SGU or Lake Erie Osteopathic?

[rustedcj7]

This may be a slightly regional question.

None of the criticisms of osteopathic medicine raised here even put a dent in the fact that across the country, DOs are well trained, highly (equally) respected doctors. On the other hand, getting a medical degree from the Caribbean is considered shameful.

Yet, on the West Cost, perceptions may be different.

My guess is that is going to the Caribbean is a hard, hard road. I admire those who make it back and do well and feel confident in their abilities. Still, it’s interesting to note that in this area of the country, going to the Caribbean is simply not an option for many students because of the shame associated with it, whereas the choice to go DO is a fine one.

Go to the school where you will feel proud to put their diploma on the wall when you finally earn it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[group_theory]

Skip,

analyzing Still's philosophy using what we know today is kinda unfair. Why not bash allopathic medicine while you're at it. What did MDs think were the cause of strokes in the late 19th century - esp in light of modern medicine? Also, MDs back then were a mixed group of allopathic MDs (a term coined by Hahnemann), electic MDs, and homeopathic MDs. Medical education was varied too - you can go to a university med school, a physician-owned private med school, or apprentice to a practicing physician (popular options back then). This was before late 19th century/early 20th when states started passing legislation regulating the profession of medicine.

Medicine in the late 19th century wasn't that great. While bleeding patients who have fever and pneumonia stopped in mid 19th century - some of the treatments were quite interesting. Giving quinine for the common cold or fever for example. Reading the JAMA's 100 Years Ago Today section is quite interesting. Anyway, my point is bashing Dr. Still for what he believed was true in the late 19th century using what we know today is quite unfair unless what he was teaching is still being taught today (and I can reassure you that it's not - which is why I found your post quite interesting and informative)


Also, osteopathic medicine is not a cult (not implying that you said it was a cult). What Dr. Still says doesn't mean that it is truth. Dr. Still was against DOs prescribing and yet DOs fought to have prescription rights in some states while Dr. Still was still alive.


Anyway, Skip, I never accused you or implied that you were against DOs. I just want you to keep an open mind towards some aspect of OMT. Don't discount all of OMT just because some aspect of it is bad (craniosacral). Hence my statement "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". I've seen people get pain relief from OMT. Could it be placebo effect? I dunno. But if you're the patient in pain, your main concern is alleviation of pain - whether through pills, OMT, placebo, etc. The examples that I listed - how would you treat them? I would probably do the same thing. But what's the harm of trying OMT on them? If it works, then great . If it doesn't, then it doesn't. I understand the need for research on OMT. I'll let the PhDs at DO schools figure out the exact method, funding, etc.

Anyway, enough of me in this post. The OP is probably long gone and this thread has gone on a big tangent
Arguing historical elements of osteopathic medicine and allopathic medicine is a nice academic exercise but probably have no relevance to most people

I must commend you Skip. You know more about osteopathic medicine and its history than many DOs.

 

[EastCoaster78]

I see that EastCoaster78 has posted several articles from the AOA's journal supporting the use of OMM/OMT in various diseases. I'm less interested in small studies without sham controls published in the flagship journal of an association that is interested in self-preservation of its practices than I am in cross-comparative studies using rigorous methodology published outside of AOA endorsed journals. Problem is, there aren't many compartive studies or publications outside of the JAOA... hmmm. Maybe part of the problem:

no, actually I left out all of the JAOA articles for this exact reason, that you and others would discredit the source. And whats with the quotes from over 100yo text?

 

[drusso]

Therefore, any assertion that the "osteopathic philosophy" is sound and that "most physicians agree" so - or, for all intents and purposes, it is fundamentally different than (or perhaps even "superior" to) the allopathic model is simply offensive. Those are the things I object to, not the osteopathic physician who uses sound medical judgment and a strong evidence base to provide quality care to his/her patients.

-Skip

Osteopathic attitudes exist and can be reliably assessed. This is a fact and is not offensive. I've developed and validated an instrument that measures them called the ATOPPS (Attitudes Toward Osteopathic Principles and Practice Scale). These attitudes, in turn, systematically differ between MD and DO graduates (Sarah Towne, DO at TUCOM is currently working on this project in CA comparing attitudes between TUCOM students, UCSF students, and UC Davis using the ATOPPS as well as other psychometrically validated instruments.) This data will be forthcoming.

DO students and residents who score higher on the ATOPPS are more likely to embrace practices patterns that are traditionally labeled more "holistic" or "biopsychosocial" in orientation than those who do not (data forthcoming from a group of medical education researchers in Texas). They also use OMT more frequently.

The letters behind your name do not de facto make you a better or worse physician nor a more holistic nor reductionistic physician. But, the context in which you train, the values from the institutions in which you train, and the habits and worldviews you acquire from your trainers and mentors profoundly impact one's practice style. There is evidence that the practice of medicine within the "osteopathic concept" differs from the practice of medicine within the "allopathic or standard concept" in predictable ways.

This is not surprising given what we understand in general about how attitudes affect intentions which in turn affect observable behavior.



Link to PDF

J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003 Sep;103(9):429-34.

Development of the Attitudes Toward Osteopathic Principles and Practice Scale (ATOPPS): preliminary results.

Russo DP, Stoll ST, Shores JH.

Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth-Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, USA. [email protected]

Little empirical work has been done to examine how osteopathic medical students' attitudes toward osteopathic principles and practice (OPP) develop and evolve over the course of their medical education. A major obstacle to conducting this research is the absence of reliable and sensitive instruments to measure students' attitudes toward OPP. The purpose of this project is to develop a sensitive and reliable instrument to measure students' attitudes toward OPP. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with osteopathic medical students, osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) residents, OMM undergraduate fellows, and three board-certified OMM specialists. These interviews were summarized in a 39-item instrument administered to 127 students at the completion of their core OMM rotation at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth-Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine. Factor analysis of student responses to the 39 candidate items yielded two interpretable factors. Factor 1 contained 24 items and accounted for 33% of the item response variance, and factor 2 contained four items and accounted for 5.6% of the item response variance. Based on these results, 14 of the original 39 statements were eliminated and the smaller second factor was dropped. Factor 1 contained items reflecting both positive and negative attitudes toward the application of OPP in patient care, the importance of OPP in medical education, and professional distinctiveness. One of the original 39 candidate items was returned to factor 1 because it was judged by the investigators to be consistent with the underlying construct of the scale and helped balance the number of forward-scored and reversed-scored items in the final instrument. Two internal consistency estimates of reliability were computed for the revised 25-item Attitudes Toward Osteopathic Principles and Practice Scale (ATOPPS): the Spearman-Brown unequal-length corrected coefficient alpha and the split-half reliability coefficients. Estimates for the split-half coefficients were .89 for part 1 and .87 for part 2. The Spearman-Brown coefficient alpha was .93, indicating substantial internal consistency. The 25-item ATOPPS seems to reflect a continuum of positive and negative attitudes toward OPP. This preliminary report documents reliability for the 25-item ATOPPS. With continued support for its construct validity, ATOPPS provides investigators with a reliable tool to assess the development of attitudes toward OPP.

