that hold DOs to the unreasonable licensure standards of the AOA.

 

[Jonassen]

Most European doctors practicing in the US today as MDs have the equivalent of bachelor degrees (typically they went straight to medical school from high school for 5 years). Their official degrees aren't MD, but MBBS, MB, BCh, BAO, etc etc. But they still write MD behind their name in the US.

By the same logic, licensed physicians such as DOs should have the right to use MD behind their name if they completed a USMLE residency.

 

[farnsworth]

Most European doctors practicing in the US today as MDs have the equivalent of bachelor degrees (typically they went straight to medical school from high school for 5 years). Their official degrees aren't MD, but MBBS, MB, BCh, BAO, etc etc. But they still write MD behind their name in the US.

By the same logic, licensed physicians such as DOs should have the right to use MD behind their name if they completed a USMLE residency.

Again - no, because you have a degree that is specifically kept separate from an MD degree in the same country. And those degrees from overseas you mentioned - I highly doubt that if you earned an MBBS you claim MBChB instead....it's the same thing in practice in England, is it not? Why would you? If you got a B.A. in Biology instead of a B.S. in Biology, why would you care enough to claim the one you didn't get? Ironically, yes, if you had gone overseas and gotten an equivalent degree, you could likely use MD if you were subsequently licensed to practice in the U.S. But since you decided to stay here and get a DO which has gained the same privileges and practice rights of an MD, it is wholly unnecessary for you to misleadingly use the title "MD". I also think it's misleading for foreign doctors to use "MD", but they don't have a choice. You did and do and a system exists for you to use your degree in a professional context. Unless you want to get rid of the DO altogether to eliminate this confusion, which I'm all for.

Also: I just noticed you said "USMLE residency". Either you meant USMLE licensure or ACGME residency, neither of which are degree-granting programs.

 

[Jonassen]

Again - no, because you have a degree that is specifically kept separate from an MD degree in the same country. And those degrees from overseas you mentioned - I highly doubt that if you earned an MBBS you claim MBChB instead....it's the same thing in practice in England, is it not? Why would you? If you got a B.A. in Biology instead of a B.S. in Biology, why would you care enough to claim the one you didn't get? Ironically, yes, if you had gone overseas and gotten an equivalent degree, you could likely use MD if you were subsequently licensed to practice in the U.S. But since you decided to stay here and get a DO which has gained the same privileges and practice rights of an MD, it is wholly unnecessary for you to misleadingly use the title "MD". I also think it's misleading for foreign doctors to use "MD", but they don't have a choice. You did and do and a system exists for you to use your degree in a professional context. Unless you want to get rid of the DO altogether to eliminate this confusion, which I'm all for.

Also: I just noticed you said "USMLE residency". Either you meant USMLE licensure or ACGME residency, neither of which are degree-granting programs.

Oops, meant ACGME residency. I'm not arguing for an official change of degree (from the diploma), but there's no reason why you can brand yourself as a Medical Doctor when you are just that.

 

[farnsworth]

Oops, meant ACGME residency. I'm not arguing for an official change of degree (from the diploma), but there's no reason why you can brand yourself as a Medical Doctor when you are just that.

There is when it's a degree you didn't earn. That's what the title "Dr." is for. DO's correctly use "Dr." in a clinical setting as their professional title, because we're both medical doctors. But no, you aren't allowed to use "MD", just because the term "medical doctor" has an M and a D in it, because again - it's a degree you were never granted.

What if I decided to be a philosopher alongside being an MD? I'll be a doctor, I'll be a philosopher, maybe I'll use the title "Ph.D" Why not? I'm a philosopher, I'm a doctor, that's what I am, I should be able to call myself that. Or maybe if I'm a researcher, then in practice I'd be the same as an MD, PhD. Should I then be able to use MD, PhD? What if I did an MS at one point that would have probably qualified for a Ph.D at another institution? I basically had the same training as an MD, Ph.D, and I'm a researcher, and I'm a doctor, and I'm a philosopher, I should be able to use MD, PhD? What about the podiatry programs that are nearly fully integrated with DO programs? How would you feel if they started telling people, "yes, I'm a medical doctor, I graduated from MSU" (many consider themselves medical doctors) and wrote their name John Smith, DO? That okay with you?

