Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States

support

Full practice rights.

I have deleted the claim about full practice rights to perform medicine and surgery in 85 countries, as it is inaccurate and unsupported by an independent source. It is a substantial claim that MUST be supported by evidence. In addition, I have removed the claim that osteopaths have the right to full practice in the UK, because it is also incorrect. In the UK, Osteopaths cannot prescribe or perform surgery as a medically qualified Dr would.Vectronn (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, "osteopaths cannot prescribe or perform surgery." However, the article makes clear, repeatedly, that it is talking about US-trained Osteopathic physicians, and not Osteopaths (such as a UK-trained Osteopath). The title of the article is "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." It is rare, but US-educated and trained osteopathic physicians have moved to UK and been granted a license to practice medicine in UK. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposing new title for this article.

Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are two different things regardless of countries. The first is alternative medicine. The second is the wholistic practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. When a layperson tries to find out who a DO is, they almost immediately search for osteopathy. The Wiki page on osteopathy says _ Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones._ Yes, I agree. But the problem is osteopathy is **not** osteopathic medicine. There truly isn’t any DO who gets a degree saying “Doctor of Osteopathy;” the degree is called “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” Degrees of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different. And this will be held true even if you are in Romania or Latvia. By saying that Osteopathic medicine is different from country to country basis is completely false. Osteopaths are osteopaths. DOs are DOs. First kind learns osteopathy, while second one learns osteopathic medicine.

The Canadian Wiki page is also redundant. It basically says USDOs can practice there unlimitedly; we all know that from the DO degree page.

Proposing:

1. There should only be one Wiki page on _Osteopathy_ and only one page on _Osteopathic Medicine_ without the inclusion of country titles (e.g. in the United States or Canada).

2. Take the _in the United States_ part off of _Osteopathic medicine in the United States_ page.

3. The _Osteopathy_ page should have a hat note saying _Osteopathy is not equivalent to Osteopathic Medicine_ with a hyperlink to the _Osteopathic Medicine_ (this) page.

4. Take the _Osteopathic medicine in Canada_ page off Wikipedia, since it’s redundant and gives a notion that osteopathic medicine is different by country. No. Osteopathic medicine is a discipline. Osteopathy is another discipline. Osteopathic medicine is only taught in the United States by medical schools and can be practiced anywhere as physicians and surgeons. Osteopathy is taught in many countries by non-medical schools to non-medical practitioners. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Many of the things you say are why we have two articles. It wasn't always so. Do you know of any other nation than the United States where osteopaths are licensed medical doctors of the scientific kind? I don't know of any. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If we make a change, I'd suggest this one become Osteopathic medicine and the other become Osteopathy (alternative medicine). That way the "alternative" is very plain. Does that make sense to you? Then we make Osteopath a disambiguation page that briefly explains the difference between an alt med osteopath and a D.O.. -- Valjean (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Right. This is exactly what I am suggesting. DO is not an osteopath; an osteopath is an osteopath, a DO is a DO. This is the division we should acquire. Osteopathy should pertain to non-medical osteopaths; osteopathic medicine (this page) should pertain to US trained DOs. There are no osteopathic medical schools outside of the USA. The Licensure Summary in DO degree page shows that USDOs have been licensed as medical doctors in numerous countries. We also do humanitarian services on a regular basis, which includes prescribing medicine and performing surgeries. Also, the Canadian page is redundant because the scope of practice in Canada is already defined in the DO degree page. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We agree. Since changing titles is a serious matter, I suggest waiting 24 hours to see if anyone else has suggestions or objections. -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest the following order:

1. Change osteopathy to "Osteopathy (alternative medicine)." This change would warrant a post on that article's talk page. See WP:TITLECHANGES

2. Change this article to "Osteopathic medicine"

3. Merge the content from the Canadian article into this article. This change would warrant a post on that article's talk page. See WP:PROPMERGE.

Rytyho usa (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Will you do the honors of placing notices on those talk pages? -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To claim that "Osteopathic Medicine" is taught only in the United States is wrong, as is the claim that "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" are different things everywhere. The evidence refuting both claims can be found on the website of the General Osteopathic Council, which registers and regulates osteopathic manipulative medicine in the United Kingdom. There are nine currently recognised schools. The London College of Osteopathic Medicine teaches manipulative medicine to already qualified medical doctors. The others teach osteopathy or osteopathic medicine (which appear to be the same thing) from scratch.

