Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.61.190.59 (talk) at 07:59, 15 January 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Importance

This is an unimportant article in medicine, so I'm changing the rating to reflect that. Also, this article does not explain what it considers to be "allopathic and osteopathic medicine". It seems that it's actually contrasting the educational systems and the beliefs of people at osteopathic and allopathic schools, not the actual practice of medicine itself. Antelan talk 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an very important article. Commonly misunderstood topic with many misconceptions OsteopathicFreak T  ? 06:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I validate that this is important to you, but there are actually guidelines for this type of thing. This isn't internationally important - only important in one country. Also, I have placed the dubious tag on one of your statements, for reasons that I have elaborated on in the Allo talk page. Antelan talk 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in relation to medicine this is very unimportant and this page also reads like it was written by Osteopathy public relations staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.184.152 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Re this move and revert: Adam Cuerden's edit summary needs taking seriously. As mentioned in the Allopathic medicine article, the term "allopathic" is controversial and even pejorative to many, and its use without bearing this in mind is not serving WP:NPOV. Same goes for History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, etc. There are a number of possibilities - see Allopathic medicine#Usage controversy, critiques of modern medicine that could convey the meaning in a way that would appear neutral to all readers. Gordonofcartoon 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. The main issue is that all of the sources for this article use the term "allopathic" and "osteopathic" in their comparisons, see Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine#References. Though there are many problems with both terms, these are the terms the sources use. The allopathic usage controversy is discussed on the allopathic and allopathic medicine pages. Here are some sources that show the non-pejorative usage of allopathic is common. Though significant, the view that the term is pejorative is a minority view, and this is appropriately discussed on the the allopathic and allopathic medicine page.User:Hopping T 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here are some references listed above

American Medical Student Association: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

American Medical Association: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

New England Journal of Medicine: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [23] [24] [25]

Johns Hopkins: [26] [27]

Harvard Medical School: [28]

UCSF: [29] [30]

Cleveland Clinic: [31]

Columbia Med: [32] [33]

Yale Med: [34]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [35] [36] [37]

Others: [38] [39]Donaldal 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

  • M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians.[40] U.S Department of Labor
  • Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. [41] American Medical Assoc
  • Allopathic Physician (MD) [42] University of Illinois
  • The projected supply of allopathic physicians, 1997 to 2020. After a period of rapid growth, the MD population in the US is entering a period of relative stability. [43] National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
  • Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine [44] Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
  • To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada [45] State of Nevada, Board of Medical Examiners.
  • A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine [46] University of New Hampshire
  • Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative [47] Rhode Island Dept of Health
  • The most common is the M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) degree, offered by the nation's 125 allopathic medical schools . . . prescribing drugs and performing surgery, used by allopathic physicians (M.D.'s). [48] Xavier University, Louisiana
  • How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? [49] Wittenburg University
  • M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. [50] Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
  • University of Missouri, St. Louis [51]
  • Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc[52]
  • A medical doctor (allopathic physician) (M.D.) and a doctor of osteopathic medicine( D.O.) generally have the same educational background and length of study. [53] North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
  • Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc [54] PMID 16717364

