Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 10 April 2008

Education Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Is M.D. related to Ph.D.? --Abdull 10:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, M.D. is related to Ph.D. in the sense that:

a) Both are prestigious. b) Both are graduate degree programs. c) Both require an undergraduate degree.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rowah (talk • contribs).

Caveat: That response is only relevant to the US and Canada. --Limegreen 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Doctor of Medicine called MD not DM?

It's an abbreviation of Medicinæ Doctor, the Latin degree name. -James Howard (talk/web) 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

History of MD degree

Can anyone fill me in? I am interested in knowing the history of the MD degree. When and where were the first ones awarded? Lindenb 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Douglas Guthrie, medical men were first called "Doctor" at the Medical School of Salerno. He states in "A History of Medicine," (London: Thomas Nelson 1945, p. 107) that the Emperor Frederick II decreed in 1221 that no one should practice medicine until he had been publicly examined and approved by the masters of Salerno. The course lasted 5 years, and to start one had to be 21 years old and show proof of legitimacy and of three years study of logic. The course was followed by a year of supervised practice. After the laureation ceremony the practitoners could call themselves "magister" or "doctor." Guthrie's authority for this account is L Thorndike's "History of Magic and Experimental Science" (New York 1934 - 41, Vol. 2 of 6) NRPanikker 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I am moving this into the main article. NRPanikker 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MD-DM

In India,In addition to MD(speiality) degree, there is DM(superspeciality) Degree Offered after completing MD degree.But I couldn't find any mention of it in Misplaced Pages. If MD( Doctor Of Medicine) is a doctorate Degree, Then whats the level of DM.

I was thinking... whether exactly HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO get your MD? anyone no?

The confusion is because in India medical education is at the undergraduate level, while in the US/Canada it is at the graduate level. The MD in the US/Canada is conferred upon a person who has completed twelve years of primary education (or in India the Bachelors degree), followed by a 4 year undergraduate degree (in US/Canada known as Bachelors degree, not the same degree as in India) followed by 4 years of graduate medical education (MD degree). After the MD the physician must undergo a 3-7 year residency program (time varies with specialty) and has the option in some specialties in taking an additional 1-3 years of fellowship training. So all doctors in the US/Canada essentially have what you would call a DM or higher. Hope that helped with the confusion some, if not feel free to ask further on my talk page. Gtadoc 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So all medics in the USA and Canada are certified superspecialists? NRPanikker (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. MD & DO interns and residents in the United States are physicians, but not yet specialists. To get a license, after residency an MD/DO must become "board certified" in a specialty, including primary care specialties like family medicine. "Subspecialists" generally means anyone how goes onto to a fellowship after being board certified in a specialty, earning certification in a subspecialist field, i.e. infectious disease, colorectal surgery, or child psychiatry, which are subspecialities of internal medicine, general surgery and psychiatry respectively. This is my understanding, others may have a more precise version. But there is no degree conferred in any of this beyond the initial MD or DO.Bryan Hopping 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually some programs in US/Canada still offer clinical Masters degrees in medical specialties, these are of course higher degrees than the MD degree. Examples:,,Jwri7474 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a slam on Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine

Though it is important to distinguish between an M.D. and D.O., slamming one or the other is not the way to accomplish such a task.Garrettww 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A doctor of osteopathic medicine, is still a medical doctor unless the former surgeon general of the united states army is not allowed to practice medicine (a D.O)

article is off topic. needs citations and editing.

This is supposed to be an article that gives information about the degree designation "M.D". It is not a editorial about the superiority of the MD degree over the DO degree. Please replace opinions about the DO degree with facts about the MD degree.

Tarcher11 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)tony

Please proofread, spell-check your work.

"It is also the most difficult medical degree to obtain with an average college gpa of over 3.6 to enter M.D. school." ---This is non sequitur. Also, is there a reference you can give to show that medical school is "more difficult to obtain" than, say, a DVM?