British College of Osteopathic Medicine (London): Masters in Osteopathy MOst or Bachelors in Osteopathic Medicine BOstMed;

College of Osteopaths (London & Stoke-on-Trent): Bachelor of Osteopathy or Master of Osteopathy

European School of Osteopathy (Kent): BSc (Hons) Osteopathy or Master of Osteopathy

London School of Osteopathy: Bachelor of Osteopathy (Hons) or Master of Osteopathy MOst

NESCOT: Master of Osteopathic Medicine MOst or Bachelor of Osteopathic Medicine BOstMed

Swansea University: Master of Osteopathy

University College of Osteopathy (London): Master of Osteopathy

University of St Mark and St John (Plymouth): Master of Osteopathy

NRPanikker (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the schools you mentioned are listed in the World Directory of Medical Schools (https://search.wdoms.org). All USDOs are listed in the WDMS as medical schools. None of those UK degrees are osteopathic medical degrees. In context of the UK, UK osteopathy degrees do not give the practitioners the same privileges that a US DO gets in the UK: "US-trained DO physicians are eligible for full medical practice rights. Applicants must pass the PLAB examination and work for one year in the National Health Service. Following that year, the applicants will be able to apply for a license to practice privately. For GMC registration as a specialist, postgraduate training will need to be separately recognized by the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB). GOsC registration is also required" (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine). Clearly, an osteopathic medical degree and someone with one of those degrees in osteopathy are regulated by two **different** entities.

Offering degree courses in medicine does not make every degree a medical degree; this would mean many allied healthcare degrees would become medical degrees. Osteopathic medicine is a philosophy of practicing allopathic medicine and surgery; osteopathy is alternative medicine. This distinction will clearly have to be made, which is a sign of clarity that we are trying to attain at Wikipedia. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The offering of courses by British osteopaths is something I have experienced. Among the many instructors I had for my European manual therapy courses, which includes joint mobilization and manipulation, we also had British osteopaths. We knew they weren't doctors, nor did they make such claims. They were just experts on the subject. What was great is that osteopathic manipulation techniques are gentler, and thus safer, than chiropractic manipulation techniques. -- Valjean (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My point in listing the British schools above was to show that, at least in that country, "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" mean the same thing, which is not the same as "osteopathic medicine in the USA." None of those schools are in the World Directory of Medical Schools because they are not regarded as "medical schools." What they teach is osteopathy, a health profession allied to but distinct from medicine.

What we are skirting around here is that in the US, the osteopathic schools have switched to teaching muggle medicine and largely abandoned the magical concept of the "osteopathic lesion." The school at Irvine in California went all the way and now awards MD rather than DO degrees. Something similar happened to Hahnemann Medical College, which switched from homoeopathy to muggle medicine and merged with a women's medical college to become the medical school of Drexel University. The odd thing is that the DO schools retain the NAME of osteopathy. NRPanikker (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

