Inspired by a post in the pain reliever thread...

[gsmittle]

I know we have a couple of MDs here on the board. I'm wondering what is the major difference between an MD and a DO. I do know that the "O" stands for "osteopathic" and that MDs are considered "allopathic" physicians, but I'm wondering what all that means, exactly. All my reading has left me mystified.

Not wanting to start a "my kind of doc can beat up your kind of doc" type of discussion--I'm more interested in the differences between the two philosophies.

A little background: I went to a DO from age 10 to 20-something and have been seeing an MD for at least as long. As far as I can tell, I got the same quality of care from both.

So, what's the deal?

g.

[cgallery]

Good summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine

[Jeffrey Schronce]

We have a large concentration of DO's in PA, as there is a major DO school in Philly. I personally have not had good experiences with DOs. I know this is quite subjective and probably irrational. I grew up with an "old school" DO who did the "whole body manipulation" thing with just about every visit. He was an idiot, however he was the only licensed Dr. in my hometown. So you just let the idiot play with your back and spine then got your antibiotics for your sinus infection.

I would LOVE to see some overlays of practicing DO concentration by population versus ligitation frequency and severity for medical mal. I am sure its selective memory, but it seems that there are a high number of DOs practicing in litigation "he**-holes" as they are called.

[MilDoc]

MD or DO - there are good and bad in each field.