 

[Scorcher31]

I can see both ways on this issue. I'm a pretty laid back individual so one way or another it really dosen't bother me. I understand we use our initals in writing, but how often do you introduce yourself as john smith, MD or jane doe, DO. I've never heard anyone do that. Honestly, I've never heard anyone say that to a patient, a person in a bar or anything else. If anything, I think most people would simply say I'm a medical doctor. Even that is tacky though especially when introducing yourself to a stranger. If I see a patient I don't know, I would introduce myself as a medical student or just a medical student, so I'm not confused with the attending. When I doctor comes into the room of the new patient, he or she introduces themselves as doctor so and so.

 

[Scorcher31]

Still, don't you think this is a bit of a superficial problem? I see where you guys are going in that many of us are proponents of merging allopathic and osteopathic medicine...I just see the discrepancies between the two degrees going much deeper than the initials. I think the osteopathic world should learn to integrate some allopathic educational attributes (such as attached teaching hospitals, more research, lower tuition, etc.) just like allopathic should integrate some osteopathic educational attributes (such as attracting more rounded applicants, evidence based OMM, hotter chicks, etc.).

Maybe it's my school and I don't want to anger anyone by saying this, but I feel we have integrated allopathic training into curriculum. We have very cheap tution even by alopathic state school standards, one of the larger DO teaching hospitals with a bunch of affiliations, a good bit of research, etc. I also know many allopathic schools that have a very culturally diverse class and well rounded students, (with hot chicks ;-)). To be honest I don't really see the difference between do schools and md schools. Every school is very different. One allo school may be different from another allo school, but in the end it all kind of evens out to me.

 

[MichiganDO]

I must say I agree with this sentiment about adding degrees not earned to your title however, for the sake of logical argument, I would point to one key item you are forgetting: There is a legal policy endorsed by ACGME and carried out by ECFMG that allows foreign non-MD degree holders to practice under MD in the U.S. You may not agree with it, but it is a policy allopathic medicine has had created for FMGs.

If a FMG earns a Bachelors in Medicine from the University of Uganda and passes all the licensure steps via the ECFMG, then they can practice with an M.D. in America. Yet, the second a D.O. asks for the same privilege, should he/she complete the EXACT SAME steps and a Medical degree within U.S. borders, US degree holding M.D.'s screams ludicrous - "you didn't earn my MD you DO!!!"

Yet 30% of the current practicing MD population does NOT hold a MD degree – they are licensed in the FMG manner. I'm not endorsing the idea, but honestly - D.O.s who complete the same steps should be given equal rights under the law to do so as well. Why should a D.O. be denied the same right - because their medical degree was granted in the U.S. instead of Uganda? This argument seems a bit flawed to say the least.

What would be the argument in court? That a D.O. degree from Michigan State U is somehow less qualified or less allopathic than the MBBS degree from The University of India – huh?

A lawsuit should and will be filed for this right in the near future. If US allopaths believe this is somehow degrading to their degrees, then they should change the FMG policy that has inflated the allopathic profession for the past 50 years.

 

[BusterDO]

I must say I agree with this sentiment about adding degrees not earned to your title however, for the sake of logical argument, I would point to one key item you are forgetting: There is a legal policy endorsed by ACGME and carried out by ECFMG that allows foreign non-MD degree holders to practice under MD in the U.S. You may not agree with it, but it is a policy allopathic medicine has had created for FMGs.

If a FMG earns a Bachelors in Medicine from the University of Uganda and passes all the licensure steps via the ECFMG, then they can practice with an M.D. in America. Yet, the second a D.O. asks for the same privilege, should he/she complete the EXACT SAME steps and a Medical degree within U.S. borders, US degree holding M.D.’s screams ludicrous - "you didn’t earn my MD you DO!!!"

Yet 30% of the current practicing MD population does NOT hold a MD degree – they are licensed in the FMG manner. I’m not endorsing the idea, but honestly - D.O.s who complete the same steps should be given equal rights under the law to do so as well. Why should a D.O. be denied the same right - because their medical degree was granted in the U.S. instead of Uganda? This argument seems a bit flawed to say the least.

What would be the argument in court? That a D.O. degree from Michigan State U is somehow less qualified or less allopathic than the MBBS degree from The University of India – huh?