 

[Shinken]

Boy, I absolutely love it when people say that Osteopathic Medicine NOWADAYS is quackery because of the beliefs of A.T. Still more than a 100 years ago. Yes, A.T. Still had weird ideas about disease, but that has NOTHING to do with modern Osteopathic Medicine.

By the same logic, Allopathic Medicine NOWADAYS is quackery because of the beliefs of M.D. practitioners more than a 100 years ago.

Concerned parent: "Doctor, my son has a fever and vomits everything he eats."

M.D.: "No problem, we'll bleed three pints of his blood, give him some Mercury today, some Arsenic tomorrow and hope that the evil humours of his body expel the disease."

Concerned parent: "Thank you! Thank you! I'm glad I didn't go to those quacky Osteopaths!"

 

[housecleaning]

Boy, I absolutely love it when people say that Osteopathic Medicine NOWADAYS is quackery because of the beliefs of A.T. Still more than a 100 years ago. Yes, A.T. Still had weird ideas about disease, but that has NOTHING to do with modern Osteopathic Medicine.

By the same logic, Allopathic Medicine NOWADAYS is quackery because of the beliefs of M.D. practitioners more than a 100 years ago.

Concerned parent: "Doctor, my son has a fever and vomits everything he eats."

M.D.: "No problem, we'll bleed three pints of his blood, give him some Mercury today, some Arsenic tomorrow and hope that the evil humours of his body expel the disease."

Concerned parent: "Thank you! Thank you! I'm glad I didn't go to those quacky Osteopaths!"

i think the main problem is that those quacky osteopaths have held firm to those 100-yr old remedies. repackaging it now as a their "philosophy." allopaths, on the other hand, have moved on. but i have a sneaky suspicion that you already knew that, shink.

 

[RAD11]

Where did you decided to go?

 

[Shinken]

i think the main problem is that those quacky osteopaths have held firm to those 100-yr old remedies. repackaging it now as a their "philosophy." allopaths, on the other hand, have moved on. but i have a sneaky suspicion that you already knew that, shink.

It's obvious you don't know much about the osteopathic "philosophy." I've spent a whole academic year in an osteopathic school and I've yet to hear any professor tell me that all diseases can be cured with spinal manipulation.

MD vs DO threads...always entertaining to read what allo pre-meds think they know about the osteopathic "philosophy."

 

[housecleaning]

It's obvious you don't know much about the osteopathic "philosophy." I've spent a whole academic year in an osteopathic school

wow, really?! a "whole academic year?" golly, a genuine first year osteopathy student pushing the DO agenda? i never would've guessed. you hardly ever see such a thing here on sdn...

 

[tkim]

this is an outrageously do-heavy board. and many have been banned for not embracing the "do philosophy." good luck.

Still waiting for some examples of this.

 

[housecleaning]

Still waiting for some examples of this.

oh, let me do the search for you then. i didn't realize you were still having trouble with it. btw, how many caribbean school students are moderators, tae? & how many are osteopaths? this should help get you started.

 

[tkim]

oh, let me do the search for you then. i didn't realize you were still having trouble with it. btw, how many caribbean school students are moderators, tae? & how many are osteopaths? this should help get you started.

I don't know what the breakdown is, though do recall offhand one from SGU, one IMG, the dentists, and the pharms, though DO's are well represented in the forums. Lee, if you recall, is a DO.

Of course, the number of DO moderators does nothing to support your claim of people being banned for not 'embracing the DO philosophy'. Proof of this I would like to see, please.

 

[housecleaning]

Still waiting for some examples of this.

and just for those of you who haven't seen this pattern before, here's the script:
i. someone questions the DO "philosophy;"
ii. which, of course, brings the osteopaths out of the woodwork to cry about a new "do vs. md" thread (as if this is even a real debate);
iii. an osteopath moderator tries to fuel the fire (welcome, tae)
iv. the mod then closes the thread for being too oppressive to the do's.

yawn.

 

[tkim]

and just for those of you who haven't seen this pattern before, here's the script:
i. someone questions the DO "philosophy;"
ii. which, of course, brings the osteopaths out of the woodwork to cry about a new "do vs. md" thread (as if this is even a real debate);
iii. an osteopath moderator tries to fuel the fire (welcome, tae)
iv. the mod then closes the thread for being too oppressive to the do's.

yawn.

So, uh - nothing yet, huh.

 

[housecleaning]

I don't know what the breakdown is, though do recall offhand one from SGU, one IMG, the dentists, and the pharms, though DO's are well represented in the forums. Lee, if you recall, is a DO.

so let's see, that's 1 for the carib side (steph) [dentists? pharms? please], and how many again on the osteopath side?

Of course, the number of DO moderators does nothing to support your claim of people being banned for not 'embracing the DO philosophy'. Proof of this I would like to see, please.

5 minutes of searching pulled up 8. with you, apparently, banning one of them. try it yourself. if you're really having trouble, pm me & i'll help you out. no need to bog down the thread with your forgetfulness.

 

[housecleaning]

So, uh - nothing yet, huh.

our friend tae has agreed to work a little harder on his searching skills.

but in the meantime, i ran across this little jewel for everyone else's enjoyment. it seems this isn't the first time tae has had trouble figuring out how to navigate a threaded discussion board. searching, posting, quoting, etc. things you & i take for granted every day, but they can be a bit of a struggle for some. (and please don't tell me this poor soul was also banned?!? tae, you didn't have anything to do with that, did you?)

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=875050&postcount=6

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search.php?searchid=1003558

 

[tkim]

our friend tae has agreed to work a little harder on his searching skills.

but in the meantime, i ran across this little jewel for everyone else's enjoyment. it seems this isn't the first time tae has had trouble figuring out how to navigate a threaded discussion board. searching, posting, quoting, etc. things you & i take for granted every day, but they can be a bit of a struggle for some. (and please don't tell me this poor soul was also banned?!? tae, you didn't have anything to do with that, did you?)

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=875050&postcount=6

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search.php?searchid=1003558

Dude. I *knew* that was you. You really need to let go - that was almost 2 years ago.

 

[drusso]

I'm surprised that no one will address the fact that osteopathic attitudes, worldviews, and orientation toward patient care exist, can be measured, and likely impact observable physician behavior. I wonder why not?

 

[housecleaning]

Dude. I *knew* that was you. You really need to let go - that was almost 2 years ago.

it looks like "there" was actually promoting osteopathy. it doesn't surprise me though, that you would be unable to distinguish the two. but i realize you're in need of some encouragement at this point. so, i'll grant you that there is probably a little bit of "there" in all of us.

how's that search coming along?

 

[housecleaning]

I'm surprised that no one will address the fact that osteopathic attitudes, worldviews, and orientation toward patient care exist, can be measured, and likely impact observable physician behavior. I wonder why not?

probably because most of these "measurements" are considered soft science at best. however, there is some good, hard data out there that links a DO degree to bad medicine. enjoy.

