Difference in Doctors
- Thread starter merphie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- difference doctors
DO's were originally just as quacky as Chiros are today. However, DO's accepted their shortcomings and expanded their educational curriculum, while weeding out the "woo" aspect of their practice and philosophy. These days the educational standards of the DO is nearly as, if not just as, challenging and scientifically based as an MD.
Though, I do prefer orthopaedic doctors, personally.
Though, I do prefer orthopaedic doctors, personally.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Suezoled said:
Specifically, osteopathy was originally based on a similar non-germ model of disease as caused by subluxations, but in the case of osteopaths, of the veins rather than nerves. They officially abandoned this in 1949. Nowadays, a DO education is in most important ways indistinguishable from an MD education.
epepke said:
Interesting. From what I have read they have more training in how to deal with the patient. I like my DO. She seems like a real nice lady.
I guess I just have a problem with who she shares her office with. She has never pushed herbal crap or anything. Just something to ponder on.
Okay... hot-button topic here... I'll try to keep it short because I should be studying for my next licensure exam... T-minus 5 days and counting... 
Basically, Osteopathy as a discipline was started in the 1870's in Kirksville, Missouri by Andrew Taylor Still, M.D.. We won't get into the whole history here. A quick googling will bring up tons of sites on Osteopathy's history. Good place to start is here:
http://history.aoa-net.org/
Now, as far as what it was intended to be and what it has evolved into, that's where things get tricky...
It is safe to say that, in most instances, the "woo-woo" stuff of osteopathy has faded into the past. Most students in the U.S. who go to osteopathy school do so now because they could not secure a spot in the more competitive allopathic programs (i.e., M.D. granting). That's not a slam at the D.O. degree at all, and one should not infer that just because a D.O. gets a osteopathy degree doesn't mean he or she doesn't know his or her stuff.
In fact, the osteopaths are certified, by their education, to sit for the exact same licensure exams (the USMLE) as allopaths. Many of them take these (in addition to their own licensure exam called the COMLEX) and go into allopathic residencies alongside of M.D.'s They complete the same exact post-medical school training in many instances (and, this is the most important part of a training physician's education - this is where you learn your craft, supervised, and truly become a "doctor").
So, D.O.'s are, in essence, equivalently trained as M.D.'s, with a few EXTREMELY minor differences in the curriculum. However, one of the bigger differences is that they have to learn OMM - Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. This is where opinions start to diverge...
Now, most osteopaths, if not the vast majority, never intend to utilize OMM. They don't believe in it, they don't practice it, but it's part of the undergar med curriculum. However, there are practitioners out their who are militant, and I mean militant, about OMM and it's benefits. They use opportunities at lectures to slam allopathic medicine, and offer chiropractic-like glorifications of what are, in my mind, questionable practices.
The studies these OMM zealots due are prone to all of the same problems that chiropractic studies are (e.g., difficult to blind, Hawthorne effect, hard to construct sham controls, etc.), but the way you'd hear some of these guys talk you'd think they could have cured polio with OMM. I've witnessed it firsthand. And, it was all I could do one time to sit through a lecture and not say anything, especially when this one D.O. (older gentleman) basically said that the triptans were a waste of time and money for migraines - and that he personally cured dozens of migraineurs with OMM. FEH!
So, I would tell you this, in general: Most D.O.'s don't do OMM and find little practical value in it. There are D.O. surgeons now, D.O. anesthesiologists, etc. where OMM is just... well, it would be silly to attempt to incorporate it into a, for example, laproscopic cholecystectomy. However, there still exists a vocal minority who, in my opinion, are no better than chiropractors and they use any opportunity to publicly take cheap shots at allopaths. Now, a lot of this stems from a long history of allopaths rolling their eyes at them, but you get the drift.
Osteopathy and the D.O. degree is becoming more and more prevalent, the younger generation of doctors coming out now are basically not OMM zealots, and D.O.s can do pretty much everything a normal allopath can do. So, there's no reason not to see a D.O. and have utmost confidence that they will treat you fairly... unless they start telling you to come see them twice a week and to throw away your heart medicine!
If I have more time later, I'll talk about the why the AMA is turning a blind eye to the sudden explosion of D.O. schools in the U.S. and the huge influx of International Medical Graduates (including a record number entering residency this year), both truly foreign and Caribbean-trained, in the U.S. along with the impending physician shortage by the year 2020, reversing COGME's long-held opinion that there was a 'surplus' of doctors in the U.S.