"Medical Doctors are trained in every aspect of medicine from Anesthesiology to Neurosurgery and this specialization is completed during a residency program which lasts from 3 to 7 years after medical school depending on the speciality."---Awkward. You might say something like, "they have the *option* to specialize in any branch of medicine and surgery. . ."

"M.D.'s are not the only medical degree that is licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Other doctoral degrees such as D.O., D.N.P., N.D.,and D.P.M. can often perform similar functions depending on state regulations (please see these terms for further information)." ---DEGREES don't practice medicine. ---What distinguishes M.D.'s (and D.O.'s) is the "unrestricted" practice of medicine and surgery. You may want to rephrase the last part to say something like "other degrees offer the ability to practice only limited or specific types of medicine."Tarcher11 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only the DO, MD, and perhaps PA practice medicine. Degrees like DNP are advanced nursing degrees, and they have no formal training in medicine (there is a difference). PA can practice medicine with supervision. DNP or NP can practice advanced nursing, generally also with some sort of supervision. Gtadoc 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence structure - run-on sentence - ambiguous content

"Medical Doctors are trained in every aspect of medicine from Anesthesiology to Neurosurgery and this specialization is completed during a residency program which lasts from 3 to 7 years after medical school depending on the speciality." This makes it sound like all medical doctors are trained in all medical specialties. First, state the common education that all medical doctors receive, then elaborate on the various specialties. Also try to avoid run-on sentences. Garrettww 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep on topic

This is not an article about how Ph.D.'s are superior to MD's or an article requiring extensive information about the DO degree. Those have their own articles.

1. You need to sign talkpage posts.
2. The paragraph explaining the distinction between MD/DO and PhD is relevant; by removing it, you've even deleted the links to the professional degree article.

--DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Slasher M.D.

This article has been repeatedly struck by a "deletionist" medical student who demands references for every statement. Most people would understand that things like degree regulations are to be found in the Calendar/Prospectus/Programme (etc) of the university concerned, but Leuko wants everything to be spelled out in full. NRPanikker 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

D.O. / M.D.