A Publication of the Texas Medical Association

Abstract of Texas Medicine Journal Article -- January 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicting Risk for Disciplinary Action by a State Medical Board

By Roberto Cardarelli, DO, MPH; John C. Licciardone, DO, MS; and Gilbert Ram?rez, DrPH

Disciplinary actions taken against physicians in the United States have been increasing over the last decade, yet the factors that place physicians at risk have not been well identified. The objective of this study is to identify predictors of physician disciplinary action. This case-control study used data from the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners from January 1989 through December 1998. Characteristics of disciplined physicians and predictors of disciplinary action for all violations and by type of violation were the main outcome descriptors. Years in practice, black physicians, and osteopathic graduates were positive predictors for disciplinary action. In contrast, female physicians, international medical graduates, and Hispanic and Asian physicians were less likely to receive disciplinary action compared with male, US allopathic, and white physicians, respectively. Most specialists, except psychiatrists and obstetrician-gynecologists, were less likely to be disciplined than were family practitioners, whereas general practitioners were more likely to be disciplined. More studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

 

[drusso]

probably because most of these "measurements" are considered soft science at best. however, there is some good, hard data out there that links a DO degree to bad medicine. enjoy.

A Publication of the Texas Medical Association

Abstract of Texas Medicine Journal Article -- January 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicting Risk for Disciplinary Action by a State Medical Board

By Roberto Cardarelli, DO, MPH; John C. Licciardone, DO, MS; and Gilbert Ram?rez, DrPH

Disciplinary actions taken against physicians in the United States have been increasing over the last decade, yet the factors that place physicians at risk have not been well identified. The objective of this study is to identify predictors of physician disciplinary action. This case-control study used data from the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners from January 1989 through December 1998. Characteristics of disciplined physicians and predictors of disciplinary action for all violations and by type of violation were the main outcome descriptors. Years in practice, black physicians, and osteopathic graduates were positive predictors for disciplinary action. In contrast, female physicians, international medical graduates, and Hispanic and Asian physicians were less likely to receive disciplinary action compared with male, US allopathic, and white physicians, respectively. Most specialists, except psychiatrists and obstetrician-gynecologists, were less likely to be disciplined than were family practitioners, whereas general practitioners were more likely to be disciplined. More studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

"Years in practice, black physicians, and osteopathic graduates were positive predictors for disciplinary action."

I was actually at the conference where this data was presented. There indeed appears to be bias in how disciplinary actions are pursued by state boards. You would be happy to know that this report resulted in a comprehensive internal audit of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiner's review procedures because in the abscense of bias these data simply don't make sense. David Garza, DO has been actively involved in this work.

Soft or not, this why science must be used to answer questions like "Does an osteopathic orientation to patient care affect outcomes?" and "Is there bias in disciplinary actions of state medical boards?" You can post things on message boards all day, but some of us are actually trying to answer these questions.

Dr. Garza graduated from the University of Texas at Austin and earned his medical degree from the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine. He served an internship at the Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas in Fort Worth and completed a residency at Memorial Medical Center in Corpus Christi. He has served as chief of family practice at Mercy Regional Medical Center, president of the Healthcare Alliance of Laredo IPA and participates in community affairs in Laredo, where he has a family practice. He was vice president of the Texas Society of the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians and is a diplomate of the ABFP and fellow of the AAFP. He is a clinical assistant professor and alumni association board member for the University of North Texas Health Science Center-TCOM.

 

[stephew]

oh man guys, let it go already. Its all good. just let it go.



god no wonder we can't have peace in the mid east, northern ireland, and between yankees and red sox fans when people will actually argue about this crud.

 

[trapper john]

From a real world perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to both routes. I would always advise someone to try to get into a US DO school before going abroad for the following reasons:

1. Less of a problem getting licensed. With one or two exceptions, DO's don't have the same problems US IMG's do with state boards pulling shenanigans like requiring that all electives be done in hospitals with a fellowship in each discipline. A favorite of Texas.

2. Opportunity to do the double match in competative specialities like ortho.

3. The advantage of living in the US and staying in one spot for four years.

4. Opportunity to learn OMT, which despite any reservations some of the "experts" on here have is a great option for treating neck and back pain.

5. Without a doubt, better chance a competative allo residiencies at certain programs.


The downsides

1. Whether you believe it or not, there is still some serious anti-DO prejudice out there and not just in the West. I rotated at one hospital that had both MD and Osteopathic students and had some very fine osteopathic attendings. On rounds on my sub-I in medicine, my attending (an MD by the way) and I needed to talk to the daughter of patient about getting a cardio consult. The daughter, a nurse, looked at us and her first words were: "I hope that you're not intending to get one of those DO's!"

During my residency, which was at a major university, I had two fellow residents (both from top US allopathic schools) during my time in medicine, tell me that they would have rather "gone to worst caribbean medical school" than to DO school. One, who was hardly anti-DO himself told me he based this on the fact that when he was applying to medical school, physician members of his own family openly ridiculed DO's.

2. Even though DO's usually have better luck with competative residiencies and fellowships, this may not be the case with things like CT surgery. I know of at least three CT surgeons who were from caribbean schools, two from SGU and one from Ross. It also seems like SGU has had quite a few neurosurgery matches. A Saba grad getting one is impressive as well.

Just food for thought.

 

[housecleaning]

"Years in practice, black physicians, and osteopathic graduates were positive predictors for disciplinary action."
...because in the abscense of bias these data simply don't make sense[/I]

if you meant to say that DO's tend to get it wrong more often than not, then I agree.

 

[drusso]

if you meant to say that DO's tend to get it wrong more often than not, then I agree.

That's not what the data support. The data support that some state boards may be biased in how they report physician disciplinary actions. In some states, such as California, that bias appears to international graduates, whereas in other states such as Texas, that bias may be osteopathic physicians. I hope that housecleaning and others will do research to clarify these these issues. I would like to hear a compelling explanation as to why one medical degree is a disciplinary liability in one state and not the other.

J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003 Feb;103(2):81-8.

Characteristics of physicians disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio.

Clay SW, Conatser RR.