This one goes very deep and it has huge tentacles. But, I've got to get to bed so I can get up early and keep cracking the books...
Wish me luck!
-TT
Basically, Osteopathy as a discipline was started in the 1870's in Kirksville, Missouri by Andrew Taylor Still, M.D.. We won't get into the whole history here. A quick googling will bring up tons of sites on Osteopathy's history. Good place to start is here:
http://history.aoa-net.org/
Now, as far as what it was intended to be and what it has evolved into, that's where things get tricky...
It is safe to say that, in most instances, the "woo-woo" stuff of osteopathy has faded into the past. Most students in the U.S. who go to osteopathy school do so now because they could not secure a spot in the more competitive allopathic programs (i.e., M.D. granting). That's not a slam at the D.O. degree at all, and one should not infer that just because a D.O. gets a osteopathy degree doesn't mean he or she doesn't know his or her stuff.
In fact, the osteopaths are certified, by their education, to sit for the exact same licensure exams (the USMLE) as allopaths. Many of them take these (in addition to their own licensure exam called the COMLEX) and go into allopathic residencies alongside of M.D.'s They complete the same exact post-medical school training in many instances (and, this is the most important part of a training physician's education - this is where you learn your craft, supervised, and truly become a "doctor").
So, D.O.'s are, in essence, equivalently trained as M.D.'s, with a few EXTREMELY minor differences in the curriculum. However, one of the bigger differences is that they have to learn OMM - Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. This is where opinions start to diverge...
Now, most osteopaths, if not the vast majority, never intend to utilize OMM. They don't believe in it, they don't practice it, but it's part of the undergar med curriculum. However, there are practitioners out their who are militant, and I mean militant, about OMM and it's benefits. They use opportunities at lectures to slam allopathic medicine, and offer chiropractic-like glorifications of what are, in my mind, questionable practices.
The studies these OMM zealots due are prone to all of the same problems that chiropractic studies are (e.g., difficult to blind, Hawthorne effect, hard to construct sham controls, etc.), but the way you'd hear some of these guys talk you'd think they could have cured polio with OMM. I've witnessed it firsthand. And, it was all I could do one time to sit through a lecture and not say anything, especially when this one D.O. (older gentleman) basically said that the triptans were a waste of time and money for migraines - and that he personally cured dozens of migraineurs with OMM. FEH!
So, I would tell you this, in general: Most D.O.'s don't do OMM and find little practical value in it. There are D.O. surgeons now, D.O. anesthesiologists, etc. where OMM is just... well, it would be silly to attempt to incorporate it into a, for example, laproscopic cholecystectomy. However, there still exists a vocal minority who, in my opinion, are no better than chiropractors and they use any opportunity to publicly take cheap shots at allopaths. Now, a lot of this stems from a long history of allopaths rolling their eyes at them, but you get the drift.
Osteopathy and the D.O. degree is becoming more and more prevalent, the younger generation of doctors coming out now are basically not OMM zealots, and D.O.s can do pretty much everything a normal allopath can do. So, there's no reason not to see a D.O. and have utmost confidence that they will treat you fairly... unless they start telling you to come see them twice a week and to throw away your heart medicine!
If I have more time later, I'll talk about the why the AMA is turning a blind eye to the sudden explosion of D.O. schools in the U.S. and the huge influx of International Medical Graduates (including a record number entering residency this year), both truly foreign and Caribbean-trained, in the U.S. along with the impending physician shortage by the year 2020, reversing COGME's long-held opinion that there was a 'surplus' of doctors in the U.S.
This one goes very deep and it has huge tentacles. But, I've got to get to bed so I can get up early and keep cracking the books...
Wish me luck!
-TT
One last thing...
I just found this link, which I think is a sort of "apologetics" concerning Osteopathy granted. But it's still well-written, and he addresses many comments I made above.
http://medicalreporter.health.org/tmr032001/DrAbend1.html
In it he explains...
You can see why the quackdar tends to ping a little bit sometimes when you hear someone who's WAY into OMM start to go off...
-tt
I just found this link, which I think is a sort of "apologetics" concerning Osteopathy granted. But it's still well-written, and he addresses many comments I made above.
http://medicalreporter.health.org/tmr032001/DrAbend1.html
In it he explains...