A lawsuit should and will be filed for this right in the near future. If US allopaths believe this is somehow degrading to their degrees, then they should change the FMG policy that has inflated the allopathic profession for the past 50 years.

i personally do not really have a "side" to take on this discussion, but i do feel that the arguments for the change are much stronger than the ones against it.

 

[ShyRem]

Personally, I'm going to be a physician. Not an MD, not a DO, but a physician. I'm proud of being a DO, but if folks take the USMLE (all three steps), what's so different between them using MD and the foreign folks (who have different letters after their names) using MD??

 

[bth7]

I must say I agree with this sentiment about adding degrees not earned to your title however, for the sake of logical argument, I would point to one key item you are forgetting: There is a legal policy endorsed by ACGME and carried out by ECFMG that allows foreign non-MD degree holders to practice under MD in the U.S. You may not agree with it, but it is a policy allopathic medicine has had created for FMGs.

If a FMG earns a Bachelors in Medicine from the University of Uganda and passes all the licensure steps via the ECFMG, then they can practice with an M.D. in America. Yet, the second a D.O. asks for the same privilege, should he/she complete the EXACT SAME steps and a Medical degree within U.S. borders, US degree holding M.D.’s screams ludicrous - "you didn’t earn my MD you DO!!!"

Yet 30% of the current practicing MD population does NOT hold a MD degree – they are licensed in the FMG manner. I’m not endorsing the idea, but honestly - D.O.s who complete the same steps should be given equal rights under the law to do so as well. Why should a D.O. be denied the same right - because their medical degree was granted in the U.S. instead of Uganda? This argument seems a bit flawed to say the least.

What would be the argument in court? That a D.O. degree from Michigan State U is somehow less qualified or less allopathic than the MBBS degree from The University of India – huh?

A lawsuit should and will be filed for this right in the near future. If US allopaths believe this is somehow degrading to their degrees, then they should change the FMG policy that has inflated the allopathic profession for the past 50 years.

 

[Concubine]

Maybe it's my school and I don't want to anger anyone by saying this, but I feel we have integrated allopathic training into curriculum. We have very cheap tution even by alopathic state school standards, one of the larger DO teaching hospitals with a bunch of affiliations, a good bit of research, etc. I also know many allopathic schools that have a very culturally diverse class and well rounded students, (with hot chicks ;-)). To be honest I don't really see the difference between do schools and md schools. Every school is very different. One allo school may be different from another allo school, but in the end it all kind of evens out to me.

I see where you are coming from, and I imagine there are a few osteopathic schools that do a great job (I think my future school OUCOM and other schools like TCOM do well at this ). However, with the rate of new osteopathic schools opening up that have poor or non-established relationships with hospitals, little or no research opportunities, and high tuition, the overall DO educational model seems to be suffering. I think changing these aspects of osteopathic education will go a long way (even more so than changing the initials) to merging the two branches of medicine.

 

[Noeljan]

I must say I agree with this sentiment about adding degrees not earned to your title however, for the sake of logical argument, I would point to one key item you are forgetting: There is a legal policy endorsed by ACGME and carried out by ECFMG that allows foreign non-MD degree holders to practice under MD in the U.S. You may not agree with it, but it is a policy allopathic medicine has had created for FMGs.

If a FMG earns a Bachelors in Medicine from the University of Uganda and passes all the licensure steps via the ECFMG, then they can practice with an M.D. in America. Yet, the second a D.O. asks for the same privilege, should he/she complete the EXACT SAME steps and a Medical degree within U.S. borders, US degree holding M.D.’s screams ludicrous - "you didn’t earn my MD you DO!!!"

Yet 30% of the current practicing MD population does NOT hold a MD degree – they are licensed in the FMG manner. I’m not endorsing the idea, but honestly - D.O.s who complete the same steps should be given equal rights under the law to do so as well. Why should a D.O. be denied the same right - because their medical degree was granted in the U.S. instead of Uganda? This argument seems a bit flawed to say the least.

What would be the argument in court? That a D.O. degree from Michigan State U is somehow less qualified or less allopathic than the MBBS degree from The University of India – huh?

A lawsuit should and will be filed for this right in the near future. If US allopaths believe this is somehow degrading to their degrees, then they should change the FMG policy that has inflated the allopathic profession for the past 50 years.