NRPanikker, I'm not sure I understand you, so correct me if I'm wrong. It appears you agree that "osteopathy" (magical concept of the "osteopathic lesion") is not synonymous with "osteopathic medicine" (muggle medicine), so you really aren't disagreeing with us. In England, the concept of osteopathic medicine is not used at all. They are just good old-fashioned osteopaths. -- Valjean (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The point remains--none of the British schools are offering a degree in osteopathic MEDICINE. According to the British Osteopathic Council, "Qualification generally takes the form of a bachelor's degree in OSTEOPATHY" (https://www.osteopathy.org.uk/faqs/what-training-do-osteopaths-have/). Osteopathic medicine is not osteopathy; if so, a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine would be ruled by GOC, not the BMC. Even if the degree is called OstMed, the schools do not clearly offer a degree in it. Osteopathic medicine is an approach to practice allopathic medicine taught only in the US; osteopathy is alternative medicine taught in many places around the world. Clear distinction has to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ORdeDocsaab (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that there is a distinction IN THE USA between "Osteopathy" and "Osteopathic Medicine" but to maintain that the same distinction exists in the UK can only be achieved by translating everything into 'Murcan. Some of the British colleges have Osteopathy in their titles, others Osteopathic Medicine. The same is true of the degrees, which may be in either, but it is clear from the fact of their recognition by the General Osteopathic Council that they are the same thing. Whereas it seems that American DOs can apply for registration as muggle doctors with the General Medical Council. That's why I argue that there should continue to be an article on "Osteopathic Medicine in the USA" since these words and phrases are not used in the same way everywhere. NRPanikker (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that you have something personal against the DO degree for which you are okay with disrespectfully calling "muggle doctors" to physicians and surgeons specializing in anything from radiology, anesthesiology (all recognized PG in the UK from the ACGME [all DOs is under ACGME after 2020]) to pediatrics and neurosurgery, physicians recognized by the GMC. However, coming back to the point, an osteopathic medical degree that teaches osteopathic medicine is ONE philosophy of Western medicine and surgery; osteopathy, regardless of having "medicine" attached or not, is a different philosophy that goes against Western medicine. OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL DEGREE is its own thing; DEGREE IN OSTEOPATHY is its own thing. Two are different things. Nothing 'Murican about that distinction. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between Osteopathy and Medicine, but it is not reflected in the American nomenclature, where MD and DO degrees are in virtually the same subject, and Osteopathy (on its own) seems to be extinct. My objection to applying "Osteopathic Medicine" to the rest of the world is that in the UK, at least, Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine are the same thing, even if a few American DOs have muddied the waters by becoming registered medical practitioners here, rather than osteopaths. We see the same thing with Homeopathy and Homeopathic Medicine, Ayurveda and Ayurvedic Medicine, etc, which are taught and practiced under those designations in South Asia. That's why I argue that the article should retain the name "Osteopathic Medicine in the USA" since the term is used in an idiosyncratic way there to mean modern scientific medicine taught in what USED TO BE osteopathic colleges.

To follow you down a rabbit hole for a moment, I don't see how the philosophy of osteopathy "goes against Western medicine." Osteopathy and chiropractic are both quintessentially American, the latter being more magical than the former, and entirely in keeping with the home of the flat earth theory. I don't claim that there is any dishonour to being a muggle rather than a magical physician. NRPanikker (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

NRPanikker, is the distinction here that the terms Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine are alive and well in the UK essentially as synonyms, or is Osteopathic Medicine a bit of an odd-sounding phrase there? Let me dig a little and see how these phrases are used in other countries including outside the Anglophone world (if at all). I'm also unclear as to what osteopathy (or chiropractic) has to do with a thousands-years out of date flat Earth idea.

ORdeDocsaab, what have you seen of the terms Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine internationally & in other languages, is the distinction very similar? If usage is near-identical in Canada, perhaps the article could be moved to "in North America?" If the distinction is present basically everywhere, even if that means that most places only recognize Osteopathy and don't consider Osteopathic Medicine to exist, then the "in the United States" moniker does seem unnecessary. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aware mainly of British usage, where the man in the street may know of osteopathy, and the osteopaths themselves have degrees and colleges that use either expression, "osteopathy" or "osteopathic medicine." The latter is a recent development, as British osteopaths used to qualify with diplomas in osteopathy and naturopathy (ND DO). There are many other schools of thought in manipulative medicine, not all of which feel the need to claim to be "medicine." I believe the European School of Osteopathy was set up in Kent (the nearest county to France) at a time when it was not legal to set up such a thing in France, so there are presumably osteopaths in France too.NRPanikker (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

NRPanikker, America is not the home of the flat earth theory. Just sayin'. It is the home of chiropractic and osteopathy, two professions with primitive, pseudoscientific and religious roots.

The question is not whether (alternative medicine) osteopathic education exists in many countries. It does. The question is whether other countries than the USA (and Canada apparently recognizes them) have osteopathic MEDICAL educations beyond normal osteopathic education that gives those osteopaths the same recognition as medical doctors, in the same sense as in the USA. What other countries do that? -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears that no other country has "Osteopathic Medical" education or practice comparable to that in the USA. However, the term "osteopathic medicine" IS used in the UK, and it means something different to what it does in the US. That's why I say that the article should continue to be about "Osteopathic Medicine in the USA" rather than pretend that the American usage is universal. NRPanikker (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. Since the British schools only offer Bachelor and/or Master degrees, they don't come close to the American DO degree. Because of name confusion (some of them still use "medical" in their titles), we need to retain the current title here with the "in the United States". Then make sure we add an explanation that the schools in England, even though they use Medical in their titles, do not have degree programs that are equivalent to the American DO degree, which is an actual medical, doctoral, degree.