Department of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens 45701, USA. [email protected]

Although physicians have been disciplined for a variety of offenses by state medical boards across the United States, limited information is available about the characteristics of these physicians. To assess the characteristics of, offenses committed by, and resulting disciplinary actions taken against a consecutive series of disciplined physicians in the state of Ohio, the authors conducted a case-control study of all 308 physicians publicly disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio (SMBO) from January 1997 to June 1999. Subjects were matched with two groups of control physicians--one matched by location only, and the second matched for location, gender, practice type, and self-designated specialty. The main outcomes measured were disciplinary actions, offenses leading to state medical board actions, and the characteristics of disciplined physicians. Of 340 physicians disciplined during these 30 months (approximately 0.37% per year), 308 committed 477 offenses requiring 409 actions by the SMBO. The most common offenses were impairment due to alcohol and/or drug use (21%), inappropriate prescribing or drug possession (14%), previous state actions (15%), negligence or incompetence (7%), and drug-related charges (7%). Although offenders were significantly less likely to be women (P < .05; odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.75), the authors found no difference in the severity of disciplinary action taken against offenders by gender (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.54-2.82) or by type of medical training, ie, between osteopathic physicians and allopathic physicians (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.26). Compared with controls matched for location, gender, practice type, and self-designated specialty, offenders were significantly less likely to be board certified (OR, 0.65; CI, 0.46-0.92) and significantly more likely to have been in practice 20 or fewer years (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.08-2.13). Disciplinary actions in Ohio were more frequent, more severe, and more often in response to impairment due to alcohol and/or drug use and previous state actions than previously reported. No difference in the severity of disciplinary action was noted between men and women or between osteopathic and allopathic physicians.

JAMA. 1998 Jun 17;279(23):1889-93.


Physicians disciplined by a state medical board.

Morrison J, Wickersham P.

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Coatesville, PA 19320, USA. [email protected]

CONTEXT: State medical boards discipline several thousand physicians each year. Although certain subgroups, such as those disciplined for malpractice, substance use, or sexual abuse, have been studied, little is known about disciplined physicians as a group. OBJECTIVE: To assess the offenses, contributing factors, and type of discipline of a consecutive series of disciplined physicians. DESIGN: Case-control study on publicly available data matching 375 disciplined physicians with 2 groups of control physicians, one matched solely by locale, and a second matched for sex, type of practice, and locale. SUBJECTS: All disciplined physicians publicly reported by the Medical Board of California from October 1995 through April 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of disciplined physicians, offenses leading to discipline, and type of discipline. RESULTS: A total of 375 physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California (approximately 0.24% per year) were disciplined for 465 offenses. The most frequent causes for discipline were negligence or incompetence (34%), abuse of alcohol or other drugs (14%), inappropriate prescribing practices (11%), inappropriate contact with patients (10%), and fraud (9%). Discipline imposed was revocation of medical license (21%), actual suspension of license (13%), stayed suspension of license (45%), and reprimand (21%). Type of offense was significantly associated with severity of discipline (P=.03). In logistic regression models comparing disciplined physicians with controls matched by locale, board discipline was significantly associated with physicians' sex (odds ratio [OR] for women, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.70) and involvement in direct patient care (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.75-3.75). In the regression model with additional matching criteria, disciplinary action was negatively associated with specialty board certification (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.60) and positively associated with being in practice more than 20 years (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.39-2.92). CONCLUSIONS: A small but substantial proportion of physicians is disciplined each year for a variety of offenses. Further study of disciplined physicians is necessary to identify physicians at high risk for offenses leading to disciplinary action and to develop effective interventions to prevent these offenses.


Arch Intern Med. 2004 Mar 22;164(6):653-8.

Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case-control study.

Kohatsu ND, Gould D, Ross LK, Fox PJ.

Medical Board of California, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing attention devoted to patient safety. However, the focus has been on system improvements rather than individual physician performance issues. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an association between certain physician characteristics and the likelihood of medical board-imposed discipline. METHODS: Unmatched, case-control study of 890 physicians disciplined by the Medical Board of California between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2001, compared with 2981 randomly selected, nondisciplined controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for physician discipline with respect to age, sex, board certification, international medical school education, and specialty. RESULTS: Male sex (OR, 2.76; P<.001), lack of board certification (OR, 2.22; P<.001), increasing age (OR, 1.64; P<.001), and international medical school education (OR, 1.36; P<.001) were associated with an elevated risk for disciplinary action that included license revocation, practice suspension, probation, and public reprimand. The following specialties had an increased risk for discipline compared with internal medicine: family practice (OR, 1.68; P =.002); general practice (OR, 1.97, P =.001); obstetrics and gynecology (OR, 2.25; P<.001); and psychiatry (OR, 1.87; P<.001). Physicians in pediatrics (OR, 0.62; P =.001) and radiology (OR, 0.36; P<.001) were less likely to receive discipline compared with those in internal medicine. CONCLUSION: Certain physician characteristics and medical specialties are associated with an increased likelihood of discipline.

 

[gtleeee]

Housecleaning....my perception is that you are "throwing up smoke" trying to dodge Tkim659's request that you validate your statement "many have been banned for not embracing the DO philosephy". What you are doing here is readily transparent. You are dodging his request for authentication by sarcasm and shifting attention. Ridiculous to read and makes one almost embarressed for you. You can not provide the validation for your silly statement and you know it, so just suck it up and admit you goofed. It's no big deal . You probably said it out of haste and so what. Who does not make mistakes like that occassionally. You make yourself look so sillly by relentlessly adhering to your original statement that your defense ends up making you appear more nonsensical than the original post. Don't attempt to defend the indefensible. I am not talking about the MD versus DO thing. I I am looking at one specific post and a request for validation of that post.

 

[Skip Intro]

housecleaning - simply shut-up now lest you make yourself look even more foolish. This may come as a surprise to you (maybe even much to your dismay and chagrin), but this is not a DO vs. MD thread. So go exorcise your agenda somewhere else.

To everyone else who has objected, I responded with the points about the osteopathic philosophy merely to demonstrate that the entire field was predicated and built-on suppositions and guesses, and to this day it's basic tenets on which it is based and continues to exist cannot be explained. I'm not suggesting that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but perhaps simply trying to forewarn you that the baby might be drowning in it.

The only cogent points that are relevant to me - ones that have only been further reinforced, in a roundabout sort of way, on this thread - and the main differences between allopathic and osteopathic practices as I see it are two-fold. First, it is that the latter is unwilling to abandon or limit the endorsement of practices that have been proven to be quack (which allopathy routinely does) in order to serve some greater political homage to the great osteopathic philosophy, a side-discussion I didn't initiate but responded to thoughtfully. And, yes, I'm continuing (and will continue to do so until it's addressed) to talk about such things as craniosacral that have been repeatedly shown to be bogus when studied rigorously.

Secondly, the prevailing selling-point of the osteopathic practice fomented in the public as some greater advantage versus going to a "traditional" doctor is this wildly unsupportable notion that somehow osteopaths take a more "holistic" approach, which is better for the patient. This is balderdash, pure and simple. No hard outcomes measures can support that. And, any caring compassionate physician, be they an allopath, osteopath, chiropractor, naturopath (etc.), will score highly on the interpersonal relational scores if they pepper their interactions with pandering and platitudes to patients' preconceptions about their pathology. This does not make for good science or even truthful interaction with the patient. We owe it to them to provide the best evidence base - and better yet - best therapy to them, no matter how that therapy is packaged.

So, to all "hardcore osteopaths", just commit to me this one thing: get the AOA to issue a policy statement, either way, addressing craniosacral therapy at your next meeting. Just at least say something on the record in your national assembly about a practice that is widely used, supported by the "osteopathic philosophy", and even part of the curriculum at many osteopathic universities. That's all I want as a starter. If the AOA can do that, then we can begin to have a really meaningful discussion about the "differences" between the fields.