User:Hopping T 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that there is a modern pejorative use with long historical roots (originally it was only pejorative....;-), and there is a modern usage which is not pejorative. The difference lies in whether the user is aware of or a participant in the conflicts between allopathic and non-allopathic forms of medicine. Those who are involved in alternative medicine are often aware of the difference and are actively involved in competition, and their use is often pejorative, as is evidenced in probably a majority of usages on alternative medicine websites. Here they are competitively and pejoratively making sure they are perceived as better than those terrible allopaths.
Non-pejorative usage is seen in sources that are not aware of, or do not participate in, this competition. If they are aware, then they are taking a non-committal approach, IOW giving equal time to both sides. Since much of my reading is of alternative literature and websites, I'm very conscious of this constant and not very subtle pejorative use as a competitive tool. For them their very existence is one big turf war. Those who seek cooperation and reconciliation know that such use is very counterproductive and they avoid it. They seek to build bridges, they admit past mistakes, and they are quick to agree with the legitimate criticisms of errors and quackeries in their own ranks. They are then accepted as allies and are successful in building bridges and making future cooperation possible. Those who continue to use the pejorative form and who - when confronted with charges of unscientific practices in their midst - circle their wagons and adopt a defensive position, are perceived as competitive, unscientific, and non-cooperative. Their actions counteract all the work of their colleagues who are seeking cooperation. -- Fyslee / talk 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although your analysis is compelling, I am uncertain how it informs the process here. Where in this paradigm of turf wars fall the neutral sources which the article heavily cites?
My concern is that without the term, it would be difficult to discuss this article's topic: a technical comparison of the two branches of the "mainstream", "orthodox" American medical profession.User:Hopping T 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are just some of my thoughts for this talk page. I understand what you mean and I'm not trying to block coverage or use of the term. I would consider the sources you mention above as sources that are either ignorant of the history of the term, or that consider the issue to be archaic, or that are ignorant of the very common and current pejorative usage in alterntive medical circles, or that are being politically correct (IOW non-committal), or "all of the above." Besides, when speaking to ordinary people it isn't always necessary or wise to make an issue of something that for the common person is a non-issue. Sometimes persistent usage of a negative term in a neutral manner can with time defuse it, but as long as so many prominent persons in alternative medicine continue to use it in their attacks, that isn't likely to happen soon. What that does show is that many official medical and government sources are refusing to engage in the controversy, while so-called "alternative" medical sources are actively engaged in a dirty turf war. This trend will not change, but will likely get worse in proportion to the degree of resistance medical science manifests in response to preposterous claims, and also medical science's persistent demands for evidence which is not forthcoming from the types of alternative medicine that cannot create a good evidence base. Those forms of CAM (95%?) will continue to actively continue the turf war using name calling and pejoratives, and medical science will continue to label such practices with legitimate pejorative terms like "quackery" and "health fraud", IMHO...;-) End of rant. Let's move on. -- Fyslee / talk 06:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think I see where you are coming from.User:Hopping T 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homoeopathic, Naturopathic and Allopathic Osteopaths

Much of the effort that has gone into the osteopathic pages seems to be aimed at showing that American doctors of osteopathy (or osteopathic medicine) are virtually the same as American doctors of medicine, despite their origins in a school of thought that rejected much of what regular physicians did and believed in. In the UK, the first osteopathic school (the British School of Osteopathy) was founded and run by an American homeopathic graduate. Subsequent schools (e.g. the British College of Osteopaths) taught naturopathy alongside osteopathy. There is (or was) also a London College of Osteopathy, later the London College of Osteopathic Medicine, which provided courses for registered medical practitioners. Can one then distinguish between homoeopathic osteopaths, naturopathic osteopaths (possibly the majority outside the USA) and allopathic osteopaths, and include modern American D.O.s among the allopathic osteopaths? NRPanikker 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is an extremely important one. One issue, D.O.s in the U.S. are officially no longer called osteopaths - this is an attempt by AOA to address this confusion. The D.O. degree in the U.S. is no longer "Doctor of osteopathy" but "Doctor of osteopathic medicine." Likewise the practitioners are called "osteopathic physicians" to distinguish them from their European counterparts, "osteopaths." IMO, this is all very silly, but the whole thing is confusing as hell. This is discussed in a few places:

IMO, there is almost no relationship between the training of American D.O.s & European/Canadian D.O.s, they have diverged so much that they seem to only share the name and the history. If we could get some sources together that discuss this more precisely and make these comparisons directly, I think that would be great. User:Hopping T 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are good reasons to use "M.D." and "D.O." when you are referring to these groups, and not "allopathic" and "osteopathic", which are ambiguous terms. Antelan talk 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they both have their problems, in some situations saying M.D. and D.O. can be more ambiguous, especially since sometimes U.S.-D.O.s are labeled (incorrectly) as M.D.s. (here) User:Hopping T 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they had labeled the D.O. as a D.O., there would have been no problem. There's no ambiguity - just error. Antelan talk 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it was an error. People commonly associate the post-nominal letters "MD" with physician. The title is a vernacular way of saying "Hero, physician." Let's face it, if they had said "Hero, DO" it just wouldn't have the same instant recognition impact. I think they got their point across perfectly. [59] User:Hopping T 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's still no ambiguity - just a lack of recognition leading to a decision to make an intentionally incorrect label. Antelan talk 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's show business! (or in this case, infotainment). NRPanikker 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title is inaccurate; should be renamed

Among other problems with the title of this article, the most obvious is that it inaccurately lumps all non-DO physicians, including foreign-trained physicians practicing in the United States. Instead of renaming this to "comparison of DOs with MDs, MBBSs, and MBChBs," this could be simplified as "Unique features of osteopathic culture" or something thereabouts. Antelantalk 05:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, although the obvious thing to do with that concept is to merge it all back into Osteopathic medicine in the United States (which links to this article no less than three times for "further information"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, your idea makes even more sense. I'd support it. Antelantalk 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you do, please try to find a sustainable solution. Osteopathic medicine in the United States already has 60 KB, and it's natural and normal for an article of that size to have subarticles. User:Hopping, who is currently not able to participate in this discussion, will no doubt disagree with the merger, and I am not sure it won't be mainly for advocacy reasons. But it would also be wrong to merge the articles for the opposite advocacy reasons. By the way, I could find only two links "for further information". There is another link from the infobox "Osteopathic medicine in the United States", but I don't think that should be counted. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewpoint, the name of this article is not that critical, as long as we don't use allopathy to describe physicians. I wonder if this article should be deleted anyways. It's an odd POV fork. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit unfair to call it a POV fork. I am sure for DOs it's an extremely important topic, even though for almost everybody else it seems completely irrelevant. But Wikipedia has room for such specialised articles. One thing I just noticed is that there is also a (slightly underdeveloped) article Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. In a sense that's almost the same topic, because minorities generally define themselves foremost by comparison with the majority. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some stable change must be made. Based on (1) the fact that Hopping created this article, and (2) his prior behavior towards me, whatever we do here will likely be resisted by Hopping when he returns. Because of that, and in an effort to make stable changes, this process will need to involve as many as possible. I agree with both OM and Hans Adler - that this has a D.O. advocacy slant, while at the same time being an important topic to DOs. I do think that some sort of merger would make sense, and I'll look into the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine option more closely. Since the MD is the "conventional" degree, it does make sense that the D of OM article could be the right place for all of this "comparison" information, anyway. Antelantalk 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Hans, the three that I found were not inside infoboxes. They are in these sections:

==Demographics== {{further|[[Comparison_of_osteopathic_and_allopathic_medicine#Demographics|Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic demographics]]}}{{-}}

===Significance=== {{further|[[Comparison_of_osteopathic_and_allopathic_medicine#Cultural_differences|Allopathic & osteopathic: Cultural differences]]}}

==Current Status== === Education and training === ====Graduate Medical Education==== {{further|[[Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine]]}} Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sorry. I didn't see the one called "cultural differences". --Hans Adler (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If people feel strongly that the "further info" link should be removed, I have no problem with that. However, I do feel that the "Osteo med in the US" article is already quite large, adding more content comparing DOs and MDs seems inappropriate. Bryan Hopping T 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this were interesting sources for additional (if somewhat tangential) information about this article. Perhaps a section on the legal aspects of this topic would be appropriate? Law is very outside of my area of expertise.

Bryan Hopping T 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.D., D.O. and dermatology

Interesting source, discusses many of the issues touched upon in this article.