You can see why the quackdar tends to ping a little bit sometimes when you hear someone who's WAY into OMM start to go off...
-tt
ThirdTwin said:Okay... hot-button topic here... I'll try to keep it short because I should be studying for my next licensure exam... T-minus 5 days and counting...
snip
This one goes very deep and it has huge tentacles. But, I've got to get to bed so I can get up early and keep cracking the books...
Wish me luck!
-TT
Good Luck! I don't envy you.
Although I have consider taking up pharmacology because there is a really big shortage of pharmacologist here.
As life can be cruel, I will probably never do it.
Yes - Best of luck for the exam TT.
My experience of chiropractice in the UK is further along the "respectability spectrum" towards the evidence-based-treatment end, than appears to be the norm in the USA.
I have talked with several physiotherapists and doctors in the UK who view Chiro as respectable, for certain spinal conditions and broadly comparable to Osteopathy. I've had chiro treatment myself for a back problem, which has been effective in removing chronic pain and stiffness which anti-inflammatories did not help.
I may have been fortunate in my practitioner. Not a shade of woowooism about the man. No fluxions, no mystic chi. I see nothing intrinsically wierd in the idea that spinal manipulation may help musculo-skeletal problems. I do not expect it to cure dandruff, flat feet or piles.
I suggest anyone trying alt med thinks carefully about what they want and expect from it, that they make sure the treatment appears appropriate, that it is safe and hygenic and SENSIBLE and then observe any result. Also, let us know afterwards.
The same applies to seeing an MD and following his advice. Think first. Observe after.
My experience of chiropractice in the UK is further along the "respectability spectrum" towards the evidence-based-treatment end, than appears to be the norm in the USA.
I have talked with several physiotherapists and doctors in the UK who view Chiro as respectable, for certain spinal conditions and broadly comparable to Osteopathy. I've had chiro treatment myself for a back problem, which has been effective in removing chronic pain and stiffness which anti-inflammatories did not help.
I may have been fortunate in my practitioner. Not a shade of woowooism about the man. No fluxions, no mystic chi. I see nothing intrinsically wierd in the idea that spinal manipulation may help musculo-skeletal problems. I do not expect it to cure dandruff, flat feet or piles.
I suggest anyone trying alt med thinks carefully about what they want and expect from it, that they make sure the treatment appears appropriate, that it is safe and hygenic and SENSIBLE and then observe any result. Also, let us know afterwards.
The same applies to seeing an MD and following his advice. Think first. Observe after.
Re: Re: Difference in Doctors
Well, you are quite simply wrong about the term not existing in the UK. You might want to check with Mrs Angela Hales at the European School of Osteopathy, Boxley House,
The Street Boxley, Nr Maidstone, Kent ME14 3DZ, England, Tel: +44 (0)1622, or perhaps the British School of Osteopathy.
http://www.ohwi.org/bso/grafix/bsoclass35.JPG
I await my beej.
geni said:
Well, you are quite simply wrong about the term not existing in the UK. You might want to check with Mrs Angela Hales at the European School of Osteopathy, Boxley House,
The Street Boxley, Nr Maidstone, Kent ME14 3DZ, England, Tel: +44 (0)1622, or perhaps the British School of Osteopathy.
http://www.ohwi.org/bso/grafix/bsoclass35.JPG
I await my beej.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Re: Re: Re: Difference in Doctors
Oseopathy exists in the uk of this I am aware. The qualifcation DO is not one I have run acoss Which is what I was resufing to. The site you linked to does not seem to claim it exists.
TeaBag420 said:
Oseopathy exists in the uk of this I am aware. The qualifcation DO is not one I have run acoss Which is what I was resufing to. The site you linked to does not seem to claim it exists.
In the UK the qualification DO used to exist up to the middle and latter part of the 1990's. DO in the UK stands for Diploma of Osteopathy and not Doctor. Once the Osteopaths Act came into being and required all Osteopaths to register with the General Osteopathic Council, they decided to make the training university based. Due to this, the DO qualification was phased out and no longer exists. Existing DO's were given the option of converting their qualification to a degree, but some opted not to so there are some Osteopaths around that are still a DO rather than a B.Ost. or a BSc Osteopathy. There are lots of institutions that now offer Osteopathic training and all these institutions either offer the B.Ost. degree or BSc (Hons) in Osteopathy. There is the European School, The BSO in London, The British College of Osteopathic Medicine, The College of Osteopaths and the London School of Osteopathy that all offer degrees in Osteopathy.
