Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Canada

The information regarding the Canadian osteopaths is on the "Osteopathy" page. This article is about US-trained osteopathic physicians.

French regulation

This is excellent information; however, it is not yet applicable to US-trained osteopathic physicians(which is what this article & the practice rights section is about). I have moved it to the "Osteopathy" page under the new subtitle France; it seems to make more sense there.DrATStill (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Now that the article on Doctor of Osteopathy and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine has been replaced by the article on International Practice Rights of U.S. Trained D.O.s (not a subject of quite the encyclopaedic or international value of the former) the talk page on the main subject needs to be reinstated, which is done below in respect of the name of the degree and the supposed qualifications of the inventor of osteopathy. NRPanikker (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes in meaning of D.O.

When was the D.O. changed to stand for "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine"? Acording to Kelman MacDonald (1925) in Osteopathy and its position in the British Isles, Still's American School of Osteopathy originally gave out a "Diploma in Osteopathy" and later awarded the degree of "Doctor of Osteopathy." NRPanikker 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very recent change. Post-1995. User:Hopping ^T 06:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Taylor Still M.D., D.O.

Charles Hill and H.A. Clegg state in What is Osteopathy (London: J M Dent 1937) , "Although Still was called 'doctor' he never took any qualifying degree. He apparently studied for a short time at the Kansas City School of Physicians and Surgeons, but, except for a reference to this in an article he contributed to the Ladies Home Journal in 1908, he remains silent about his medical education. His father probably taught him all he knew (...)" Most modern short accounts of osteopathy credit Still with an M.D., without stating where or when it was awarded, and a few also give him a D.O. Did he get one from his own college? NRPanikker 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good questions! I will try to look into this a bit too. Let me know if you find anything. The online osteopathic historical museum may have something about this. User:Hopping ^T 05:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the site you recommended. It states that Andrew Still was trained by apprenticeship, and attended some lectures later. There is no claim that he had an M.D. or a D.O.

The site also says that it is not known when Diplomates in Osteopathy became Doctors of Osteopathy. However, Still himself is quoted as saying it was necessary to become a diplomate before becoming a doctor of osteopathy. His college's charter from the state allowed it to grant MD degrees, but they chose to give diplomas in osteopathy instead. Perhaps that was sufficient authorisation to switch to a doctorate in osteopathy. NRPanikker 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a bit confusing. The "AT Still University" (the continuation of the school he founded) states very clearly that "he may have received additional, formal training at a school in Kansas City, but no records remain to establish where and when this training took place." [1] If anyone might inflate his credentials, it would be these guys, and they say flat out, "there's no record" of him having a medical degree at all. However, elsewhere, they do refer to him as "AT Still MD, DO." Which seems to be in conflict with their previous statement. [2]

I guess one way to handle this issue in the article would be to say "Although sources refer to ATS as an M.D., no formal record of his medical training exists."

He also has an autobiography. I'm not sure if he discusses his training in it.User:Hopping ^T 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

D.O. vs M.D.

After reading the article, I still don't think I could answer the question, "What's the difference between a DO and an MD?" I get that they're considered equivilant, at least in the US, but since there are two degrees, I expect there to be some difference.

Can anyone shed some light on the matter? — gogobera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.156.76 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article does nothing to explain it, it just seeks to somehow 'prove' that DOs are equal to MDs... seems like PR propaganda written by an Osteopath... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.184.152 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a "see also" at the end of the lead. Pointing anyone towards two articles which discuss some aspects of these questions. Bryan Hopping ^T 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This should just be deleted. Antelan ^talk 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to answer this question more clearly in the article. The degrees are basically equivelant except that D.O's receive additional training in manipulative medicine. I like to think of it as very similar to a M.D. who also had training in Physical Therapy. It just means that sometimes instead of using a medication to treat bone or muscle pain osteopaths can perscribe excersises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.notnurse (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MD's are doctors. US degreed DO's are chiropractors who actually know about medicine. Beware the DO who got his training in the British Commonwealth, because he did NOT go to medical school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.190 (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"US degreed DO's are chiropractors who actually know about medicine." Please refrain from misleading statements that do NOT contribute to the goal of clarification, although a DO may be a DC (reference "Doctor of Chiropractic") please reference the American Osteopathic Association website "http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspx" - "Approximately 60% of practicing osteopathic physicians practice in the primary care specialties of family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology." I am NOT a DO, I am a Celiac. Any research is better than none.