I still think it would be good to change the title of the Osteopathy article to stop this constant confusion. -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The "confusion" arises from the fact that the old osteopathic colleges in the USA have all switched to teaching medicine, but still talk about "osteopathy." Changing the meaning of DO from "Doctor of Osteopathy" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" does not make the change clear. Why don't they follow the osteopathic (now medical) college at Irvine which switched from DO to MD degrees?

To follow you down another rabbit hole, the British osteopaths with bachelor's or master's degrees may not have defended a thesis on the subject, but I suspect that their training includes significantly more actual osteopathy than that of a modern American doctor of osteopathic medicine. NRPanikker (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, non-physician osteopaths do get more manual therapy training than DO physicians. DOs have greatly limited their focus on that subject and become much more like ordinary medical doctors. Modern DOs have learned you can't successfully treat all diseases with only manual therapies, which is what the original A.T. Still trained osteopaths believed. In that way, they are/were similar to chiropractors and share/shared their skepticism of medical doctors, drugs, surgery and vaccines. That is alternative medical thinking. In the USA, there is really no justification for the continued existence of separate medical schools just for DOs. They should all change their names. -- Valjean (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DO is not a degree of osteopathy; DO is a medical degree. How hard is it to understand that an osteopath practices osteopathy and a DO practices osteopathic medicine. Osteopath and DOs are two different people; "The International Labor Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, has issued a letter affirming that U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians are fully licensed physicians who prescribe medication and perform surgery. The acknowledgment draws a clear separation between American DOs and osteopaths. Within the international standards that classify jobs to promote international comparability across occupations, U.S.-trained DOs are now categorized with all other physicians as medical doctors" (AOA, 2018). Our degrees are not the same, our education is not the same, our training is not the same: Why would our philosophy be the same? There has to be a clear distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. DOs and osteopaths just share a common history of origins. After several decades, American osteopaths began to distance themselves from their quackish origins and gradually switched to scientific practice, with their schools gradually become so much like medical schools that they became accepted as medical physicians, far different from osteopaths. This book chapter covers some of that history. Homola gifted me a copy of that book. It's excellent, but it burned in the 2018 Camp Fire. Also see Dubious Aspects of Osteopathy. We also have this article here Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. -- Valjean (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

I keep getting confused by the varied definitions and terminologies we are all throwing around. Can we agree to only use the definitions found here?

The osteopathic medical profession has evolved into two branches: non-physician manual medicine osteopaths, who were educated and trained outside the United States; and US-trained osteopathic physicians, who conduct a full scope of medical and surgical practice. The regulation of non-physician manual medicine osteopaths varies greatly between jurisdictions. In the United States, osteopathic physicians holding the DO degree have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as physicians with a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree.<ref name=Medline /> Osteopathic physicians and non-physician osteopaths are so distinct that in practice they function as separate professions. Source: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Let's use these terms:

1. A DO (short for Doctor of Osteopathy) is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (only trained in the USA). In the USA, they are legally equal to Doctors of Medicine (MD).
2. An Osteopath is a non-physician alternative medical practitioner trained elsewhere with educations that are less than a Doctorate level degree. Besides manual medical training, they include other woo woo ideas in their practice.

Will that work? -- Valjean (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Osteopathic medicine in the United States → Osteopathic Medicine – Practitioners of osteopathy are categorized differently than practitioners of osteopathic medicine by the ILO; clear difference must be made between these two unrelated professions. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are two different things regardless of countries. The first is alternative medicine; the second is the wholistic practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. When a layperson tries to find out who a DO is, they almost immediately search for osteopathy. The Wiki page on osteopathy says _ Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones._ Yes, I agree. But the problem is osteopathy is **not** osteopathic medicine. There truly isn’t any DO who gets a degree saying “Doctor of Osteopathy;” the degree is called “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” Degrees of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different, and this will be held true even if you are in Romania or Latvia. By saying that Osteopathic medicine is different from country to country basis is completely false. Osteopaths are osteopaths. DOs are DOs. First kind learns osteopathy, while second one learns osteopathic medicine. "The International Labor Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, has issued a letter affirming that U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians are fully licensed physicians who prescribe medication and perform surgery. The acknowledgment draws a clear separation between American DOs and osteopaths. Within the international standards that classify jobs to promote international comparability across occupations, U.S.-trained DOs are now categorized with all other physicians as medical doctors" (AOA, 2018). Osteopathic medical degree and osteopathic degrees are not the same; their education is not the same; their training is not the same: why would their practice of philosophy be named the same? There has to be a clear distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the same misunderstanding in a new section does not negate it. Yes, in the USA, the colleges which used to train Doctors of Osteopathy (DO) now train mainstream physicians who call themselves Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine but still use the abbreviation of DO. Meanwhile osteopathy continues to be taught and practiced in the rest of the world. I don't know about Latvia and Rumania, but in England osteopaths used to be part of the alternative medicine universe and qualified with dual diplomas in osteopathy and naturopathy (ND DO) but nowadays are part of the enlarged university system and take bachelor's or master's degrees in osteopathy or osteopathic medicine: the two expressions mean the same thing. They don't have the link to naturopathy any more. I also do not know how much modern scientific medicine they study, but after qualifying they register with the General Osteopathic Council rather than the General Medical Council, whereas American DOs are eligible to register with the GMC.