So this is obliviously a contentious issue. But we can't just ignore it. It is significant and relevant to this article that there is a degree in the U.S. considered equivalent to the M.D. by the AMA, AMSA, and the U.S. government. This is a major fact about the M. D. degree, and moreover it is not known by a great number of people. Can we all look at this with a cool head. It needs to be at least mentioned in an article about M.D.s. One that discusses "Doogie Houser" and "House." Certainly the M.D./D.O. issue is at least as relevant. OsteopathicFreak 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really relevant - this article is about the MD, not DO. That has a separate article. I see no need for information on the DO degree in this article. Leuko 12:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Added NPOV tag. Section removed multiple times containing well source, relevant information from mainstream groups. Information needless removed repeatedly. Osteopathic!Freak 01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an NPOV tag is appropriate. There should be some brief reference to D.O., even if it is just adding it to a See Also section. A globalise tag would probably make more sense, as the primary benefit will be for non-US readers. You might, however, wish to consider whether having such a partisan username detracts from your contribution. Additionally, you should definitely fix the typo in your signature. --Limegreen 03:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just taking issue with the U.S section. So I'm not sure how to globalize would help. "Partisan" user name? I wasn't aware I was in a party.  :) Allopathic and osteopathic are equal in my mind. I'm surprised to find out there are so many around here have a hard time admitting that, or even saying that some people think that. I really don't get it. How can anyone say that mentioning that there is a degree that equivalent to the MD is irrelevant to an article about the MD? Why is it some loathsome to event present this perfectly benign piece of information? OsteopathicFreak 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well until I stumbled over this article, I had not heard of osteopathic medicine, the D.O., or any argument between them. Therefore, it is worth making an article where people outside the US have some idea of what is going on here. I think most people get the idea that an MD is equivalent to MBChB, but this is a whole extra thing. And if you re-read the tenor of your last post, I think partisan is pretty apt. Especially because I effectively agree that there should be more mention of osteopathy in the article.--Limegreen 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick. Sorry for any hostility.  :) It's frustrating that User:Leuko and others are so opposed to simply including this information. Like yourself in regards to the DO, I've never heard of the MBChB. And I think that most people, even in the US, have never heard of the D.O./M.D., to the point that many don't even know that their own doctor is a D.O. People assume that all doctors are MDs. For some reason, it's rarely discussed. And discussion of it is even discouraged by some, as in this article. OsteopathicFreak 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the section and removed the NPOV tag; it now includes the needed info and I think is pretty neutral. Also removed a link that wasn't appopriate for that section but probably more appropriate for a DO page. If there is any issue with how it is now feel free to start another discussion. Gtadoc 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. OsteopathicFreak 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The current seems very reasonable.--Limegreen 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me too :) Gtadoc 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the recent change by NRPanikker , mostly because by calling homeopathy a rival school implies that its a school of medicine as apposed to a controversial quasimedical field. Gtadoc 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt my wording could be improved. Up to 16th July 2007 the opening paragraph asserted that MDs were commonly referred to as allopathic physicians: I don't think that usage is common anywhere. In the US allopathic seems to have come to be a term used to distinguish non-osteopathic medical colleges, but in the rest of the world it is used in the earlier sense of non-homoeopathic. "Allopathy" is something of a straw man invented by Samuel Hahnemann: to call conventional medics allopathic seems similar to calling Protestants heretics or to label the Greek Orthodox as schismatic. But there is no need to replicate the homoeopathy/allopathy controversy on this page. Calling homeopathy controversial is redundant, since practically everything on Misplaced Pages is contested. NRPanikker 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I suppose its just amoung doctors and medical students/schools that allopathic is commonly used to distinguish from osteopathic. What would be a good way then to phrase it so readers know that homeopathy (by inference) is not another school of medicine? Gtadoc 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why even mention the history of the term allopathic? It has its whole own page devoted to this history? In the US, no one use the term allopathic to distinguish an MD from a homeopath. Whereas it is used daily to distinguish a allopathic from an osteopathic physician? Let that explanation rest on the allopathic medicine page, where it throughly discussed. OsteopathicFreak 17:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that we are back to claiming that holders of the M.D. are "commonly referred to as allopathic physicians." The reference given, an editorial by Norman Gevitz in an osteopathic journal, says nothing about this: instead it pleads for more specifically osteopathic training in the D.O. course. This hardly seems relevant. NRPanikker 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"M.D.s commonly referred to as Allopathic physicians" is NPOV

Here are some examples of M.D.s being referred to as allopathic physicians and/or graduates of allopathic schools:

• Letter from the president of the organization that accredits all medical schools granting the degree of M.D. in the United States, the American Association of Medical Colleges:

After more than a century of often bitterly contentious relationships between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions, we now find ourselves living at a time when osteopathic and allopathic graduates are both sought after by many of the same residency programs; are in most instances both licensed by the same licensing boards; are both privileged by many of the same hospitals; and are found in appreciable numbers on the faculties of each other's medical schools.

— Jordan J. Cohen, M.D.; AAMC President

Other examples, from several well-known U.S. medical associations & publications establishing that M.D.'s are commonly referred to as allopathic physicians. In every case, the POV of this usage is not contentious. {{Osteopathic medicine}}

• American Medical Student Association:

• American Medical Association:

• New England Journal of Medicine:

• US Department of Health and Human Services:

• Center for Disease Control (CDC):

• Johns Hopkins:

• Harvard Medical School:

• UCSF:

• Cleveland Clinic:

• Columbia Med:

• Yale Med:

• World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used)

• Others:

OsteopathicFreak 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How does it read minus that last sentence? It seems that none of the 3 people on talk want it in there; and while it seems neutral enough to me in the interest of maintaining the worldwide viewpoint perhaps it should just be left out as it means different things to those of us in medicine in the US, those in UK/Europe, and the general public, and as mentioned already has its own page. Gtadoc 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer that the sentence be left in. Referring to holders of the MD degree as allopathic physicians is quite common, as indicated by the references above. Leuko 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. info needs to stay. OsteopathicFreak 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so please address the issue that it is common to you, and to me, but not likely common in the rest of the english speaking world. And Osteo, I misread your earlier statement, you said "why discuss the history" not "why discuss the term", also, please try to remember ]. Gtadoc 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really want to get into what is obviously a heated topic for some people, but I'm not convinced that this term 'allopathic' is common (or even in use at all) outside the US, so if it is to be included in the article then this point should be noted. To me (and I do apologise if I've got the wrong impression), this all sounds like a debate over whether osteopaths and homeopaths should be regarded as on the same level as 'conventional' physicians, and while I'm sure that's a valid and interesting discussion, I'm not sure if an article about the academic degree of Doctor of Medicine (which is what I understand this to be) is the correct place to hold that discussion. -- Nicholas Jackson 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Having ploughed through OsteopathicFreak's 39 references, I note that most of them relate either to US medical education (for both physicians and osteopaths) or else to alternative medicine: only a few of the US articles mention "allopathic" physicians on their own. Perhaps there would be a case for saying that MDs are "commonly referred to as allopathic physicians" in the section relating to the USA, rather than in the introductory paragraph. However, I still doubt that this is a common usage. In over thirty years, during which I have perused numerous American journals, I do not recall encountering the word "allopathic" outside the context of alternative medicine: it was almost always in connection with homoeopathy. I have only once heard anyone use the word allopathic, and that too was in the context of multiple systems of medicine. NRPanikker 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that MDs are only referred to as allopathic in the US, as NPPanikker duly noted. This is because in US, there are two fully licensed physicians, allopathic and osteopathic. Elsewhere, osteopathic and allopathic mean something different. The US specific reference to MDs as allopathic should be recognized, perhaps by incorporating info into section specific to US MDs. OsteopathicFreak 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Title

As the M.D. stands for Medicinae Doctor, why is the title of this article "Doctor of Medicine"? Shouldn't it be "Medicinae Doctor", with a later explanation in the article for the typical English form?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.184.105 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. OsteopathicFreak 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about the degree called Doctor of Medicine. It just happens that the abbreviation has typically stayed with the historic name, in the same way the abbreviations for Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery (MBChB), Master of Surgery (ChM), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) retain their older abbreviations. Therefore, there is no case for a name change.--Limegreen 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The title of the article is in fact "Doctor of Medicine" not "M.D."OsteopathicFreak 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

I doubt the veracity of the sentence in the intro claiming that "holders of an M.D. in the United States are often referred to as allopathic physicians". Yes, it is sourced. However, the source is an essay written in an osteopathic journal that, itself, simply asserts the same without offering evidence. Furthermore, if you run a Google labs search for allopathic (thus returning the number of searches made from within the United States), Google indicates that it cannot provide a graph because the term is so rarely used. Even words like apotheosis have enough searches by Americans to show results. I'm not buying this sentence, and I'd like to see a better source to back it if someone actually feels that it should be kept. Antelan 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant enough to belong in the intro. Osteopathic physicians and premeds may care, but that's about it. If there is some research out there or good secondary source that shows that MDs are often, or even infrequently, called "allopathic physicians", I'd like to see it. I've never once heard a patient use the phrase. Antelan 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a little known fact, verifiable, sourced, and noteworthy.OsteopathicFreak 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. Your response didn't address my point, and it's just serving a POV. Antelan 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources & Examples:

• M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians. U.S Department of Labor
• Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. American Medical Assoc
• Allopathic Physician (MD) University of Illinois
• The projected supply of allopathic physicians, 1997 to 2020. After a period of rapid growth, the MD population in the US is entering a period of relative stability. National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
• Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
• To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada State of Nevada, Board of Medical Examiners.
• A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine University of New Hampshire
• Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative Rhode Island Dept of Health
• The most common is the M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) degree, offered by the nation's 125 allopathic medical schools . . . prescribing drugs and performing surgery, used by allopathic physicians (M.D.'s). Xavier University, Louisiana
• How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? Wittenburg University
• M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
• University of Missouri, St. Louis
• Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc
• A medical doctor (allopathic physician) (M.D.) and a doctor of osteopathic medicine( D.O.) generally have the same educational background and length of study. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
• Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc PMID 16717364

More:

This is in addition to the numerous examples I gave last month. What exactly is the POV issue here?OsteopathicFreak 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As DGG has stated, you may wish to focus on editing osteopathic medicine articles instead of raising controversy on allopathic articles. Claiming that you're not aware of the controversy will neither "cut it" nor make me sympathetic to your POV here. The COI in atempting to systematically propagate an alternative name for "doctor" is obvious. Antelan 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced this statement. It is noteworthy. It is a fact. There's not a COI issue here, and no POV issue. Why is there so much opposition to including this basic information about U.S. M.D.? What is the POV issue here? Can you provide any sources that U.S. - M.D.'s are not called allopathic? I've listed dozens of credible sources that say they are, and many are from non-osteopathic, non-homeopathic, non-alternative medicine sources.OsteopathicFreak 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What point of view does this statement push "Holders of the M.D. are sometimes called allopathic physicians." What is controversial about that statement? OsteopathicFreak 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I advise you to move on and deal with less controversial subjects. And please, start citing sources more carefully. Antelan 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the controversy? I think the AMA and the U.S. Dept of labor are fairly reliable sources. OsteopathicFreak 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The AMA source didn't even address the topic of "allopathic physician". Hence, your sourcing was controversial. Antelan 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AMA says "Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree.". Corrected article to reflect that.OsteopathicFreak 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing a term considered by many to be pejorative. You have a conflict of interest. I am asking that you stop. Please, stop pushing allopathic all over the place. Please, focus on positive edits that do not involve this term. Antelan 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing a point of view that it is pejorative. I know you feel that it is, but the AMA, the organization that accredits all M.D. granting schools, calls those schools "allopathic." You're POV that its pejorative is only supported by highly contentious authors and non-U.S. sources, you haven't produced a single major medical or governmental organization that supports you position. A few editorial rants do not make a notable POV.OsteopathicFreak 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You are cherry picking your sources. The AMA calls itself "American Medical Associaton" not the "American Allopathic Medical Association". Etc. Ad infinitum. You crawl through to find the handful of islands where these institutions use allopathic and ignore the vast ocean where "medical" is the only adjective used. Antelan 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:COI: "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment." You continue adding material to "allopathic" articles, despite your clear conflict of interest as an osteopathic medical student. The burden is on you, as someone who wants to add material, to ensure that it is neutral. Again, I do not understand why you feel that you must push the term "allopathic", and I would appreciate an explanation so we may work towards a compromise. Antelan 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The pages I cited are the AMA's main page on medical education and becoming a physician in the United States. The other is the Dept of Labor's main page on physicians and surgeons in the U.S. How many U.S. sources are there stating the use of the term allopathic is pejorative? 4? 6? And they are all single author pieces by authors with a clear POV bias. You are cherry-picking your sources and exaggerating this into a controversy.OsteopathicFreak 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: The AMA calls itself "American Medical Associaton" not the "American Allopathic Medical Association". Antelan 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. But I don't think that particular fact is relevant to this article. I did duly note this exact fact in the article allopathic. In this article, what's relevant is what the AMA calls the graduates of the schools it accredits. According to the AMA, in the United States, M.D. students graduate from allopathic schools of medicine.OsteopathicFreak 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You continue to cherry-pick your sources. The AMA says "allopathic schools of medicine" one time. It says "allopathic school of medicine" zero times. You literally found the one example that fits your needs from a site that houses over 30,000 pages. Antelan 22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On this one there can be no doubt you are cherry picking, or being hypercritical at least.

