4/04/65 Newspaper article from The Virginian-Pilot:
DOCTORS COME IN 2 MODELS
By Joseph G. Molnar, M.D.
Dear Dr. Molnar: Please explain the difference between M.D.s
and D.O.s. My brother and I are having quite an argument and
hope you can settle it. - P. B.
Together, the two groups - doctors of medicine and doctors of
osteopathy - constitute the sum total of physicians qualified
to give general health care.
Aside from them, there are others who profess themselves to
be "doctors" but have not had adequate training. One such
group, for example is not permitted to give medicine or to
perform surgery. Obviously this limits their capability.
There are still other groups which set themselves up to
try to treat everything solely with diets, exercise and such.
Good diet, of course, is beneficial to all of us, and so
is an appropriate amount of exercise, but you can't treat
pneumonia with them, or remove a clogged gall bladder, or
relieve other such serious conditions.
And there's one more general grouping: people who have
had excellent training, but only for a certain task.
Podiatrists (for foot trouble), dentists and dental surgeons,
optometrists (for measuring refractive errors in the eyes,
and related matters), physiotherapists who do a great deal
of good for people but work in conjunction with physicians.
But these people stick to their fields of special training.
For general, comprehensive medical and surgical care, there
are only the two main classifications: M.D.s and D.O.s.
When osteopathy began, it was a cult, based on the belief
that adjustments of the skeletal bones (mostly the spine)
could be the answer to all illnesses. That was back in the
preceding century.
As of today, however, osteopathic schools have entrance
requirements and provide comprehensive teaching comparable
to that of the Medical schools. Graduates, like M.D.s, have
at least a year of service as interns after that before they
become fully licensed physicians.
There are some differences, but not in fundamental health
science.
There aren't nearly as many osteopathic schools, and not as
many osteopaths. There are some states which have few if any
osteopaths, other states which have many.
In California, for example, there has been a joining of
forces to the extent that no distinction is made between the
two. In other states, however, the osteopaths are reluctant
to give up their separate identity and "don't want to be
swallowed up by the M.D.s." There are various reasons for
this, which I won't try to discuss here. Part of it may be
some leftover resentment from the days when the M.D.s viewed
osteopaths scornfully.
But today the degree of "D.O." is a guarantee that the doctor
has had rigid training and passes searching examinations just
as the M.D. has.
I might add that half a century ago, there was a bitter
conflict between the "allopaths" and the "homeopaths,"
two branches of the M.D.'s, based on opposing theories
as to the use of medicine. It was for some years, a
violent dispute, but it ended in agreement that the
common cause is fighting disease.



Edgar Cayce Readings © 1971, 1993, 1994, 1995 by the Edgar Cayce Foundation