All practicing Osteopaths must be registered with the General Osteopathic Council or they cannot practice as Osteopaths or call themselves Osteopaths.
I hope that this helps to clear any confusion around the status of DO's in the UK?
All practicing Osteopaths must be registered with the General Osteopathic Council or they cannot practice as Osteopaths or call themselves Osteopaths.
I hope that this helps to clear any confusion around the status of DO's in the UK?
Here is the link. Look under the education and training section. There is a list of the training institutions and the qualifications offered.
www.osteopathy.org.uk
www.osteopathy.org.uk
davefoc
Philosopher
Sorry, not for me.
Before this thread my view of American Osteopathy was more or less consistent with TT's even if it was less detailed.
Based on previous threads on this I thought Osteopathy in the UK had not evolved into essentially standard medicine as it had in the US. Is this correct?
I don't understand at all what this UK legislation in the 1990's did with respect to Osteopathy. How is a B.Ost different from the older D.O.? What kind of training and what kinds of procedures can somebody do that has a B.Ost?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
The only degree level course offer in the uk in osteaopathy are listed in the following link.
http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hs...ordSearch.whereNext?query=492&word=OSTEOPATHY
It should be noted that none of the institution of uni's in the traditional sense and they all have their degrees validated by other instutions. The British College of Osteopathic Medicine for example has it's degrees validated by the uni of westminster which itself run courses on homeopathy.
http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hs...ordSearch.whereNext?query=492&word=OSTEOPATHY
It should be noted that none of the institution of uni's in the traditional sense and they all have their degrees validated by other instutions. The British College of Osteopathic Medicine for example has it's degrees validated by the uni of westminster which itself run courses on homeopathy.
davefoc,
In the UK, Osteopaths are not doctors in the same way that they are in the US. They do not have prescribing rights at all.
People who studied in the UK used to be awarded a Diploma of Osteopathy from the instution that they studied at. They would then practice osteopathy and call themselves osteopaths. However, at that time anyone in the UK could call themselves osteopaths, but without the training. The General Osteopathic Council was set up in the 1990's to regulate the profession, so that every practicing osteopath had to be registered to be able to call themselves osteopaths and to practice as such. This meant that the others that were untrained, could not call themselves osteopaths. It overseas the training of osteopaths and has made it degree based.
Osteopaths with degrees can do all the same things as the Diploma osteopaths can, but the training has been improved significantly. The Diploma qualification is no longer available and it is standard that all osteopathy students study for a minimum period of 4 years full time or 5 years part time in order to qualify.
The Osteopathy Act came into being around the same time as the Chiropractors Act, so that they must all be registered in order to practice.
Basically, in the US, Osteopaths are considered to be doctors in the same way as MD's are and have all the same rights as MD's do and DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathy. However, in the UK the old DO was a diploma and not a doctorate. Osteopaths in the UK are not doctors.
In the UK, Osteopaths are not doctors in the same way that they are in the US. They do not have prescribing rights at all.
People who studied in the UK used to be awarded a Diploma of Osteopathy from the instution that they studied at. They would then practice osteopathy and call themselves osteopaths. However, at that time anyone in the UK could call themselves osteopaths, but without the training. The General Osteopathic Council was set up in the 1990's to regulate the profession, so that every practicing osteopath had to be registered to be able to call themselves osteopaths and to practice as such. This meant that the others that were untrained, could not call themselves osteopaths. It overseas the training of osteopaths and has made it degree based.
Osteopaths with degrees can do all the same things as the Diploma osteopaths can, but the training has been improved significantly. The Diploma qualification is no longer available and it is standard that all osteopathy students study for a minimum period of 4 years full time or 5 years part time in order to qualify.
The Osteopathy Act came into being around the same time as the Chiropractors Act, so that they must all be registered in order to practice.
Basically, in the US, Osteopaths are considered to be doctors in the same way as MD's are and have all the same rights as MD's do and DO stands for Doctor of Osteopathy. However, in the UK the old DO was a diploma and not a doctorate. Osteopaths in the UK are not doctors.