All of the other warm-fuzzy stuff aside, let's talk about the science that supports your claims and continue to produce some meaningful research that either defends or supports it. Remember, there is truly no such thing as alternative or complementary medicine. There is just medicine; it either works and is of value, or it doesn't. If it is of value, then everyone should be trained in it and offer it to their patients, not just osteopaths (or chiropractors).

-Skip

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

LECOM or St George University in Grenada? Anybody have thoughts on which would provide me with better opportunities?

Back to the OP question

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=203331

Read post #5

You can go unmatched from any school but you will probably get more support with the scramble from DO schools. Also, as already mentioned, you have osteo residencies to match into as well.

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

From a real world perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to both routes. I would always advise someone to try to get into a US DO school before going abroad for the following reasons:

1. Less of a problem getting licensed. With one or two exceptions, DO's don't have the same problems US IMG's do with state boards pulling shenanigans like requiring that all electives be done in hospitals with a fellowship in each discipline. A favorite of Texas.

2. Opportunity to do the double match in competative specialities like ortho.

3. The advantage of living in the US and staying in one spot for four years.

4. Opportunity to learn OMT, which despite any reservations some of the "experts" on here have is a great option for treating neck and back pain.

5. Without a doubt, better chance a competative allo residiencies at certain programs.


The downsides

1. Whether you believe it or not, there is still some serious anti-DO prejudice out there and not just in the West. I rotated at one hospital that had both MD and Osteopathic students and had some very fine osteopathic attendings. On rounds on my sub-I in medicine, my attending (an MD by the way) and I needed to talk to the daughter of patient about getting a cardio consult. The daughter, a nurse, looked at us and her first words were: "I hope that you're not intending to get one of those DO's!"

During my residency, which was at a major university, I had two fellow residents (both from top US allopathic schools) during my time in medicine, tell me that they would have rather "gone to worst caribbean medical school" than to DO school. One, who was hardly anti-DO himself told me he based this on the fact that when he was applying to medical school, physician members of his own family openly ridiculed DO's.

2. Even though DO's usually have better luck with competative residiencies and fellowships, this may not be the case with things like CT surgery. I know of at least three CT surgeons who were from caribbean schools, two from SGU and one from Ross. It also seems like SGU has had quite a few neurosurgery matches. A Saba grad getting one is impressive as well.

Just food for thought.

Great post about the advantages. Very accurate.

The DO bias does exist to some extent especially among some MD's. Basically you ran into an ignorant nurse and sadly have some ignorant fellow residents. As you know DO's are well trained licensed physicians. It is very unfortunate that these fellow residents seem to base their ideas on DO's because of their family members own bias.

I met an MD from a major university when I was applying to osteopathic schools and he told me to not apply because DO's were not well trained since they only do a one year residency to become a family practice doc. Obviously this is not true. Ignorance is usually behind any bias. If a pre med can't handle ignorant comments like this, stay away from osteopathic medicine, however, I personally since starting med school have not experienced any bias.

Also, CT surgery is a field considered by some to be dying out. Interventional cardiology has really hit the field hard. Several CT surgeons are having trouble finding decent jobs after residency. Therefore, fellowship positions have become less difficult to obtain. Neurosurgery match by an SGU grad is impressive. Most DO's wanting neurosurg usually have to stick with the osteo residencies.

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

housecleaning - simply shut-up now lest you make yourself look even more foolish. This may come as a surprise to you (maybe even much to your dismay and chagrin), but this is not a DO vs. MD thread. So go exorcise your agenda somewhere else.

Agreed

To everyone else who has objected, I responded with the points about the osteopathic philosophy merely to demonstrate that the entire field was predicated and built-on suppositions and guesses, and to this day it's basic tenets on which it is based and continues to exist cannot be explained. I'm not suggesting that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but perhaps simply trying to forewarn you that the baby might be drowning in it.

Wait a minute, these tenets can not be explained? Did you read them when they were posted earlier?

The principles are:

1. The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind and spirit.

2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance

3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated

4. rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principals of body unit, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function.

What can't be explained? These are the tenets of osteopathic medicine. Don't confuse it with AT Still quotes from 1890. Osteopathy is not a cult and everything AT Still said is not like a Bible verse. Stop treating it as such. I would imagine that quotes from Hippocrates about current medical treatment would be even further from current medical standards. Hippocrates is the founder of medicine my friend, but I would not state medicine is "built-on suppositions and guesses". According to your reasoning, I could though.

The only cogent points that are relevant to me - ones that have only been further reinforced, in a roundabout sort of way, on this thread - and the main differences between allopathic and osteopathic practices as I see it are two-fold. First, it is that the latter is unwilling to abandon or limit the endorsement of practices that have been proven to be quack (which allopathy routinely does) in order to serve some greater political homage to the great osteopathic philosophy, a side-discussion I didn't initiate but responded to thoughtfully. And, yes, I'm continuing (and will continue to do so until it's addressed) to talk about such things as craniosacral that have been repeatedly shown to be bogus when studied rigorously.

DO's are currently researching OMT at the NIH funded osteopathic research center at Univ. N. Texas. OMT efficacy is being further studied. So far most of the OMT research, dating as far back as the 1960's, proves it is effacious. Craniosacral therapy however is ridiculed with controversy. I personally do not find it useful but a quick pub med search for craniosacral only revealed 30 articles. Several articles discussed the difficulty trying to evaluate craniosacral therapy. Even the articles stating craniosacral therapy was bogus related this difficulty and suggested further conclusive study. So the final conclusive verdict is still out on craniosacral therapy. Hopefully the osteopathic research center as well as others will further evaluate it and end the debate.

Secondly, the prevailing selling-point of the osteopathic practice fomented in the public as some greater advantage versus going to a "traditional" doctor is this wildly unsupportable notion that somehow osteopaths take a more "holistic" approach, which is better for the patient. This is balderdash, pure and simple. No hard outcomes measures can support that. And, any caring compassionate physician, be they an allopath, osteopath, chiropractor, naturopath (etc.), will score highly on the interpersonal relational scores if they pepper their interactions with pandering and platitudes to patients' preconceptions about their pathology. This does not make for good science or even truthful interaction with the patient. We owe it to them to provide the best evidence base - and better yet - best therapy to them, no matter how that therapy is packaged.

Osteopathic schools emphasize holistic medicine. Everyone can agree that a holistic approach is better for the patient. DO schools try to emphasize it to their students, however, it is up to the individual physician to use it. I don't see what is wrong with this. Osteopathic medicine hasn't tried to patent the idea. I am sure allopaths and anyone else also try to practice holistic medicine. The AOA markets us as holistic physicians but they never state MD's are not holistic.