• Allopathic schools
• Allopathic medical schools
• Allopathic medical school school

OsteopathicFreak 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I speak precisely, though I understand your frustration. You've pointed to a google search now that shows 16 results for "allopathic schools", but the search for "medical schools" pulls up 2,370 results. I don't think this is helping your case for the mainstreaming of "allopathic". At any rate, I've replied to your list of "allopathic" usages on Adam Cuerden's talk page. Antelan 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude. This is crazy. Your statements are all unsourced. You know you don't have but a small number of sources saying that allopathic is pejorative. So now you are doing original research trying to prove that "allopathic" is some rarely used term. There's lots of rarely used terms in any technical field, especially medicine. Shall we start comparing other terms too? How bout this combo? This is nonsense. OsteopathicFreak 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rarely used term. I've already said repeatedly that it's not always used pejoratively. Nevertheless, (1) it has pejorative origins, and (2) it's rarely used, so (3) its usage on Misplaced Pages should be limited. Why are you pushing so hard on this? Would you like me to find historical artifacts of osteopathy and slather them all over? I wouldn't think so. Likewise, I don't appreciate your ardent advocacy of a term that will never apply to you. Antelan 00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to the use of the term at all? Why do you consistently interpret my edits as slathering POV-biased COI's? I give sources, many of them, but that's not good enough. What is your issue with this term?OsteopathicFreak

That's a misrepresentation of my position. I'm not "opposed to the use of the term at all" - I've agreed to Adam's compromise. Will you? Antelan 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not intending to represent your position. I am asking a sincere question. "What is your issue with this term?" You cite a few sources that say its pejorative, all they are all from authors writing highly critical editorials of alternative medical therapy. That's not a criticism of you, that's an observation. In the face of numerous sources, (AMA, AMSA, ACGME, US Govt, etc) that use the term, you still seem strongly opposed to the use of it. I am trying to understand why.Hopping 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A third party has suggested a compromise, and I would like to know if you are willing to accept it. Antelan 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I responded directly on his page. I'll copy it here:

Antelan , with all due respect. I don't see how I, personally, can compromise on the usage of a word, on Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else. We are editors, not writers. We are citing sources, reliable ones, not making decisions about the English language. Misplaced Pages should reflect the usage of the general academic population, not influence it.OsteopathicFreak 02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we should proceed to dispute resolution. Antelan 17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that process. Nor am I sure what the dispute is about. But if that's the best next step, then I'm happy to participate. Hopping 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assert a little authority here. I am a holder of an M.D. degree, and a former board member of the American Medical Student Association. The distinction between allopathic and osteopathic is a common one in medical circles, and is in no way considered pejorative any longer. It is a distinction rarely made, because the education and training of allopathic and osteopathic physicians are virtually identical today; the philosophical underpinnings of osteopathy are different, but the ultimate practical outcome is the same. No distinction is made by the leading medical organizations; MDs and DOs are equally members, and both identified as "physicians". In many states, they are even licensed together as "physicians" without distinction. This is why the separation isn't commonly recognized amongst lay people - because it's essentially irrelevant. It really is only relevant when discussing the educational pathway of a particular physician; since this article describes the Doctor of Medicine degree pathway, which is by definition allopathic, I see no reason to remove the word. I do agree that this is a regional distinction, and the article should probably say "In the United States, holders of the M.D. degree are sometimes called..." - though I would remove the word "sometimes." Any physician in the US will immediately understand the word, and I've yet to meet one who objects. As indicated earlier, both the American Medical Association and AMSA recognize and use the term without pejorative connotation, as does the US Department of Labor. IMO, Antelan is beating a dead horse.