I don't think it is a "right" to use a degree title you did not earn. As previous poster pointed out, the FMGs that use the MD have an equivalent to the MD program. Programs around the world had similar allopathic models before DO became a fully physician program in the US. I thought DO was a different "philosophy" and different from an MD. What I don't understand is you went to a DO a school knowing you would get a DO degree. You should embrace that and be the best doctor you can be. Don't waste all your energy on this.

 

[bth7]

I thought DO was a different "philosophy" and different from an MD.

Your argument would be sound if this were true. However, it isn't. Osteopathic organizations make claim to this difference. However, it no longer exists.

JD Howell, author of The Paradox of Osteopathy(1) notes that claims of a "fundamental yet ineffable difference between allopathic and osteopathic physicians" are based on practices such as "preventive medicine and seeing patients in a sociological context" that are "widely encountered not only in osteopathic medicine but also in allopathic medicine." (2) Studies have confirmed the lack of any "philosophic concept or resultant practice behavior" that would distinguish a D.O. from an M.D. (3) (4)

Sources:

1. JD Howell, MD PhD. The Paradox of Osteopathy. N Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 4;341(19):1465-8. PMID 10547412
2. JD Howell, MD PhD. Correspondence. New Engl J Med. Volume 342:817-820 Number 11. 16 March 2000.
3. Johnson SM, Kurtz ME. Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55:2141 –2148. PMID 12409127
4. Licciardone, JC. A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003–2004 Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2007 Jan 12;1:2. PMID 17371578​

bth

 

[aminoacid]

I don't think it is a "right" to use a degree title you did not earn. As previous poster pointed out, the FMGs that use the MD have an equivalent to the MD program. Programs around the world had similar allopathic models before DO became a fully physician program in the US. I thought DO was a different "philosophy" and different from an MD. What I don't understand is you went to a DO a school knowing you would get a DO degree. You should embrace that and be the best doctor you can be. Don't waste all your energy on this.

For the most part, MD programs and DO programs are equivalent. (FYI, there are some MD schools that take DO transfers for the clinical years). Many DO students are pawned off on MD preceptors for most, if not all of their clinical training (varies from school to school-shame on the AOA). This means little to no clinical application of OMT. DO is not a "different philosophy." This is just propaganda by the AOA. Yes, we went to a DO school with the understanding that we would obtain a DO degree because we would be taught OMT. However, this was not the case for many.

Contrary to popular belief, again, there is no difference. This is not a question of the type of physician that a DO grad will be. It is more of a movement to end the fraudulent advertising that the AOA continues to put forth. I paid a mortgage to become a DO-schooled in OMT. Basically I paid an exorbant amount of money for a product I did not receive. The DO degree is very misleading. Shame on the AOA.

I don't think any of us will "waste all" our "energy on this." However, this is a matter of principle that needs to be addressed. The AOA needs to stop making false promises and stop the false advertising. (I'm pretty sure if you paid a lot of money in exchange for a product that did not meet its seller's stated obligation, you'd be compelled to act, too).

 

[OHMAN0125]

For the most part, MD programs and DO programs are equivalent. (FYI, there are some MD schools that take DO transfers for the clinical years). Many DO students are pawned off on MD preceptors for most, if not all of their clinical training (varies from school to school-shame on the AOA). This means little to no clinical application of OMT. DO is not a "different philosophy." This is just propaganda by the AOA. Yes, we went to a DO school with the understanding that we would obtain a DO degree because we would be taught OMT. However, this was not the case for many.

Contrary to popular belief, again, there is no difference. This is not a question of the type of physician that a DO grad will be. It is more of a movement to end the fraudulent advertising that the AOA continues to put forth. I paid a mortgage to become a DO-schooled in OMT. Basically I paid an exorbant amount of money for a product I did not receive. The DO degree is very misleading. Shame on the AOA.

I don't think any of us will "waste all" our "energy on this." However, this is a matter of principle that needs to be addressed. The AOA needs to stop making false promises and stop the false advertising. (I'm pretty sure if you paid a lot of money in exchange for a product that did not meet its seller's stated obligation, you'd be compelled to act, too).

Same old argument again and again. I can't believe these threads always get so many pages. I think people just like to argue with each other.