The upshot of this disquisition is: in the USA, "Osteopathic Medicine" has come to mean "Mainstream medicine practiced by someone who went to what used to be an osteopathic college." Whereas in the UK "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" are the same thing. That's why I argue that the article about what American DOs do should continue to be named "Osteopathic Medicine in the USA," since to remove the US-specific tag would make the contents just wrong.

The side issue of American DOs having a doctorate whereas non-American osteopaths have bachelor's or master's degrees is merely Wikipedian culture shock. NRPanikker (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the official request for retitling of the page, so please do not take a jab at me opening a new section: it is part of the process. Secondly, DOs and osteopaths are learning two different disciplines; how can those disciplines change over countries? Osteopathy is a nonmedical discipline. Osteopathic medicine is a wholsitic philosophy of practicing allopathic medicine. Your country recognized them as different and allowed for separate licensure process, then why should Wikipedia make a difference? Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are not the same things: https://oialliance.org/about-us/osteopathic-medicine-and-osteopathy/. This should be clear from their discipline. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ORdeDocsaab, it is improper to request a change of title without a firm consensus. Please withdraw the request. It's disruptive. Also, please learn to append your signature to your comment so it has the same indentation level as your comment or follows the ending of your comment. I'm tired of fixing this problem for you. -- Valjean (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

NRPanikker, what is your point with that statement: "The side issue of American DOs having a doctorate whereas non-American osteopaths have bachelor's or master's degrees is merely Wikipedian culture shock."? It's actually significant. A doctorate is held by real medical doctors who graduated from American schools that used to train ordinary osteopaths. Osteopaths in other countries with only Bachelor's or Master's degrees are not physicians/doctors, regardless of what their school is called. They are alternative medicine practitioners. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The UK does not recognise Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine as different things, as can be seen by the fact that some people recognised by the GOC as osteopaths have a degree in osteopathy from a British college or school of osteopathy, and others have a degree in osteopathic medicine from an institution using osteopathic medicine in its title. Some British colleges even use both terms indifferently (see above for details). The fact that American DOs join the medical rather than the osteopathic register does not negate the foregoing. That's why I argue that the article about the US should continue to specify that it is about the US, since the rest of the world is different. NRPanikker (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have received a query from User:Valjean as to what I meant by my reference above to culture shock. That formed no part of my argument about renaming the article: it was merely a response to your obiter dictum about the superiority of doctors to bachelors and masters. It's a matter of observation that grade inflation has taken place in American academia over the past century, when one compares the rewards given to students in different lands. But I apologise for responding to a second point here. NRPanikker (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked up a few different Wiki's articles on Osteopathy (with the caveat in mind that Wiki itself isn't a source), with quotes in the collapsed box. I think that overall, Osteopathy and Osteopathic Medicine are seen as different, with the latter being accepted as a part of "regular" medicine. There's also the issue of, if this stays as an "...in the U.S." page, the section on Canada won't make a lot of sense, and Canada has its own rules & regulations. Perhaps it goes to plain Osteopathic Medicine, with the U.K. section stating what you've said, NRPanikker, that it is used there largely as a synonym of Osteopathy overall. Non-Anglophone countries could also have their own sections there. It at least should be "...in North America" or something, to my eyes.