Why on the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine does it STATE that "In practical terms, the DO and the MD receive the same license, practice medicine in exactly the same ways, and share the same medical rights and privileges. Many DOs practice in primary care (family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN) or emergency medicine, but DOs can be found in every medical specialty, from psychiatry to neurosurgery.".

My area of concern is the Statement "practice medicine in exactly the same ways" when this talk page is intended to clarify the differences between the two AND the article itself states; "To obtain a license to practice medicine in the United States, medical students must pass one of two licensing boards at the conclusion of their medical training: USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Exam) or COMLEX (Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Exam). Those that have received or in the process of earning a MD or DO are both eligible to sit for the USMLE. Only holders of the DO are eligible to sit for the COMLEX.". If an MD is not eligible to take the COMLEX only a DO can, and yet both a DO and a MD can take the USMLE, why is there any discussion knocking the training and education of a DO. Yes, I am a Wiki Newbie, and would like a reference to tie the two articles. WIKI GODS! PLEASE HELP! my apologies for any inappropriate references or content, thus for the post here on talk pages and not on the wiki articles themselves.

One thing is clear - US DO's are not the same as non-US DO's, which adds to the confusion. 67.171.114.237 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Widely known"

"The existence of this distinction and of D.O.s as licensed physicians is not widely known."

I've got a couple of sources that mention issues related to public awareness. Perhaps we can take a look at these sources and generate more NPOV language?

• Gevitz N. Visible and recognized: osteopathic invisibility syndrome and the 2% solution. The DO. March 1997:23-4, 26-7. PMID 9107129
• Clark RC (2000). "Increased awareness of osteopathic medicine is essential to the profession's survival". J Am Osteopath Assoc. 100 (1): 6–8. PMID 10693310.
• Oths, Kathryn S. (2004). "Divergences in the evolution of Osteopathy". Healing by Hand: Manual Medicine and Bonesetting in Global Perspective. Rowman Altamira. pp. 67–68. ISBN 0759103933. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origmonth= and |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I want to improve this statement. But not start an edit war.Bryan Hopping ^T 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wisely spoken. Remmo (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Calls for a change from "DO" to "MD, DO." Include in article?

Some DOs are calling for a change in the osteopathic degree designation from "DO" to "MD, DO" or some other variant. Should this be included? Or is it too recent?

• Letter Perfect: Can a new degree lead to more respect, recognition for DOs? March 2008.
• Letters to the editor. April 2008.

Bryan Hopping ^T 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic

I have removed the two occurrences of this poorly defined and even less well understood word, that has emotional baggage and different meanings in different countries; and even amongst different professions in the same country (ie DOs, MDs, homeopaths in the US). In the UK and France (and to many in US) it is insulting, whilst the vast majority have no idea what it means. I have replaced with a synonym for the intended meaning which is well understood in all anglophone countries. yours --91.143.83.123 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Allopathic" seems to have been re-inserted. It is a derogatory label and not tone neutral. It should not be used without context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.23.18 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed references to allopathy again, as per both your comments 121.98.67.116 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

International practice rights

"Fact" tags have been added in the main article section headed "International practice rights", because the existing citations and links in the article do not provide the facts currently asserted. Also, it should be noted that for each country outside of the United States, the primary reliable source for national rights to practise osteopathy (in that country) is bound to be some institution of the country concerned. Correspondingly, a tabulation of these matters from a US source is likely to be reliable only insofar as it provides references to reliable data sources from the country or countries concerned.Terry0051 (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead confusing

Why if you are a physicians or surgeons would you want a DO? "is a four-year graduate-level academic degree offered to physicians and surgeons in the United States" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are D.O.'s and M.D.'s the only two Licensed Medical Physicians in the U.S.?

Are we forgetting : Podiatrist(DPM),Dentist(DMD,etc.),and Veterinarians (Journal of Chiropratic and Osteopathy al) This ref. states that five degrees in medicine are recognized as Medical Physicians?--Rumpul (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't consider them medical physicians is that they don't have an unrestricted license to practice medicine on humans. Unlike US osteopathic and allopathic physicians, a podiatrist is restricted to treating ailments of the foot. For example, you won't find a DPM or DMD doing open heart surgery like you will for MDs and DOs. Similarly, you won't find MDs and DOs treating animals.

Similarly, I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some physicians in the US working with an MBBS, however no university in the US offers an MBBS as the first professional degree, so they are all international medical graduates (IMG) or foreign medical graduate (FMG) (IMG= person studied in home country and then immigrated. FMG= US citizens who go abroad to study, such as in the Caribbean). JPINFV (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3