As a side note, this talk page is getting a bit bulky. Should some of it be archived? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

My concern here is not great, and I don't have a problem including the pejorative POV. However, my issue is one of appropriate attribution. From WP:POV, "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." If the claim can be better attributed, I can better digest its placement in this article. Hopping 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

M.D. Thesis

Could someone who has access to US and Canadian sources explain what sort of thesis or dissertation is required for a medical doctorate in North America? NRPanikker 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A few medical schools in the U.S. require a thesis, the majority don't; it's medical school specific. However, overseas, e.g. in Germany, some kind of scientific dissertation is required for the "Doctor of Medicine" degree title pe se. A medical education in e.g. (many parts of) Europe is essentially equivalement to the educational process for a bachelor's degree in the U.S, whereas in the U.S., a medical degree involves education past a bachelor's degree. Andrew73 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have said that the education is equivalent (bachelor v. US doctorate), but that in the US, a bachelor's degree is pre-requisite for medical training. This would be true for almost all US first professional doctorates, where the equivalent non-US training in law, dentistry, pharmacy etc. is a bachelor's degree. Things are changing slowly, with an increasing number of overseas dentistry and vet practioners using the title "Dr", as well as the introduction of some professional doctorates (e.g. PsyD). I'm also aware of some universities thinking of offering a shorter postgraduate medical education, in addition to the longer MBChB, however, I don't know if that will be a doctorate. --Limegreen 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting, though, that bachelor's degrees in the UK tend to be more specialised than those in the USA. You start studying your chosen subject (or two subjects in the case of 'joint honours' degrees) from day one and while many universities or departments do have some limited scope for taking courses in other subjects for credit, generally the core of the degree programme is focused on one subject for the entire three years (or four in the case of the relatively new first master's degrees like the MMath, MPhys, etc). There isn't a requirement to study a range of elective courses in other subjects before choosing a 'major'.

I guess that when comparing the US MD and the UK MBChB, the crucial test is to ask whether there's any difference in knowledge and expertise by the time of graduation - and as far as I can tell, they're pretty analogous. The new postgraduate-entry fast-track MBChB programmes, which are restricted to people who already have a BSc in biology or biochemistry, are like the conventional undergraduate-entry ones, except that a year's worth of biology and biochemistry courses are skipped on the grounds that the students already know it.

You're right that there's been a recent, sneaking tendency in the UK for other medical-related practitioners to start adopting the courtesy title of 'Dr' - something that many of us with actual doctoral degrees regard with varying levels of suspicion. My dentist, despite being a Bachelor of Dental Surgery, is called 'Dr' (not, of course, that I'm inclined to argue the point when she's in the middle of poking at my teeth with scary bits of sharp metal). I guess the real test will be whether or not the lawyers (who over here are still LLBs or LLMs) eventually try it as well. -- Nicholas Jackson 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that in the UK the accelerated medical programmes for graduates all lead to the same degrees as the mainstream courses, which would be MB ChB or MB BS (etc): this was necessary as there was at first some suspicion about the shortened courses. In the same way, in the US the shortened two year programmes for people with PhDs (in English Literature, or whatever) lead to an MD. NRPanikker 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant NRP. PhDs in America do not get shortened school terms for previous PhD degrees that I know of. Or did I entirely misunderstand you? tc. BruceD270 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is only one medical school in the US which requires a thesis for graduation: Yale University. There are several others where it is optional. Since the MD is a first professional degree, and is a practical, not research, degree, most US medical schools do not require a thesis at all. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

MD as a first degree

I remember reading a long time ago that American (and possibly Canadian) college students could apply to medical schools after a couple of years studying pre-medical subjects, without completing a BA or BS first. Is that still the case? Or has the level of competition for entry effectively raised the barrier and made the MD a postgraduate degree, as happened to the LLB (now JD)? NRPanikker 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much; its not really possible for an American student to gain admissions w/o a four year BS or BA. Schools still reserve the right just in case they come by someone like the dali lama who might not meet the minimums but still wants in (i.e. its there but it never happens). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some combined BA/MD programs where you are accepted right out of high school. Andrew73 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether the effective requirement for a BA or BS before enrolling for an American MD equates academically to the French requirement for a baccalauréat or Bachelier ès Sciences degree on leaving the lycée followed by a year's premedical study at university, or even the English call for Advanced Level GCE passes. NRPanikker 03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems that the BA requirement is more significant (by far) compared to either, though I admit I know much less about the French system. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To be really nitpicky, it's possible to gain admission to certain med schools (Brown) without a 4-year degree, but before you can matriculate you'll need to have completed your degree (that is, you can apply for a BS/MD right out of high school, but you have to complete the BS first). For all practical purposes, you're exactly right. Antelan 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MB in the USA