 

[CorpuSpongiosum]

I don't think it is a "right" to use a degree title you did not earn. As previous poster pointed out, the FMGs that use the MD have an equivalent to the MD program. Programs around the world had similar allopathic models before DO became a fully physician program in the US. I thought DO was a different "philosophy" and different from an MD. What I don't understand is you went to a DO a school knowing you would get a DO degree. You should embrace that and be the best doctor you can be. Don't waste all your energy on this.

good point.

FMG's weren't subjected to the theories of Dr. Sutherland and "Cranial Medicine."

 

[MaximusD]

Bottom line remains:

It's questionable to have matriculated to a school at which you are unwilling to accept the degree granted. In other words, you agreed to it before you attended. All arguments to change afterwards seem disingenuous at best.

 

[bth7]

This is not a question of the type of physician that a DO grad will be. It is more of a movement to end the fraudulent advertising that the AOA continues to put forth. I paid a mortgage to become a DO-schooled in OMT. Basically I paid an exorbant amount of money for a product I did not receive. The DO degree is very misleading. Shame on the AOA.

I don't think any of us will "waste all" our "energy on this." However, this is a matter of principle that needs to be addressed. The AOA needs to stop making false promises and stop the false advertising. (I'm pretty sure if you paid a lot of money in exchange for a product that did not meet its seller's stated obligation, you'd be compelled to act, too).

 

[aminoacid]

Bottom line remains:

It's questionable to have matriculated to a school at which you are unwilling to accept the degree granted. In other words, you agreed to it before you attended. All arguments to change afterwards seem disingenuous at best.

Nothing questionable; while I can not speak for everyone, I only applied to DO schools because I wanted a DO degree, the premise being that I would be a competent practioner of OMT. This is what the AOA, COCA promised me in exchange for my money. I did not receive this. Instead, I was introduced to a few hrs/wk of OMT lab, and NO OMT during clinicals.

My problem: Not the degree, but what the degree symbolizes- misrepresentation in advertising. The AOA, COCA continues to purport that the DO and the corresponding education are different from the MD and allopathic education because of the OMT. If this were the case, why pawn us off on MD's for our training (assuring no OMT)? This is disingenuous at best, breach of contract and fraud at worst. If the AOA, COCA can not produce the result they promise, they should stop the false promises!!!! While I received a great medical education (via overwhelming MD preceptors), I received no osteopathic (OMT) education, the exact reason I chose to pursue a DO degree. What I did learn on campus during the paltry labs, I could have learned on my own in a couple of weekends via independent study. This does not justify a separate profession. Shame on the AOA. Yet, they continue to endorse an irresponsible expansion of DO schools that will continue to gouge students for money and exploit free, aultristic preceptors (mostly MD's). This exploitation of students and physicians has to stop.

Bottom line: I am an unsatisfied customer.

Big picture: I do not see problem with DO's who want to use MD in advertising if they take the USMLE & do an allopathic residency (especially if they were pawned off on MD preceptors who taught them medicine for free while these students paid an obscene amount of tuition). Regardless of what the AOA says, there is no difference between the MD and DO degrees (the federal government agrees). I think the option should be made available, especially since it is made to others who have received an equivalent medical education, but not an MD. Those DO's who want to pursue this avenue will, and those who do not won't.

 

[WoahMedicine]

Bottom line: I am an unsatisfied customer.

I believe this is the reason many on here post for the change. However, if you want something different like an MD go get one. You can pay off you loans and go back to school (in 30 years lol). You are smart enough, and have the drive!! If that idea is so ridiculous, then keep what you earned. It stinks to think you got tricked with false promises by the medical school. Good luck!

 

[farnsworth]

Nothing questionable; while I can not speak for everyone, I only applied to DO schools because I wanted a DO degree, the premise being that I would be a competent practioner of OMT. This is what the AOA, COCA promised me in exchange for my money. I did not receive this. Instead, I was introduced to a few hrs/wk of OMT lab, and NO OMT during clinicals.

