Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Now that the article on Doctor of Osteopathy and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine has been replaced by the article on International Practice Rights of U.S. Trained D.O.s (not a subject of quite the encyclopaedic or international value of the former) the talk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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] "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?

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)

[edit] 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?

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

[edit] 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)