Md vs do

Hello , I’m not sure if this is going in the correct place. I was wondering if anybody noticed a difference between a MD and a DO (doctor of osteopathic medicine). I have seen both (and also a NP) and i would say that the ones with the best bedside manner have been men, but they have also been DOs. Anyone else experienced this?

I’m fascinated by the way allopathic medicine became the only legitimate discipline in the U.S. in the early 20th century, using regulations and legislation to bar every other form of practice including naturopathy, chiropractic, and osteopathy. It wasn’t that allopathy has better outcomes, but their practices tended to be less costly in the short term because they only focused on treating symptoms. Osteopaths, on the other hand, are trained to look at the functioning of the whole system in the environment where they live and to consider social determinants of health as well as pathological causes. Imagine if you went to the doctor with a cold and got a prescription for less stress at work and healthier options at the grocery. I trust D.O.s more than M.D.s because I think they are more likely to see the “big picture” when evaluating my health.

I've never seen a D.O. but have also wondered what the difference would really be.

We don't have DOs in Canada, just MDs. Nor do we have a lot of NPs and they don't have the duties they have in the USA.

I think it's personal preference. Some like a more hands-on holistic approach, others like a more indifferent approach. Both can be good (or bad) Doctors. I had a DO about 40 years ago. He alway had me demonstrate flexibility, finger strength etc. in addition to a regular exam. Back then I could still touch my toes! When I moved I get an internist who was thorough, but never did some of the “hands on” stuff a DO does. I personally prefer an MD.

DOs are the same as MDs now. It's not even about “holistic” now. It's just a different door.

For what it's worth, I saw a DO one time and she was the best dr I've ever seen.

An Osteopath at a medical school told me the difference in bedside manner had to do with the students practicing on each other during their training (everyday).

They know what it's like to be the patient.

The knowledge and practice of medicine difference is an old debate that I ass-u-me is beyond the interest of the group.

These days the medical or DO school is a ‘starter.’ that is, medical appreciation. If one has just a couple months on obstetrics, how good can you be in practice. On really learns the trade in a residency 3-5 + fellowship time. Grads from both schools work side by side. ff Regardless of the school, after 4 years of internal medicine and cardiology fellowship any “school” difference is long gone.

My husband would have a lot to say about this, lol. An MD is not “better than" a DO or vice versa. I have seen both and there is no difference in medical knowledge or bedside manner. DO's get additional training in osteopathic manipulation therapy (omt), though the vast majority do not use it regularly in practice. There's also some training programs that will teach MDs a bit of OMT. Personally, I've found some maneuvers to work well especially for migraines.

I have had horrible luck with PAs and NPs and would never see one regularly, especially in this era of rising independent practice rights. They are good care providers in a lot of cases and have their place, but I do not believe independent practice is it.