Currently the main MD article states that American medical schools used to give bachelor of medicine degrees, until they switched to giving doctorates. I remember hearing a long time ago that Dartmouth College could award a bachelor's degree to those who got half way through the medical course, but is the main assertion correct or just vandalism? NRPanikker 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? How could this assertion qualify as vandalism?User:Hopping 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• "During the first years of the Harvard Medical School, students were granted an M.B. degree, the Bachelor of Medicine ...In 1811, Harvard began to confer the M.D. on all medical graduates that year." We are not talking about the MB being granted currently in the US. The MB is the traditional British medical degree and used to be conferred as the standard medical degree in the US (until the early 1800s). Hope that helps!

Jwri7474 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic

I thought all that 'allopathic' business had been resolved months ago. If not, perhaps we should discuss it here. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought so too: see the discussion from last month See WhatamIdoing's comment below for the updated link. Antelan 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah but a certain editor insists on being tendentious about this. OrangeMarlin 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct link is here. The discussion was archived. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. I've fixed my post. Antelan 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Censor tag

There is currently a war in place over the addition of the censor tag to this talk page. I don't personally believe that it is needed for this page, however, rather than engage in an edit war, it would be better to discuss it here. DigitalC (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This use of the censor tag is the most asinine thing I've seen today. It's used on pages which may attract censoring of images (such as pictures of Mohamed or human nudity). Not a Intelligent-design-esq "the establishment is censoring our arguments". Jefffire (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments? What arguments? Bryan Hopping 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at WP:CENSOR, it's clear that "not censored" applies to graphic content which some might consider obscene or inappropriate. The examples cited are the articles on penis and pornography. In any content dispute, both sides typically feel that the other is "censoring" their arguments. That's not what WP:CENSOR is about. A censorship tag isn't appropriate to this particular page or dispute. Instead of edit-warring over the tag, why not set forth the dispute concisely and seek outside input? MastCell  15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then why won't someone block Hopping for edit warring and putting a dumbass 3RR warning on my user talk page for removing it? OrangeMarlin 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it up to 4 yet? I sent my WP sttings to Ozzie times which confuses me sometimes...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MD or M.D.

The article seems to switch between the two. Being an aussie I don't use the term - should it always have the little dots? In any case, the article should stick to one. I'd do it myself but I can't decide which.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer LRU. Lord Ruler of the Universe. But that may just be me. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations) says either is preferred. Which means there is no standard. But I would presume if this article was being copyedited, it should be consistent. I'd vote for MD, since it's easier to type. OrangeMarlin 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MD is fine by me, as well. Anyone want to stick up for poor old M.D.? Antelan 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll race you to see how many M.D.'s can be changed to MD in the next 10 minutes.  :) OrangeMarlin 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're on. If you beat me to it, I'll just revert you and then revert myself, claiming all the credit. Antelan 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn. All that ctrl+f / del / paste, and you still beat me to it. All I got was a typo. Antelan 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, the Macintosh is a superior computer for editing on Misplaced Pages. And all those years threading catheters in coronary arteries, has made my finger more dextrous for typing! OrangeMarlin 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhoh. All this typing on Misplaced Pages is going to make my fingers arthritic, which will be something of a liability when I begin threading catheters in coronary arteries. Antelan 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. The fluoroscopy will kill you first. OrangeMarlin 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed education articles
• Unknown-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content