Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Osteopathic medicine in the United States has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 - Sept '07


Contents

[edit] New Editor

Hi! I see that someone is interested in editing this article, which is great! A few points:

  1. My Talk page might not be the best place to discuss your ideas about this article. It's preferred if you discuss articles on their Talk pages.
  2. You mentioned your concern that the "social movement" quote was repeated twice. I put it in the lead as a good summary statement of points elaborated on later in the article. (WP:LEAD)
  3. I agree with you quote about the convergence of allopathic and osteopathic medicine. I thought the Harrison's quote in the paragraph following your edit made their equality very clear. It essentially says exactly what you are saying. Do you disagree? Do you feel that the LEAD is misleading in some way?

Let's discuss this here, and work together to make the article better. Welcome aboard! PS, it would make editing easier if you had a Username, seeWP:UP. And always sign your comments with ~~~~. User:Hopping T 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

According to the text, The First School of Osteopathic Medicine by Georga Walter published in Kirksville, MO by Thomas Jefferson University Press 1992 p 53-54, A. T. Still changed the "Diplomate in Osteopathy" degree to "Doctor of Osteopathy" prior to 1898 to avoid persecution by M.D.s of the day. The American Osteopathic Assocation changed the degree to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" in the 1970s.

[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." [3] 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. [4]
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)
Found an article that tangentially relates to this topic, if only in its title.
User:Hopping T 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The author, and MD, spends most of his time wishing that the AOA would allow MDs to learn OMM, and then offhand mentions that Still was an MD. I'm more swayed by the comments in Ladies' Home Journal. It appears that Still was a practicing physician, just not a physician who received an MD. To put that in the article, or to modify the way we address him here, there would have to be a better source, of course. Antelan talk 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I said "Found an article that tangentially relates to this topic, if only in its title." Right? Just wanting to make it clear that I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.User:Hopping T 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I just assume that others who are reading this conversation might want a summary of the article so they don't have to read it for themselves. Antelan talk 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Zacharyso (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Prior to the civil war the vast majority of practicing physicians in the US did not attend medical school with a formal medical curriculum. They were trained primarily through apprenticeships. Given this, whether he was ever awarded an MD seems inconsequential. What's important is that he was a practicing physician.

Hi Zacharyoso! Do you have any sources for this info? Bryan Hopping T 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it from "The D.O.'s" by Norman Gevitz. I can cite the page number at a later date. I'm not at home right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America, Norman Gevitz, 2004 (2nd Edition), paperback, The Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-7834-9. Page 4:

"American medicine in the 1850s and 1860s was generally characterized by poorly trained practitioners employing harsh therapies to combat disease entities they understood insufficiently. Before the Civil War the great majority of physicians had never attended medical school; they either had been trained through the apprenticeship system or were engaging in practice without benefit of any formal background."

Gevitz cites William Norwood, Medical Education in the United States before the Civil War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944) and Martin Kaufman, American Medical Education: The Formative Years, 1765-1910 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic Cultural Cringe?

The main article tells us that the training of American D.O.s is "virtually identical" to that of American M.D.s, yet they are described as "osteopathic physicians" or even "osteopathic medical physicians" who practice "osteopathic medicine" but are nevertheless to be distinguished from the M.D.s, who are always labelled as "allopathic." The original name of "osteopath" is excised from the text. Is there an element of cultural cringe going on here, not to say self-hatred? NRPanikker (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a aside, I think there's major elements of both going on. More seriously, as it pertains to this article, I think you raise some important questions. The history of osteopathic medicine in the United States over the past 50 years is one of trying to establish this tenuous "separate, but equal" position within American medicine. No explanation is offered for this position, at least no rational one, but the rhetoric is passionate. At time, its difficult to find any agreement whatsoever as to even the definition of "osteopathic medicine," except that it is "separate, but equal" to allopathic medicine. There has been a great deal written on this tension, which many of the sources demonstrate.
As far as the word "osteopath" being excised from the text, you'll notice that it is actually used in a few of the quotes, so it hasn't been completely removed. However, the convention these days is to reserve the term "osteopathy" and "osteopath" for non-physicians practicing outside the U.S., and "osteopathic physician" and "osteopathic medicine" for physicians practicing within the U.S. If you have any suggestions on how to make this distinction clearer, I'd be very interested. The problem is, by all accounts, U.S. "osteopaths" have far more in common with U.S. "allopaths" than they do with European "osteopaths." I haven't found a very satisfying solution to this difficulty.
I'm curious, what do you think this article needs to make it better? Where is there too much, and where to little? What, if any, are the most significant POV issues? Other issues? User:Hopping T 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
These two article might be a good source for this question.

[edit] U.S. / Non-U.S.

I moved the content on osteopathy/osteopathic medicine in the U.K. to the osteopathy article. We've struggled with the international issue before, I'm following the general guidelines set out in these two discussion by various editors.

The "other uses" template above the article lead redirects readers to the osteopathy page. NRPanikker, if you find the current arrangement unsatisfying (understandably), we can revisit the issue of how to appropriately delineate the boundaries (or lack there of) for these articles.