So, to all "hardcore osteopaths", just commit to me this one thing: get the AOA to issue a policy statement, either way, addressing craniosacral therapy at your next meeting. Just at least say something on the record in your national assembly about a practice that is widely used, supported by the "osteopathic philosophy", and even part of the curriculum at many osteopathic universities. That's all I want as a starter. If the AOA can do that, then we can begin to have a really meaningful discussion about the "differences" between the fields.

I am really not sure what this would prove. Some DO's do craniosacral therapy, some MD's do as well. Also, PT's, Chiro's etc. If you think craniosacral is a DO only practice, you are grossly misinformed.

All of the other warm-fuzzy stuff aside, let's talk about the science that supports your claims and continue to produce some meaningful research that either defends or supports it. Remember, there is truly no such thing as alternative or complementary medicine. There is just medicine; it either works and is of value, or it doesn't. If it is of value, then everyone should be trained in it and offer it to their patients, not just osteopaths (or chiropractors).

BTW where is the SGU or any other carib schools research centers? My school does not have one yet but it is being built as we speak. But my school started in 1997, what's their excuse? Seriously, I have never seen any research from carib schools. What's the deal?

 

[Skip Intro]

Wait a minute, these tenets can not be explained? Did you read them when they were posted earlier?

The principles are:

1. The body is a unit; the person is a unit of body, mind and spirit.

2. The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing and health maintenance

3. Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated

4. rational treatment is based upon an understanding of the basic principals of body unit, self-regulation, and the interrelationship of structure and function.

What can't be explained? These are the tenets of osteopathic medicine. Don't confuse it with AT Still quotes from 1890. Osteopathy is not a cult and everything AT Still said is not like a Bible verse. Stop treating it as such. I would imagine that quotes from Hippocrates about current medical treatment would be even further from current medical standards. Hippocrates is the founder of medicine my friend, but I would not state medicine is "built-on suppositions and guesses". According to your reasoning, I could though.

No, no, no, no, no. It has nothing to do with these tenets being "explained" or anything of the like. Reread what I said before. You misunderstand where the contention lies. With these particular "tenets of osteopathy", there is nothing unique or particularly profound about them, nor does osteopathy hold some sort of sole domain or ownership over their incorporation as goals in caring for a patient. I thought I made that fairly clear already that this is the problem I have with osteopaths attempting to claim this as their approach to the patient.

The problem I have with osteopathic medicine is the fundamental assumptions on which the profession is based and supported, namely that disease is caused by arterial and lymphatic flow around nerve fibers and that these can be "realigned" or "treated" or "fixed" with OMT. This practice is built on - and continues into the 21st century - assumptions and guesses about the underlying nature of disease as was thought 150 years ago.

The difference (again) between the continued adherence to a core osteopathic philosophy and the quite fair comparison with allopathy is that, once newer evidence comes to light that suggest the basis of whatever previous knowledge was used to come to a conclusion about the mechanism of a disease, allopathic medicine will abandon the previous practices and incorporate the new findings. It seems that there is a sect of osteopathic physicians that are hell-bent on trying to prove that the core philosophy of osteopathic medicine is correct, and in whom the practice becomes more like a faith-based religion rife with apologetics than a scientific practice (and, yes, I can source and back-up that bold and potentially provocative statement).

In that respect, the only difference I see between these hardcore tenets of osteopathic medicine and chiropractic is that osteopaths at least (and wisely) embrace the traditional roots of Still's allopathic training and incorporate allopathic practice into their treatment modality. Again, this is a baby/bathwater issue. So, I'd admonish osteopaths to focus their energy on validating their "beliefs" scientifically or, if they are unable to do this, abandon them. That's not at all saying that manipulations don't work. It is saying that I'm highly dubious with regards to the "belief" as to why and how they work.

DO's are currently researching OMT at the NIH funded osteopathic research center at Univ. N. Texas. OMT efficacy is being further studied. So far most of the OMT research, dating as far back as the 1960's, proves it is effacious. Craniosacral therapy however is ridiculed with controversy. I personally do not find it useful but a quick pub med search for craniosacral only revealed 30 articles. Several articles discussed the difficulty trying to evaluate craniosacral therapy. Even the articles stating craniosacral therapy was bogus related this difficulty and suggested further conclusive study. So the final conclusive verdict is still out on craniosacral therapy. Hopefully the osteopathic research center as well as others will further evaluate it and end the debate.

You want to see a quack? Just go to Upledger's website. And, many studies, especially those with limited sample sizes or non-rigorous methodology, use the caveat "more research is needed". This is not an opt-out that can be used to in anyway endorse a practice nor does it lend continued validity or an air of "we still don't know so it's okay to use it" mentality for a practice. We still base our opinion on whether or not something works based on the preponderance of the evidence as well as common sense. It can be pretty much concluded at this point, using those two criteria, that craniosacral is bogus. Why teach it in osteopathy school?

Osteopathic schools emphasize holistic medicine. Everyone can agree that a holistic approach is better for the patient. DO schools try to emphasize it to their students, however, it is up to the individual physician to use it. I don't see what is wrong with this. Osteopathic medicine hasn't tried to patent the idea. I am sure allopaths and anyone else also try to practice holistic medicine. The AOA markets us as holistic physicians but they never state MD's are not holistic.

What is "holistic" medicine? Define it for me. I hear this word thrown around all the time. This is a marketing buzzword that has no real meaning, yet many osteopaths (and naturopaths and chiropractors and homeopaths) toss it around like it is some advantageous and superior approach to the patient. Anyway you define it, I guarantee I can link you to an allopathic source that says the exact same thing in so many words. Just tell me exactly what it means and how it is different than what should be the standard medical practice offered by any licensed physician.

I am really not sure what this would prove. Some DO's do craniosacral therapy, some MD's do as well. Also, PT's, Chiro's etc. If you think craniosacral is a DO only practice, you are grossly misinformed.

Craniosacral therapy was developed and promulgated by the osteopathic field. It is a quack medical practice. The difference between the osteopathic field and the allopathic field (apparently) is that when something is identified as "quack", the allopathic field under the academy in which practice falls will come out with a policy statement to the effect that "there is insufficient evidence to suggest that [XYZ] therapy is beneficial and its practice should be limited, abandoned, avoided (etc.)."

Why can't the AOA do this with craniosacral? Simply make a policy statement, as they have with most other widely disseminated osteopathic practices, either way. Just say something about the practice.

We see this all the time with 'rogue' medical practices and physicians who employ such things as chelation therapy, ozone treatments, therapeutic touch, etc. which have been repeatedly shown and on which the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that there is no benefit. The "allopathic" field does not implicitly endorse craniosacral therapy and does not offer it as curriculum in their medical schools. Therefore, it is not their responsibility to "police" this particular branch of osteopathic medicine.

BTW where is the SGU or any other carib schools research centers? My school does not have one yet but it is being built as we speak. But my school started in 1997, what's their excuse? Seriously, I have never seen any research from carib schools. What's the deal?