Wikipedia's Osteopathy articles in different languages

Spanish	"The osteopathic profession has evolved into two branches: non-medical osteopaths and osteopathic physicians (often abbreviated as DO) with a full scope of medical practice. These groups are so different that in practice they function as separate professions."
German	"In Europe, this is understood to mean different diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are carried out manually, i.e. with the practitioner's bare hands. The terms "manual medicine", "manual therapy", "chirotherapy" and "chiropractic" are sometimes used synonymously. There is evidence of effectiveness for very few of the indications that are attributed to osteopathy. In the Anglo-American language area, especially in the US, the term osteopathy stands for a diagnosis and therapy concept that goes back to the US doctor Andrew Taylor Still. Still coined the term osteopathy in 1885. Still's concept is based at least in part on assumptions that contradict modern scientific knowledge. It was therefore also rejected as “heresy”. The training in the US to become a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, D.O. 'Osteopathic Doctor', is, however, based on scientific medicine."
French	"The United Kingdom recognizes this specialty exercised by various practitioners of all labels. The training is university and the osteopaths, recognized since 1993, are made up of more than 90% of non-doctors, non-physiotherapists. Only practitioners registered with the Order of Osteopaths (GOsC) can carry the title of osteopath. Continuing education is compulsory. Historically, many French osteopaths received their initial training in England. Sweden, Norway and Finland have recognized since 1994 a common core of medical studies. Students can then choose formal training in unconventional medicine. In the United States, osteopaths carry the title of Doctor of Osteopathy (DO). They are trained in osteopathic medicine schools and have the same rights as Medical Doctors (MDs). However, they cannot bear the title without having previously registered the change in status. In Spain and Italy, the status of osteopath is not recognized. However, there is an official register of osteopaths."
Italian	"With the approval of the d.d.l. 1324 on 22 December 2017 and the subsequent publication in the Official Gazette of state law no. 3/2018, osteopathy was identified by article 7 as a new health profession; Interministerial decrees are expected for the preparation of the professional profile, the study plan for the degree course and the definition of the paths for the evaluation of equivalent qualifications. On June 25, 2021, the osteopath health profession was officially established. Osteopathy is a primary health profession in the UK and is regulated by the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC), as set out in the Osteopaths Act 1993. The GOsC maintains the register of those who are qualified to practice osteopathy in the UK. As part of this process, the GOsC verifies that osteopaths are adequately qualified, have current professional indemnity insurance, remain healthy and of good character, and have met mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. The title "osteopath" is protected by law and only those included in the statutory register are allowed to practice as osteopaths, unregistered practice is a UK crime. Today in the United States, Osteopaths (Doctors of Osteopathy) are trained in osteopathic medical colleges and are full-fledged doctors and have the same rights and duties as MDs. They can prescribe drugs, perform surgery, enroll in all medical specialties, and so on. However, they cannot carry the title of MD, unless after recording the title change."

AnandaBliss (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is primarily in the United States where this is considered a genuine medical discipline, so I see no problem with the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, I'm not opposed to Osteopathic medicine (lower case, of course), which I've now redirected here from its previous target of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. But it needs a hatnote pointing out that in many countries there is considered to be no difference between osteopathic medicine and osteopathy. A hatnote on both articles is probably sufficient to distinguish the two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support or move to "...in North America." Multiple other countries have similar concepts that are not being elaborated in the English Wikipedia because the information has nowhere to go. It seems to be the case in some Spanish-speaking countries and is certainly the case in Canada, which would be very inappropriate as a sub-section of the U.S. article since Canada is a separate country. I'm also not sure why "...in the U.S." would be necessary even if that (or any other country, for that matter) were the only place with Osteopathic Medicine, couldn't the article itself just explain that? Why the need to specify in the title? If Jamaica were the only place that had something, I don't think it'd be a needed detail in the name of the article itself, for example. Thanks for the reminder to put an "official" vote in, Necrothesp. AnandaBliss (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The usage of "Osteopathic Medicine" to mean "modern scientific medicine taught at a former osteopathic college" began recently in the USA and has spread to Canada, but in other countries such as the UK the expression is a synonym for osteopathy. NRPanikker (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The page is about Osteopathic Medicine in the US ergo the title is most accurate. Whether or not osteopaths are physicians in other countries is moot. In the US, there is naturopathic medicine and chiropractic medicine while those practitioners are not physicians. Hardyharharhar (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Osteopathic medicine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Osteopathic medicine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Osteopathic medicine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Osteopathic medicine in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This 2007 listing has two problems:

1. Significant uncited material in the International practice rights section, violating GA criterion 2b), and
2. A lack of updated material, resulting in citations from the early 2000s or earlier being described as current. I'm not sure if the information has to meet WP:MEDRS as its not strictly WP:BMI, but a lack of updates means the article violates both GA criteria 3 and 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   @AirshipJungleman29, do you have any reason to believe that the profession has materially changed in the last 15–20 years? (I don't, but perhaps you know more about it than I do.) If nothing's actually changed, then I don't understand why the date on the citation would affect whether the article addresses the main topic, stays focused on that topic, and complies with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   WhatamIdoing, the article talks in 2000s-voice extensively about how the differences between osteopathic and other disciplines of medicines have decreased (There is currently a debate within the osteopathic community over the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity within US health care sourced to nine citations, none later than 2008; The president of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine commented on the current climate of crisis within the profession sourced to a 2009 source; However, the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields, like that of their MD peers, is declining. Currently, only one in five osteopathic medical students enters a family medicine residency (the largest primary care field) sourced to two sources from 2005). The article also talks about how this change was very recent (in 2007): In 2004, only 32% of osteopathic seniors planned careers in any primary care field; this percentage was down from a peak in 1996 of more than 50%.

   So to take this to its logical conclusion: either the trends evident in 2007 have continued or they have stopped. There is not, however, evidence of either in the article. Can you really therefore say that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic or is neutral, when it actively or passively ignores the last fifteen years of what by all accounts was a fundamental threat to the profession in 2007? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   Delist. Another example would be a section about "Attitudes" cited entirely to 1998 and 2005 (and overquoting). The Research emphasis section and the Primary care sections certainly should be updated.

   There are MOS:CURRENT issues everywhere (eg, "At the same time, recent studies show an increasingly positive attitude of patients and physicians (MD and DO) towards the use of manual therapy as a valid, safe, and effective treatment modality", recent being cited to 2002 is poor prose, and this is found throughout. But I don't know if that problem is an issue at GA-level (not that familiar with what GA expects, but if the datedness is a concern, most of the medicine GAs are in the same boat).

   More importantly, there is considerable uncited text throughout; even if the uncited or content cited to dated sources is correct, this article does not meet GA standards based on the uncited text alone. And the overquoting throughout means the article does not rise to the expected prose standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   @SandyGeorgia, the Wikipedia:Good article criteria explicitly says that GAs must comply with the MOS pages on "lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" and no others. Violations of MOS:CURRENT are consequently irrelevant for decisions about whether to list or de-list. It would, of course, be a better article if it complied with all of the MOS pages, but it can be a Good Article™ without doing so.

   The uncited paragraphs, of course, do not comply with the recently amended rules about citing ~everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I know that part ... which is why I said the vagueness in the text as a result of MOS:CURRENT is a prose problem. The text is meaningless without an as of date. How we can say something is current or recent when it's not (or at least needs checking)? How can an article be "good" if it misleads readers? Maybe these issues don't occur in other content areas, but in biomedicine topics, they do matter, and if that's what a "good article" can do, then (as I've said before), I truly don't understand what GA is or means, at least in the biomedical or any dynamic topic (perhaps not a problem on more static topics, whatever those may be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   Articles can be good without being Good™, and they can be Good™ without being good. (AIUI readers are almost completely unaware of the little green GA icons, so they are not relying on this designation.)

   Renaming GA to something like Wikipedia:Articles that, in the opinion of a single human, meet six specific criteria, which suggests they are probably better than most articles but you wouldn't necessarily want to call them 'good' because there is definitely room for improvement, especially since they're not required to comply with all of the policies and guidelines, some of which are obviously important might give editors a clearer idea of what the process is really supposed to achieve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   LOL, well anyway, uncited text, and I don't think dated text should qualify for a GA. If that means I'm wrong, the process has Coords now, and they'll have to earn their big bucks and ignore my "delist". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   I think you might be misunderstanding "fundamental threat to the profession" re. primary care -- primary care means a specific subset of medical specialities, the exact same that are less popular amongst graduating MDs in the past couple decades as well, that DOs were and still are markedly overrepresented in compared to MDs. My impression is that the trends described (DO educations becoming more like MD educations, DOs not being 100% locked into primary care all the time in every circumstance but still much more likely to match to it than MDs) have continued. I'm not sure how to source it. Vaticidalprophet 20:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   That's just the thing. I don't have any reason to believe that the situation has changed. @AirshipJungleman29, you say that the bit about "the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity" is sourced to 2008, and surely things have changed because it's been a whole 15 years since then. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I'm remembering that this debate was going on in the 1960s (and perhaps before then, but I know that in the 1960s, California told all the DOs they could legally become MDs if they wanted to, and nearly all of them wanted to, which triggered the same doomsday thinking among DOs), so if it hadn't resolved in the half-century between the 1960s and the 2000s, why should it have been resolved in the 15 years since then, especially since we've spent the last few years distracted by a pandemic?

