Osteopathy

Allopathy versus Osteopathy

A medical doctor with the initials M.D. is considered to be an allopathic practitioner. A doctor with the abbreviation D.O. is termed an alternative to this form of practice. Vying for the business of the discerning patient, both medical professionals seek to showcase their abilities in the best lights possible, but there are some distinct difference in the way they approach you, as the patient, and also the lab results they inevitably order. Does it matter to you?

* Physician resources report that in decades old rivalry between M.D.s and D.O.s the term allopathic soon came to describe the M.D. and did so in a less than favorable manner.
* Being allopathic is considered the exact opposite of being open minded with respect to complementary medical disciplines, including the kind of practices that are now termed alternative in nature.
* For patients looking for an innovative approach to their healthcare that pays special attention to them on a whole body level as opposed to only treating the noted ailments ñ an allopathic physician is most likely not what they have in mind. Patients who swear by the care received from a D.O. appreciate the close personal relationship that exists between them and their caregiver.
* Osteopathy is considered the hallmark of physicians who would choose to look past accepted medical practices and procedures and instead take in the patient as a whole who may warrant unorthodox or orthodox treatments, depending on the severity of symptoms, the patient’s outlook on life, the family life of the patient, and also the overall potential for success a certain kind of treatment is likely to have for the individual.
* At times mistaken for chiropractors, osteopathic professionals advocate the manipulation of the patient’s body in an effort to bring healing, alleviate symptoms, and also lead to an improved long prognosis for conditions which thus far have defied medical success.

Mark Twain once remarked on the battle between allopathic and osteopathic physician as one that rivaled the fight between light and darkness, and he suggested that asking an M.D. about a D.O. was like asking the devil about facts and figures relating to Christ and the faith He founded. Sure, today the battle lines are no longer drawn to this extent, but they history of the osteopathic movement strongly hints at the ruffled feathers that exist on both sides of the discussion.

Physicians considering a license as a D.O. versus a M.D. today still cite as the main reasons for their decision the fact that they prefer to treat their patients as individuals rather than localized problems with medical insurance billing codes. In addition to the foregoing, a D.O. considers the slavish reliance on lab reports without the intricate knowledge of the patient as a whole a mistaken use of available technology. Citing the many mistakes made during medical practice, they point out that the knowledge of the patient as a whole will prevent many of such medical errors from ever being made in the first place.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!