There is a section for Osteopathy in the U.K. Osteopathy#Osteopathy_in_the_United_Kingdom User:Hopping T 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article on "Osteopathic Medicine" was meant for the eyes of Americans alone, it would have been appropriate to excise references to other countries: but the term is used in the titles of some colleges and the degrees awarded by them in the United Kingdom also, where there is clearly no distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. This is similar to many forms of alternative medicine. No distinction can be drawn between homoeopathy and homoeopathic medicine, or between ayurveda and ayurvedic medicine. The American situation is closer to that in India where practitioners ostensibly qualified in another system incorporate forms of investigation and treatment from modern medicine, in which they may or may not have also been trained. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved article to Osteopathic medicine (U.S.) Does that solve the problem? User:Hopping T 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's sort of a strange move, because there is no "osteopathic medicine" article. Perhaps at least a stub or a DAB should be created on "Osteopathic medicine" to avoid this confusion. Antelan talk 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RELATED, WP:HAT, & WP:DAB, I see a few different possible solutions.
  1. Keep the status quo & clarify the hatlinks.
  2. Redirect Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, which is an article about worldwide osteo, with a short section on U.S. osteo that links to the main Osteopathic medicine (U.S.).
  3. Redirect all forms (osteopathic medicine, osteopathy, D.O., etc.) to a disambig page, with links to each article.
User:Hopping T 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
At a minimum, this article should probably be titled "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." Since pretty much all of the links to "osteopathic medicine" are related to US-practiced osteopathic medicine, I'd suggest having "Osteopathic medicine" redirect here and put {{otheruses4|osteopathic medicine, as practiced by physicians in the United States|osteopathy practiced in other countries|Osteopathy}} or {{Redirect|Osteopathic medicine|osteopathy practiced outside of the United States|Osteopathy}} on the top of this page. If at some point there start to be links to "osteopathic medicine" that are about osteopathy in other countries, then Osteopathic medicine could become a disambig page or redirect directly to Osteopathy. --Scott Alter 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Both sound reasonable. A question first (since I don't know): Is osteopathy outside of the USA (with "non-medically-trained osteopaths") referred to as "osteopathic medicine" or is it simply referred to as "osteopathy"? If it is referred to as osteopathic medicine in some cases, I would prefer Hopping's suggestion, creating a DAB and (manually) updating the wikilinks that are clearly intended to point to the USA page directly here. If the rest of the world simply calls it "osteopathy", then I think that keeping the redirect from osteopathic medicine pointed here and just creating dablinks on this page is OK. Antelan talk 05:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The above point was clarified in the paragraph recently cut out of the "Osteopathic Medicine" article for being Un-American. The relevant details are reproduced below.

Outside the United States, "osteopathic medicine" may be a synonym for osteopathy, rather than meaning "medicine practiced by people with D.O.s." For example, in the United Kingdom, there are eight schools of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine running four or five year courses: two award Bachelor of Osteopathy degrees, another creates Bachelors of Osteopathic Medicine, two give Bachelor of Science degrees with honours in Osteopathic Medicine and five (some colleges have two courses) hand out B.Sc. (Hons) degrees in Osteopathy.[1] The old Diploma in Osteopathy (often awarded along with a Diploma in Naturopathy) was abandoned after osteopathic training became integrated into the British university system. Despite the difference in nomenclature, these degree courses all lead to statutory registration with the General Osteopathic Council and not the General Medical Council. The American sense of the term is approximated most closely by the London College of Osteopathic Medicine[2] which teaches osteopathy to medical graduates from all over the world. NRPanikker (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ General Osteopathic Council [1]
  2. ^ London College of Osteopathic Medicine [2]
In that case, I would support creating a true DAB page at osteopathic medicine, with a link to this page being one of the DABs, instead of redirecting that article here. Antelan talk 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncertain as to which way to proceed. I'm looking at other articles where there's similar country specific issues like Chinatown or Communist Party, to see how others have dealt with this. I can't seem to find a guideline that directly addresses these issues. I created a Template which might be helpful. Thoughts? User:Hopping T 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Osteopathy & Osteopathic medicine
Osteopathy in Australia
Osteopathy in Canada
Osteopathy in the European Union
Osteopathic medicine in the United Kingdom
Osteopathic medicine in the United States
This box: view • talk • edit

I doubt that a lay user is looking for info on all of the different types of osteopathic medicine. They probably just want to know about it as it pertains to them, where they are. Given the above, I don't think think another template is necessary. If a DAB feels too short, we could do something like what has been done for medical school - write an article that is essentially a list, but gives a bit more explanation than you see in a DAB (a paragraph instead of a sentence). Antelan talk 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Such an article seems to already exist. Osteopathy_around_the_world User:Hopping T 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's excellent. We could just split that from the osteopathy article and make that the "osteopathic medicine" article. Thoughts? I'll propose it on that page if we agree it's a good idea. Antelan talk 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems a very involved, and somewhat convoluted, way of getting across the simple point that American osteopaths mostly practice medicine and not osteopathy. NRPanikker (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NRPanikker, I agree with you, but the only reason we are suggesting all these changes is because you felt the current naming arrangement was ambiguous. What do you suggest be done? User:Hopping T 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than make out that "Osteopathic Medicine" is a distinct profession practiced only in the U.S., why not keep a single set of articles relating to "osteopathy," and make it clear that in the United States D.O.s are trained mostly in medicine and can practice that profession exclusively, but they are also trained in osteopathy and some work in that field to a greater or lesser extent? NRPanikker (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what we're doing. Antelan talk 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that's what we are trying to do. I'm not sure what the problem is, or what NRPanikker would prefer. It seem the current article Osteopathy makes the exact points that NRPanikker is suggesting. User:Hopping T 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So how about redirecting Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, maybe adding a little more osteopathic medicine content throughout the osteopathy article, and calling this article Osteopathic medicine in the United States? --Scott Alter 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