"Although the training of osteopathic (D.O.) dermatologists and their allopathic (M.D.) counterparts differs somewhat, these paths are converging — to the point that both are equally rigorous, many sources say.And, while pockets of resistance remain, acceptance of D.O. dermatologists in the M.D. community is increasing, some say. "D.O. dermatology training is much better now than it's been in the past," says David M. Pariser, M.D., American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) president-elect. "Some allopathic dermatologists may not realize the improvements that have been made in D.O. dermatology programs, though there's still more work to do for some programs.""

Bryan Hopping T 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already posted this elsewhere. Antelantalk 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allopathic

As discussed on other pages, this page vastly overuses the term allopathic. It uses the term in a fashion only understood by a minority, even within the US medical community. The term is understood by C/AM practitioners (such as homoeopaths) to include American osteopathic DOs! It is also insulting and incorrect terminology. I think this term should be used where appropriate, but nearly every use in this page can be replaced by a more accurate term that will avoid any confusion and ambiguity. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify where those appropriate usages are? I think the issue is that people disagree on where its usage is appropriate. Some feel it can be used freely, some feel it should only be used in pages about homeopathy, some feel it should only be used when quoting a reliable source, and some feel it should never be used. If we establish some sort of guideline regarding its usage, we might be able to improve the situation. Bryan Hopping T 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a comment, I'm not taking any position. "Allo-" means "other", "alternate", but in the context of Allopathic it means "opposing" "disease". So an allopathic doctor fights the symptoms of the disease--and this is considered the wrong thing to do by homeopaths. I'm not comfortable with any of the other possible names, but maybe use "M.D." in more places in the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are exactly right about what an "allopathic doctor" would do - however, today's physicians are not "allopathic doctors", as they do not aim to fight the symptoms of a disease. To alleviate a septic patient'sfever, you need not cool the patient - you need to kill the bacteria in their bloodstream with antibiotics. This is an example of how modern evidence-based medicine is not based on the allopathic principle, making the term particularly inapt to describe physicians of the 21st Century. Antelantalk 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Allopath" considered pejorative