First off, what does this have to do with this discussion? And, are you talking only about research "centers" or doing research? If you're suggesting that Carib schools don't engage in research, then you illustrate a common and widely held misconception. In fact, at Ross we have two professors who are involved in basic research, one of whom has a lab dedicated to seeking and evaluating novel tropical bio-aromatics that may have a role in fighting diseases. Likewise, many Ross students are involved in clinical research (and actually publish) during their clerkship years. In any way attempting to suggest that a school must develop a research "center" as some barometer of how interested it is in furthering good science becomes pedantic. Nonetheless, the primary goal of these schools is still to train strong, scientifically-minded clinicians. So, to suggest that, in a veiled way, because they don't have a research "center" they are somehow not really interested in good science simply becomes a distracting smokescreen from the issue at hand which is being discussed in this thread, namely the dubious aspects of osteopathy and the continued de facto endorsement by the AOA of the same.

-Skip

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

No, no, no, no, no. It has nothing to do with these tenets being "explained" or anything of the like. Reread what I said before. You misunderstand where the contention lies. With these particular "tenets of osteopathy", there is nothing unique or particularly profound about them, nor does osteopathy hold some sort of sole domain or ownership over their incorporation as goals in caring for a patient. I thought I made that fairly clear already that this is the problem I have with osteopaths attempting to claim this as their approach to the patient.

What's wrong with osteopathic medicine claiming this to be there approach since it is our approach. Again, no one said allopaths or anyone else do not practice this approach. Get over it man!

The problem I have with osteopathic medicine is the fundamental assumptions on which the profession is based and supported, namely that disease is caused by arterial and lymphatic flow around nerve fibers and that these can be "realigned" or "treated" or "fixed" with OMT. This practice is built on - and continues into the 21st century - assumptions and guesses about the underlying nature of disease as was thought 150 years ago.

Misinformed much? I just graduated from an osteopathic school and was never taught that "disease is caused by arterial and lymphatic flow around nerve fibers and that these can be "realigned" or "treated" or "fixed" with OMT" This may have been taught in the past but not now. Today we learn about somatic dysfunction which is treated with OMT. Disease is not somatic dysfunction. Here's is how we are taught: Host +Disease=Illness. Somatic Dysfunction is a problem with the host component.

The difference (again) between the continued adherence to a core osteopathic philosophy and the quite fair comparison with allopathy is that, once newer evidence comes to light that suggest the basis of whatever previous knowledge was used to come to a conclusion about the mechanism of a disease, allopathic medicine will abandon the previous practices and incorporate the new findings. It seems that there is a sect of osteopathic physicians that are hell-bent on trying to prove that the core philosophy of osteopathic medicine is correct, and in whom the practice becomes more like a faith-based religion rife with apologetics than a scientific practice (and, yes, I can source and back-up that bold and potentially provocative statement).

Well I have never heard of or met these faith-based OMT religion practioners. You sound like the AMA from the 1950's. Please source and back-up your claims. However, statements from a few DO's does not speak for all DO's and you need to stop treating it as such. You can state that a subset of quacks exist in any profession. Chelation therapists still exist today. Of those practicing in Kentucky, all are MD's. Therefore, all MD's in Kentucky are quacks! Wait that doesn't work.

In that respect, the only difference I see between these hardcore tenets of osteopathic medicine and chiropractic is that osteopaths at least (and wisely) embrace the traditional roots of Still's allopathic training and incorporate allopathic practice into their treatment modality. Again, this is a baby/bathwater issue. So, I'd admonish osteopaths to focus their energy on validating their "beliefs" scientifically or, if they are unable to do this, abandon them. That's not at all saying that manipulations don't work. It is saying that I'm highly dubious with regards to the "belief" as to why and how they work.

Like I already said, this is being done at the osteopathic research center and others. Be patient.

You want to see a quack? Just go to Upledger's website. And, many studies, especially those with limited sample sizes or non-rigorous methodology, use the caveat "more research is needed". This is not an opt-out that can be used to in anyway endorse a practice nor does it lend continued validity or an air of "we still don't know so it's okay to use it" mentality for a practice. We still base our opinion on whether or not something works based on the preponderance of the evidence as well as common sense. It can be pretty much concluded at this point, using those two criteria, that craniosacral is bogus. Why teach it in osteopathy school?

Well craniosacral may be bogus, but alot of others including patients do not think that's true. More research is needed to explain this. Sorry if you don't agree.

What is "holistic" medicine? Define it for me. I hear this word thrown around all the time. This is a marketing buzzword that has no real meaning, yet many osteopaths (and naturopaths and chiropractors and homeopaths) toss it around like it is some advantageous and superior approach to the patient. Anyway you define it, I guarantee I can link you to an allopathic source that says the exact same thing in so many words. Just tell me exactly what it means and how it is different than what should be the standard medical practice offered by any licensed physician.

I think I said allopaths practice holistic medicine as well and that DO's have not patented the idea and do not claim allopaths do not practice holistically. I don't see where your problem lies in this. You know the definition. Do your own homework.

Craniosacral therapy was developed and promulgated by the osteopathic field. It is a quack medical practice. The difference between the osteopathic field and the allopathic field (apparently) is that when something is identified as "quack", the allopathic field under the academy in which practice falls will come out with a policy statement to the effect that "there is insufficient evidence to suggest that [XYZ] therapy is beneficial and its practice should be limited, abandoned, avoided (etc.)."

I disagree. Osteopathic field works for the best interest of the patient. To suggest anything else is highly disrespectful. Craniosacral therapy is difficult to evaluate in a research lab and will therefore take time to determine its validity. In the meantime, patients ask for it, practicioners think that it works, and no patients are harmed in the process. Where's the patient safety concern? The biggest side effect is a headache.

First off, what does this have to do with this discussion? And, are you talking only about research "centers" or doing research? If you're suggesting that Carib schools don't engage in research, then you illustrate a common and widely held misconception. In fact, at Ross we have two professors who are involved in basic research, one of whom has a lab dedicated to seeking and evaluating novel tropical bio-aromatics that may have a role in fighting diseases. Likewise, many Ross students are involved in clinical research (and actually publish) during their clerkship years. In any way attempting to suggest that a school must develop a research "center" as some barometer of how interested it is in furthering good science becomes pedantic. Nonetheless, the primary goal of these schools is still to train strong, scientifically-minded clinicians. So, to suggest that, in a veiled way, because they don't have a research "center" they are somehow not really interested in good science simply becomes a distracting smokescreen from the issue at hand which is being discussed in this thread, namely the dubious aspects of osteopathy and the continued de facto endorsement by the AOA of the same.

Well actually the issue at hand is "SGU or Lake Erie Osteopathic". You changed the subject, why can't I? So you have TWO professors doing research, great!