My personal preference would be for osteopathy and osteopathic medicine to point to a disambig page similiar to the following:

[edit] disambig candidate

Osteopathic medicine and osteopathy are sometimes used interchangeably. They may refer to:

I like this approach because its brief, and quickly points the reader where they want to go, which is very likely one of these two places. User:Hopping T 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean a page somewhat like this one: Osteopathy (disambiguation) ? apers0n (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at that! And its been there for quite a while. Perhaps we should just direct there with hatnotes, but leave the redirects as they are for now? Bryan Hopping T 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is certainly a very good article. It is well written, comphrehensive and nicely structured, (with which I was particularly impressed). There were some minor Wiki linking of years issues, (which I have fixed) and some even minor referencing ones, (which I fixed too). The article would benefit from making some of the headings intelligible, this one for example is not. 1969, AMA residencies open to DOs nor is this one, 1976-1987, Principle 3 and Wilk v. AMA. They make the article difficult to read, because I kept thinking I had missed something. They could read something like: House of Delegates approval , for example. Also, the article would benefit from some criticism of the practice; the neutrality is not clear. Having said that, I great contribution, well done. Something to be proud of.--GrahamColmTalk 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of images ?

I must admit, I find the rules governing use of images a bit baffling. I understand that for images of copyrighted logos, a fair use justification must be given for every page on which the image appears. Is it possible to add this page to the fair use explanations of the school logo pages, or is that stretching the fair use policy beyond reasonable? Bryan Hopping T 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyrighted logos is more restrictive than those actually in copyright law. I do think they can be too restrictive, but I just follow the rules. My understanding is that Wikipedia only permits copyrighted logos (and images) to appear on the article for which the logo represents, for identification purposes. Usually, non-free items are minimally used and only if their use adds to the understanding of the article. I don't think using schools' logos on this article would be fair use. A fair use rationale must include the purpose for including the item, and must answer yes to: "is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?" per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos if you have time for a long read that should clarify things. --Scott Alter 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the rule book. I'll look into other ways of generating legal images which may enhance the article.Bryan Hopping T 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links cleanup

The external links section should be cleaned up per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK. Given that the article is extremely well sourced, I think this section should only include links to articles that are reliable sources on the topic that not currently used and that contain information not already well-covered in the article or current references. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the external links section contains no links to articles, reliable or otherwise. Its mostly a listing of organizations/groups that are relevant with the topic "Osteopathic medicine in the US." If this is nonkosher within WP:EL then it should be removed, or limited to what's appropriate. Limiting it only to sources however, seems redundant to the references section. Bryan Hopping T 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"the external links section contains no links to articles, reliable or otherwise" Yes, that's the problem. So what I'm saying is it should be removed completely until more appropriate external links are found. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic medicine and primary care

This topic seems much discussed by current authors / papers regarding Osteopathic medicine and seems particularly noteworthy to the overall topic. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how to distill this discussion within this article. Here's some sources that discuss it:

Bryan Hopping T 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC closing notes

On closing the FAC, I wanted to mention something that wasn't highlighted by any of the reviewers; in addition to the issues raised, there is extensive WP:MOS cleanup needed throughout, so a peer review might be helpful before re-approaching FAC, or you might ping Epbr123 (talk · contribs) who is a good MoS reviewer. On peer review, see the suggestions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathy

Though I stated that I didn't mind reverting of my edit removing "allopathy" in the article, I am troubled by the tone of this edit. Please assume that I know that there are a few sources that use the term, and that I read those sources. However, many editors and most physicians find it pejorative and insulting. I find very few articles on Wikipedia that refer to "allopathic" physicians except for Alternative medicine articles. Every single other medical article refers to physicians as physicians, and by assumption, includes DO's if they are licensed to practice Medicine as they are in the United States. This article can stand on its two feet without utilizing a pejorative term. And yes, I've shot off a rather long and pointed email to the American Medical Association on how offensive I find it that they consider my hard-earned MD at one of the top Medical Schools in the country to be "allopathic." OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, Hopping. This uncommon and derogatory term was massively overused in this article, without note that some find it offensive. Even after the recent edits there are still over ten occurrences of this term on this page. --82.253.69.22 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to this Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States page. Do you want to register so we can keep track of your comments & edits for this article? That would be really helpful. Bryan Hopping T 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)