My problem: Not the degree, but what the degree symbolizes- misrepresentation in advertising. The AOA, COCA continues to purport that the DO and the corresponding education are different from the MD and allopathic education because of the OMT. If this were the case, why pawn us off on MD's for our training (assuring no OMT)? This is disingenuous at best, breach of contract and fraud at worst. If the AOA, COCA can not produce the result they promise, they should stop the false promises!!!! While I received a great medical education (via overwhelming MD preceptors), I received no osteopathic (OMT) education, the exact reason I chose to pursue a DO degree. What I did learn on campus during the paltry labs, I could have learned on my own in a couple of weekends via independent study. This does not justify a separate profession. Shame on the AOA. Yet, they continue to endorse an irresponsible expansion of DO schools that will continue to gouge students for money and exploit free, aultristic preceptors (mostly MD's). This exploitation of students and physicians has to stop.

Bottom line: I am an unsatisfied customer.

Big picture: I do not see problem with DO's who want to use MD in advertising if they take the USMLE & do an allopathic residency (especially if they were pawned off on MD preceptors who taught them medicine for free while these students paid an obscene amount of tuition). Regardless of what the AOA says, there is no difference between the MD and DO degrees (the federal government agrees). I think the option should be made available, especially since it is made to others who have received an equivalent medical education, but not an MD. Those DO's who want to pursue this avenue will, and those who do not won't.

I've already stated this pretty clearly and repeatedly, so I'm not sure this point is getting through, but the reason you absolutely may NOT use the MD degree is because:

In the U.S., we have two ways to become a licensed physician: MD & DO. If you get into a school that grants one of these two degrees and complete the curriculum, you are granted the degree upon graduation and THROUGH THAT DEGREE, you are eligible to take the USMLE and become a fully licensed physician. Your degree and your medical license are two different things. Your degree denotes your schooling, your license confers practice rights. As a DO, you have the opportunity (just as an MD does) to become a fully licensed physician in the US. It is 100% unnecessary for you to claim the degree "MD" behind your name, because you DID NOT EARN IT. You earned a DO. If it makes you feel any better, I don't like that foreign doctors use "MD" either, based on the same reasoning. Maybe you'd prefer that they use "DO"? I'd be okay with that. But if they use their foreign degree, you don't see the MBBS's whining about not being able to call themselves MBChB's. Why? Because they didn't earn it, and they're the same thing. But the reason their degree is converted into an American MD is because their degree is equivalent to an allopathic medical degree (MD), not an osteopathic medical degree (DO). Find me a foreign degree that's the equivalent of a DO and I'll help you lobby to require that foreign doctors use "DO" when they come here to practice. Foreign physicians are trained in the "allopathic model", which the DO community has worked hard to establish as distinct from their training. If you want to acknowledge the full equivalency of the DO degree to the MD degree training, then I'm all for it. Eliminate the DO degree altogether and we'll all be happy. But you can't just pick and choose..."hm, I'm feeling like a DO today" when and where to use your real degree.

And opening up the use of "MD" to DO's is not only insulting (I would never ask to be able to use "DO" alongside my name, I think it's disrespectful to students who went to DO school and earned DO degrees), but it would set a dangerous precedent. Once you say, "ok, anyone with a medical license who passes the USMLE can use 'MD'", who else do you think is going to elbow their way in there? Go over to the Podiatry forums and look at how much they talk about how their training & education are basically the same as a medical student's and how they're all "doctors" and "medical students" and "physicians". Read up on some of the DNP propaganda. They claim they're the same as a doctor. They're trying to get the NBME to write them medical licensing-like exams. Who else is going to elbow their way in? At DMU, I believe there's a pretty closely integrated DO & DPM program. How would you feel if all of a sudden they started demanding that they be able to use your degree after their name because THEY FEEL theirs and yours were close enough? After they had specifically chosen podiatry school, knowing full well they'd be required by law to use the DPM degree?

To summarize, the point is:
1) You still haven't answered WHY you want to use the MD degree (but not convert it), when yours allows you to do everything an MD does anyway
2) The only reason (based on 1) therefore to do so would be cosmetic. It's no different than the sketchy caribbean "convert your DO to an MD degree!" scams you see advertised
3) You can't say "we're separate and distinct and special and proud to be DO's" and at the same time say, "...but we should be able to use MD when it suits us"

I agree with you that the foreign doctor being allowed to use MD while a domestically trained DO cannot is in a way inconsistent. I think it's irresponsible and inappropriately ambitious for people to use that inconsistency as a means to satisfy ulterior motives that will have such widespread repercussions, especially when it's so blatantly unnecessary.