 

[Skip Intro]

Listen, I'm not going to continue to have a pissing contest with you. Congratulations on graduating from Pikesville. I'm sure you'll do great as a physician. Past this response, I have nothing more to add to this thread. I'm not attacking osteopaths themselves, but I am calling into question certain aspects of the field. Furthermore, I only responded (fairly, I might add) to points brought up by other posters, and did not initiate this discussion nor start attacking osteopathic education outright. If you want to go on the counter-attack and make assertions about the volume or involvement of research at Caribbean schools, which is clearly and as I already stated not their primary mission nor immediately relevant to this discussion, as some sort of way for you to save face in this now-debate, don't let me stop you. Your credibility in demonstrating that you can stay on topic is what suffers.

Well I have never heard of or met these faith-based OMT religion practioners. You sound like the AMA from the 1950's. Please source and back-up your claims. However, statements from a few DO's does not speak for all DO's and you need to stop treating it as such. You can state that a subset of quacks exist in any profession. Chelation therapists still exist today. Of those practicing in Kentucky, all are MD's. Therefore, all MD's in Kentucky are quacks! Wait that doesn't work.

We're not talking about a "subset of quacks" but an entire branch of the medical field, in the way that it distinguishes itself from allopathy, that is built on and continues forward through suppositions. As far as responding to this, as my final addition to this thread, I'll just reference this letter, written by a practising DO, that summarizes exactly my concerns far more eloquently than I can here (which, I'll also admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the JAOA had the guts to print):

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/405

More illuminating is one of the expected (and not very well-supported) responses concerning the true value of "Evidence-Based Medicine" in their eyes, of which this quote (my bolding for emphasis)...

"We further propose that the dichotomy between scientific and meta-physical is an arbitrary one; scientific evidence will continue to provide proof sufficient for those with "ears to hear and eyes to see," and those with a faith-based leaning will continue to find deeper meaning in the personal exploration of OPP."

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/126-a

... was most illuminating.

You claim ignorance, but perhaps you should know the types of cloaked agendas, amply illustrated by this response, that are walking in your midst on the wards. Then again, perhaps you are one who harbors the same feelings.

This is not about MD vs. DO. This is about good, rigorous, evidence-based science. Is the allopathic model perfect? Not by a long shot. But, we have the courage and conviction to abandon practices that are repeatedly demonstrated to be of little value. There is too much politics and self-serving agenda at the AOA, unfortunately, to do the same. In that light, Dr. Bledsoe's comments should be seen as courageous.

And, finally, a great summary of the dubious aspects of osteopathy can be found here, which further underscores many of the points I've already made:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

I hope that everyone who attends an osteopathic school will adhere to good medical practices and common sense and, in the words of Kant, "Have courage to use one’s own intelligence!" Dare to question the stuff that seems bogus. Don't be afraid to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. That's how Science, and the knowledge gained by the practice of its principles with high integrity, moves closer to truth.

-Skip

 

[RAD11]

While reading these types of pros/cons threads regarding DOs and Caribbean MDs are very informative, it may not help the average premeds to even consider these types of programs because I feel that the DO and Carib MD students/graduates are actually the ones creating the stigmas attached to their program. It also may be the reason why so many view DO and Carib MD schools as an the NEXT best thing, even though some of these schools may actually be better than a US MD school. I hardly see US MD students create such a huge debate regarding the schools they're attending (be it the top, middle, or low tier programs). Just my $0.02!!!

 

[RAD11]

oh man guys, let it go already. Its all good. just let it go.



god no wonder we can't have peace in the mid east, northern ireland, and between yankees and red sox fans when people will actually argue about this crud.

I agree!!!

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

Listen, I'm not going to continue to have a pissing contest with you. Congratulations on graduating from Pikesville. I'm sure you'll do great as a physician. Past this response, I have nothing more to add to this thread. I'm not attacking osteopaths themselves, but I am calling into question certain aspects of the field. Furthermore, I only responded (fairly, I might add) to points brought up by other posters, and did not initiate this discussion nor start attacking osteopathic education outright. If you want to go on the counter-attack and make assertions about the volume or involvement of research at Caribbean schools, which is clearly and as I already stated not their primary mission nor immediately relevant to this discussion, as some sort of way for you to save face in this now-debate, don't let me stop you. Your credibility in demonstrating that you can stay on topic is what suffers.



We're not talking about a "subset of quacks" but an entire branch of the medical field, in the way that it distinguishes itself from allopathy, that is built on and continues forward through suppositions. As far as responding to this, as my final addition to this thread, I'll just reference this letter, written by a practising DO, that summarizes exactly my concerns far more eloquently than I can here (which, I'll also admit, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the JAOA had the guts to print):

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/405

More illuminating is one of the expected (and not very well-supported) responses concerning the true value of "Evidence-Based Medicine" in their eyes, of which this quote (my bolding for emphasis)...



http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/126-a

... was most illuminating.

You claim ignorance, but perhaps you should know the types of cloaked agendas, amply illustrated by this response, that are walking in your midst on the wards. Then again, perhaps you are one who harbors the same feelings.

This is not about MD vs. DO. This is about good, rigorous, evidence-based science. Is the allopathic model perfect? Not by a long shot. But, we have the courage and conviction to abandon practices that are repeatedly demonstrated to be of little value. There is too much politics and self-serving agenda at the AOA, unfortunately, to do the same. In that light, Dr. Bledsoe's comments should be seen as courageous.

And, finally, a great summary of the dubious aspects of osteopathy can be found here, which further underscores many of the points I've already made:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

Wow, you are pretty defensive when it comes to carib. schools. I know you say you are not attacking osteopathy and you may truly believe that you are not but you are. How did you react when I stated some facts about carib. schools? Exactly. Now don't be surprised when you get similar responses for attacking osteopathic medicine.

I harbor no feelings of faith based OMT. Your references in the JAOA are only a few editorials and do not express or speak for the entire osteopathic profession. Here lies the error in your arguement. Yes, osteopathy has some problems. Thanks for pointing it out. But that does not mean it's "an entire branch of the medical field that is built on and continues forward through suppositions". That is simply not true and very disrespectful. I should rip on carib. schools more to make up for it, but I won't for now.

BTW the editor response to Dr. Bledsoe's letter sums up the viewpoint of most of the osteopathic profession but you chose to ignore it.

Also, you post a link to Quackwatch. Why don't you email Dr. Barrett and ask him what he thinks of carib. grads. Doesn't mean what he says is true but niether does his opinions on osteopathy. Looks like you got your entire arguement from that website. I would hope that you would try to be better informed next time.

I hope that everyone who attends an osteopathic school will adhere to good medical practices and common sense and, in the words of Kant, "Have courage to use one’s own intelligence!" Dare to question the stuff that seems bogus. Don't be afraid to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. That's how Science, and the knowledge gained by the practice of its principles with high integrity, moves closer to truth.

Agreed. Thankfully it is already happening. I hope the same for carib. grads or anyone else.

This thread should be closed.

 

[DrMom]

I agree. The debate has actually left the OP's original question in the dust, but I think it has been addressed.

 

[stephew]

I agree. The debate has actually left the OP's original question in the dust, but I think it has been addressed.

oh thank you.