   If you want current statistics, then https://osteopathic.org/about/aoa-statistics/ has the newest numbers, but I'm not sure that they're directly comparable. For example, it says that last year, 57% of DOs were matched to primary care residency programs, but "seniors planned" (=the stat in the article) and "seniors actually got" (=the stat in the report) are different things, and primary care (=57% in the report) is much bigger than family medicine (=20% in the article), but these are also different things. So, have the numbers changed? Probably, but maybe not materially. It's hard to tell at a glance whether these differences are important, or just the usual year-to-year variation (maybe with a bit of pandemic chaos thrown on top).

   Overall, I think that recent sources give editors confidence that the article is (probably) neutral (i.e., that it fairly reflects the current views of sources), but if the underlying facts haven't changed materially, then spamming in a fancier citation is just so much window dressing. The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago. It's ultimately the facts that matter, not the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   I have a pretty strong impression from, like, Student Doctor Network that the situation on the ground has changed (at least, people still made "should I go DO or Caribbean?" threads in 2007 that could go either way, and ten years later the conclusion was always "what the hell, absolutely DO, there's no possible dispute about this"). I don't think {{cite sdn thread}} would go down very well, though. Vaticidalprophet 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

   That California dispute is outlined in the article, WhatamIdoing. The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago. Sure. Is it true? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   Apparently it is true. https://www.aafp.org/students-residents/residency-program-directors/national-resident-matching-program-results.html says 22.2% for the most recent round. The article says "about one in five", and 22.2% is fairly described as "about one in five".

   Did you try to find sources to answer your question, or were you just hoping that someone would do it for you? I strongly doubt that anyone is going to clean up the article for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, WhatamIdoing, as I have little knowledge of medical terminology, sources, or the US medical school system, I was indeed hoping that you would be able to answer my question and help improve the article. I have a further couple, if you don't mind; to quote that source "the percentage of DO students matching to family medicine (22.2%) continues to decline steadily"—do we know what it is declining steadily from? Presumably it was more than one in five (and incidentally it contradicts "the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields... is declining"). Also, is "the number of DO seniors matching to family medicine reached a record high" relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   The number of DO students has gone up over the last couple of decades. This makes it possible to have both a reduced percentage and a higher absolute number.

   If you are interested in this, I suggest that you spend some time with your favorite web search engine. That's what I would have to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would keep GA status. The needed revisions seems minor, but should be addressed. Rytyho usa (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have reopened per SandyGeorgia's concerns, which I share. Apologies for stepping on your toes, Airshipjungleman, but I think further discussion/improvement is needed here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't want to have to mar the article with maintenance tags, but I was quite surprised to see it closed as a Keep without further independent review, so did some cleanup and tagging; I maintain some hope that this is not representative of GA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The other concern I have is that this article is quite typical of the state of most of the medical GAs, and I am still hoping we're not saying this kind of work is GA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm kind of involved as I reopened this, but for the record I am in favor of a delist in light of the numerous citation needed instances in the article at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[T]he standards of the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation

"[T]he standards of the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. . .  do not mandate that an osteopathic college must bear the expense of maintaining a high full-time faculty : student ratio.."

Isn't there a problem underlying inclusion of this statement?

Isn't a high (say 20:1) full-time faculty:student ratio undesirable? Isn't a low (say 7-1) full-time faculty:student ratio desirable?

Then why would it be beneficial for the standards to require a college to bear the expense of maintaining a high full-time faculty:student ratio? BillTheGorilla (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Joint pain

Knee pain and joint pain anything I can take to stop the pain? 50.107.55.144 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)