There are many sources for this, from the coining of the term by Hahnemann, right to the modern day. The fact that this term is considered pejorative by many is not in question, and is included on the entries for "allopathic medicine" and "homeopathy and allopathy", and in the "wiktionary" entry for allopath too. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal to authority is faulty. It is clearly historically a pejorative, there is no debate about that. While some, in the US, use it in this new way it is by no means all and current sources still show that it is considered pejorative now. If the term allopath appears in the lead stating that it is used to distinguish MDs from DOs, then we need to note that this usage is in the minority (CAM users, intending the pejorative meaning, vastly outnumber DOs) and that it can be considered insulting - otherwise people might accidentally insult their MDs. It is this new use of the term allopath that fails UNDUE and WEIGHT. My view is either we remove the term allopath from the lead (and the explanation), or the usage notes have to stay due to the possibility of incorrect use and so that the tone is neutral and correct. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an MD or DO, so humor me; why is the term allopathic insulting? What is a CAM user? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A CAM user is someone who uses complementary/alternative medicine. - The term "allopath" is considered insulting by many physicians, presumably because they learn the attitude from their professors at university. It goes back to Hahnemann who accused "allopaths" of killing their patients (which wasn't too wrong at the time), and who, with his ideological approach to medicine, managed to be surprisingly effective. (Much of this was probably due to not weakening patients, perfectioning the placebo effect, and hyiene.) Being ridiculed by a successful obvious quack isn't so nice. Etymologically, "allopathy" is supposed to mean treating a patient with medicine that has nothing to do with the disease; that's something physicians in Hahnemann's time actually did (although not exclusively and not because there was no obvious connection). By bleeding people or making them vomit, e.g., they tried to treat diseases that are in no obvious relation to these operations. Therefore calling a modern physician an "allopath" is etymologically about as wrong as calling a modern postman a horse flayer. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then why does the AMA regularly use the term to describe themselves? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I described the etymology. It's normal for words to shift in meaning, and pejorative words can of course become neutral. But that's a gradual process, and while it's happening (sometimes a very long period of time) exactly the kind of friction that we are seeing here occurs. Some ("conservative") people insist on the "correct", "universally accepted" meaning, while other ("progressive") people insist on the "correct", "universally accepted" meaning. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: The point is that it's a perfectly good, harmless, word for many, and it's also clearly pejorative for many. People in one of the two groups often don't accept the position of the other group as reasonable (or even just sincere). --Hans Adler (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)So it depends on who is saying it, rather like the N-word, as to whether or not it is perjorative? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The N-word is a good example for the general principle that these things move, but I think in this case it doesn't depend on who is saying it but much more on the context. (Actually that could be true for the N-word as well.) If you use the word in a clear M.D. vs. D.O. context, then people know you can't possibly mean the original pejorative sense. Therefore the "conservatives", rather than feeling insulted, will complain about abuse of language. It gets problematic in contexts where the word isn't (yet) often used in this sense. The battle between "conservatives" and "progressives" happens in the boundary area. This article is somewhat special: Normally I suppose the word should be safe here due to the topic, but we are actually influencing the way people use this word! --Hans Adler (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are we influencing them here? Has this article been cited? It looks like pageviews are up, but still it is not that many. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall that the pageview tool doesn't show you "outside hits", but just total hits. Since "allopathic medicine" is now wikilinked from so many articles on Wikipedia, and since the term is so uncommon that few lay readers will be familiar with it, it is not surprising that more people are now clicking through to this page. Antelantalk 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←One of the reasons that MD's consider the term pejorative is that it is destructive to medicine. There is an implication in the word that MD's do not utilize everything to treat a patient, or that MD's have an inherent bias against medicine that is not sold to them by Big Pharma. My problem with using "allopathic medicine" is that there is medicine and there is...nothing. Medicine implies that it has been scientifically tested and rigorously analyzed for safety and efficacy. Non-medicine means it hasn't. Maybe sitting under a crystal pyramid will cure you of erectile dysfunction, but there's no science to prove that. Medicine is just medicine. Everything else is unproven. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I'm not sure that that meaning has swamped the others. The AMA and its JAMA uses the word regularly without apparent concern. Long ago, I was told that the "allo" means "opposed", in the sense that MDs would, for example, try to lower a fever rather than leave it elevated. Has any MD organization put out a white paper on the use of the term? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to get me started on the AMA and JAMA. Political correctness sucks. But I agree on your train of thought. Maybe we should find articles that discuss the conflict in using the term in the US (which seems to be the only place where this matters?). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, I just don't know where to look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those organizations rarely/never use the term "allopathic". They do not prevent authors from using the term in letters, news updates, original research, etc. At the same time, they (being "the organizations") rarely ever use the term in official documents. No big deal, but I just wanted to disentangle the research that the organizations publish from their official documents. Antelantalk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. I was hoping I didn't have to cancel my JAMA subscription.  :) It comes down to a few medical schools use the term in literature, but not on the official name of it, and the federal government, run by bureaucrats who have political expediency at the top of their brain. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AMA does use the term in some policies, usually while talking about osteopathic training. [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. They use it in a number of resolutions e.g. [69], again in the context of medical students and medical training. A very official-looking guidebook for Graduate Medical Education uses the term to describe the discipline. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the thousands of AMA resolutions in existence, you have literally listed all 5 using the term "allopathic" (search allopathic to see).Antelantalk 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those are the ones that must distinguish between MDs and DOs. I'm attempting to find the position of the 266,325 members of the AMA. For example, policy D-615.996, AMA-MSS Membership Qualifications, says, "Our AMA bylaws be updated to reflect that active membership in the AMA-MSS is contingent upon enrollment at either a Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited allopathic or American Osteopathic Association accredited osteopathic medical school in the United States or its protectorates. (Res. 8, I-98)". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 34 references to "osteopathic" if you search for that term alone. Thus, 6/7 of the time, the AMA distinguishes between MD and DO without the term "allopathic". Antelantalk 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but there are 135 uses of allopathic on the AMA site. Anyway, the AMA uses "students in Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited medical schools" to mean MD students, and "graduates of Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited medical schools" to mean MDs, a lot. They also say "MD-granting schools". I'm sure these terms will be useful replacements for allopathic. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines

What I'm gathering is the the AMA and AOA are moving towards an eventual complete merger. The AMA uses the term "allopathic" sparingly, usually when distiguishing between their medical schools and osteopathic medical schools and the students therein. Importantly, once graduates of either system has been licenced, they are all "physicians", and equal in the eyes of the AMA. Then the AMA can avoid using either term in all subsequent policies. The AOA, which should be inclined to avoid antagonizing their MD friends, uses "allopathic" freely (although not willy-nilly) on their "what is a DO?" webpage, and here, Choosing a Physician, and elsewhere. Anyway, the Wikipedia article Homeopathy and allopathy, which I swear I did not know existed until just now, has got it well spelled out; living MDs pretty much don't care. The two sources that have been provided on that page don't say MDs dislike the term; one says they say that they used to dislike it, and the other represents the opinion of one person, Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD, about the term. He says, "There is no such thing as "allopathic" medicine, a pejorative term coined by the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. Those who use it to describe modern medicine only betray their ignorance. Ironically, one place in North America that still gives a favorable nod to what Hahnemann meant by "allopathic medicine" -- the prescientific, highly toxic practices of bloodletting, purging, scalding, etc., based on the "four humours" -- is [the naturopathic] Bastyr University." It strikes me that this statement, in the context of a dispute with naturopaths, should not be given too much weight. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought that you've put into this. A very quick way to get caught up on this discussion (which happened almost identically with Hopping earlier this year) is to take a look at the WP Project Medicine talk page archives. All of these points, and even these sources, have been discussed already. That said, I don't mind offering a reply to your thoughtful post. You say that living MDs don't care, but it seems pretty clear to me that living MDs do care about being labeled "allopathic" based on the displeased responses of the MDs who edit these articles. Clearly, none are bothered with the label "MD" or simply "physician", either of which could always be used instead of "allopathic" without engendering any ill will. This is of course original research, so let me move on to points that I can address directly. You alluded to two or possibly three sources discussing MDs' opinions regarding the term "allopathic": one source opposes the term allopathic, and the other 1 or 2 do not appear to oppose it. Each is written by just one person. Atwood (opposed to the term "allopathic") takes ownership of his opinions and states clearly that he dislikes the term allopathic. Norma Cuellar states that the term has been brought back into use by CAM without significant protest by mainstream physicians; nowhere is it stated that MDs don't oppose the term, just that they don't protest it (and it could simply mean that they don't know or don't care what CAM practitioners say). The final author, James Whorton, likewise writes "the opinion of one person" (himself), and asserts (without any evidence) that "many MDs today accept the designation [allopathic] uncomplainingly". However, he also refers to MDs as "regulars" and other practitioners as "irregulars". Surely, some osteopaths would take offense if we started referring to them as "irregulars", just as some MDs take offense at being referred to as "allopathic". Antelantalk 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the entry will be changed from 'harmless' to 'mostly harmless'? As I said above, the article should use MD wherever possible, (and here I'll add; say allopathic once). Could we put the first use of the term allopathic lower than the lead, and pipe it to the Homeopathy and allopathy article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as a good compromise, but what do you think of piping to allopathic medicine for the following reason: I recognize that this is a disambiguation page, but it is a disambiguation page that gives a very succinct explanation of this very uncommon term for the (probably confused) reader, and then offers links to articles such as Homeopathy and allopathy below. What do you think of that? Antelantalk 07:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that page says allopathy is the "opposite" of those other kinds of "medicine". That's like saying a cow is the opposite of a horsefly. My idea is to remove all the festering negativity between homeo/naturo/alternopathy and MDs (and DOs too) from this article, which should be confined to its topic; a comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Users of this page are most likely undergrads who want to know about the difference between the two paths. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's why I don't exactly think that a link to Homeopathy and allopathy is best here, since the target audience probably isn't interested in that. Not sure though. Antelantalk 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of imagined the piping would be "historically pejorative" or similar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's not just historically pejorative. DOs don't intend it pejoratively, but other groups still do. Antelantalk 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fringe view, so should not be given weight even in the piping. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't follow - what is a fringe view? Antelantalk 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These folks who sell the notion that crystals heal disease, or that diluting a chemical down to one molecule per trillion, they try to set themselves up as opposed to scientific medicine, in order to emphasize themselves, to make themselves the equals of real doctors. This false equality is the fringe view that should not be given undue weight. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I wasn't sure which view you were saying was fringe - that which you described, or the view that "allopathic" is pejorative. Antelantalk 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Can we get the scale on the demographics image changed so it isn't so vertical? I don't see any particular reason why the space between each Y-axis tick mark needs to be a full inch on my screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image even useful? It needs changing if it isn't just removed. ~~----SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the graph is vertical because the scale of the two graphs is so different. The MD students are in the 16,000 range, the DO students is in the 3-5,000 range. The graph compares the two, as per the articles title. Bryan Hopping T 16:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in the size of the two groups explains why there is a large space between the red line and the blue line. It does not explain why the scale of the Y-axis was set to "4,000 students = one inch" instead of "4,000 students = one centimeter." You could have the Y-axis be half as tall and it would still convey the same information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Hopping was absolutely right to correct that inappropriate use of MD: This is a reference, not text in the article, and the reference should be identified by the exact, verbatim title given by the authors, without editing it to reflect our preferred terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the term back to MD, in square brackets to show that it is a rephrasing of the quote. This is to follow consistent naming throughtout the article. In this case it really isn't a big deal, but allopathic is not a well understood term, especially in the way it's used by American DOs to the rest of the world. I intended my edit to improve and clarify, and I have no argument if you feel strongly the other way. --Verbal (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, in fact, feel quite strongly about this. I dislike the term allopathic and steadily oppose its inappropriate use. However, we must not change the title as given by the author. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If the author gives a title that I hard to understand, possibly as it uses obscure, insulting, or culturally sensitive terminology, we are certainly within our rights and wp policy to paraphrase or clarify. However, this is only a reference, and, although it's incongruous with the rest of the section (a reader might ask "why is there an article about allopathy in a section about MDs only"), it's very trivial. --Verbal (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WhatamIdoing in this instance. The title of a source is the title of the source. Changing authors or titles obscures the provenance of our information. I can imagine a few words that might be so offensive that we would avoid using sources whose titles employ the terms. I find the word "allopathic" offensive, but not to the degree that I would exclude a source on those grounds. Now, having said all of that, I am removing the extraneous information from that reference. Specifically, the title of the source itself does not actually contain the term "allopathic", and the table to which this information is sourced can easily be identified by its number (Table 16). Antelan 13:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to simply "Table 16" seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. I also feel strongly that we should not change titles. But, as Antelan correctly points out, the title of the article doesn't use the term. Next question: The "Princeton Review" source (which is no longer called "allopathic medicine" so should be changed) has this to say about professional advantages for MDs: "[P]rospective DOs should be prepared to be a part of the minority in the medical community. Because they comprise only a small percent of American doctors, osteopathic physicians must often explain—and sometimes defend—their educational background." I don't think the current wording reflects this source very well. Bryan Hopping T 20:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreed. I've changed the statement; something along these lines is truer to the source. Antelan 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas

Antelan (and others): I thought that there were a few countries that simply didn't accept a DO at all. Is that no longer true? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Hopping has a nice image of this, which is displayed in the international practice rights of DOs article: Image:DOworld.PNG Antelan 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One point to consider, in many countries, the requirements for both US-MDs and DOs are extensive, especially in industrialized nations. In many cases, regardless of one's degree, a physician license is granted based on completion of a series of exams (the local version of USMLE) and training requirements (residency). The details of these requirements are complex and vary widely by country; its difficult to summarize them in a few words, and difficult to "compare" a DO to MD succinctly. Bryan Hopping T 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional advantages for MD qualified physicians

The following is copied from my talk page, and we would like this discussion to continue here. -- Fyslee / talk 03:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I wanted to respond to your edit summary. "Please reserve such tags for highly controversial wordings, not for "the sky is blue" & "humans usually have two legs" types of obvious facts."

I wasn't tagging the statements as controversial. As I said in my edit summary, I noticed the citation given does not exist. Hence the "citation needed" tags.

Also, you seem to feel those statement as obvious as "the sky is blue." I don't think that applies in this case. The statements are questionable at best. You'd be hard pressed to find a source for them. Again, in US, DO and MD are legal equivalents. Bryan Hopping T 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan. ??? Those statements have been there for some time and I had always believed it was you who had written it! I guess I should have checked the edit history. Who did write it? My edit summary wasn't concerned with the existing citation's status (I don't know if it applies at all to the words at the end of the sentence), but that I didn't see any reason for citations for the two points where the tags were located. Do you really think anyone would really know so little about medical history as to challenge those two obvious statements? I guess if they do, they can challenge them. BTW, I'm not questioning the current legal status of the DO degree, or the fact that it is legally - and more and more so generally - considered equal to the MD degree. It just hasn't gotten there yet. When that finally happens in reality, then there will finally be no more justification for keeping the DO degree at all. It's very existence is living proof that there is a difference, and history shows that difference has been huge, but now is getting smaller. -- Fyslee / talk 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fyslee. I did write some of this paragraph, and overall I don't have a problem with it. It's really just these two sentences. "It gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, and, unlike the DO (Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine), the MD is universally recognized as a medical degree. When practicing overseas, the MD is far easier to negotiate with than is the DO.' " The first clause is misleading, as DOs certainly practice in all specialties. As far as the universal recognition part, I don't mind the idea, but its the weasel words that I have trouble with, i.e. "far" easier and "universally recognized". These are overly subjective, sweeping statements. I think this all should be discussed, but it needs to be sourced, and toned down a notch. Bryan Hopping T 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That makes sense. Here's the original:
  • MD qualification training is by far the most widely available and recognized type of medical training. It gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, and, unlike the DO (Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine), the MD is universally recognized as a medical degree. When practicing overseas, the MD is far easier to negotiate with than is the DO.
Here's an attempt to improve it:
  • MD qualification training is the most widely available and recognized type of medical training. Like the DO, it gives the option to practice in any of the medical specialties, but unlike the DO, the MD is internationally recognized as a medical degree. Thus, when practicing overseas, the MD is easier to negotiate with than is the DO, where the DO degree isn't always understood or recognized.
Does that deal with your concerns adequately? -- Fyslee / talk 05:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This is much better. I think saying that MD is "more widely available & recognized" would be better than "most widely available." I know other countries use degrees other than MD (MBBS, etc). Perhaps we could also refer people to the section of Osteopathic Medicine in the US that discusses Int'l practice rights of US-trained DOs? Since it already exists and is well-sourced.
Osteopathic medicine: International Practice Rights
-- Bryan Hopping T 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Before doing this, I think we should seek consensus by copying this to the article's talk page and getting more input. I'll do it now. -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd just like to point out that the article talk page might be a better place for this discussion, as then we can all get involved - I only found this by accident. Looks like a good discussion about improving the article, and that's good, so put it where we can all see :) I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, thanks. Verbal chat 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. Going to do it now. -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree w/ fyslee and bryan hopping and i will make the change suggested because the current wording seems to imply that DOs cannot practice in all specialties. thats just not true. Brendan19 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The term allopathic is NOT pejorative and the "site" for that is simply a comment made in a journal, not a true article, you CANNOT site an opinion as FACT. You must allow the removal of this statement. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States&oldid=264216947"