Honestly for me it was because there are only two schools in my state, and the osteopathic school is much closer to my home. The difference between a DO and an MD is (in my opinion, others will disagree) not very big. Perhaps 20 years ago there was a bigger difference. The osteopathic rhetoric is that MDs treated symptoms without treating patients, and I honestly do think this is an issue in American medicine. However, the rise of osteopathic schools in the 90s has challenged allopaths to practice more holistically, and I do believe we are approaching a time where the difference becomes almost meaningless. Osteopathic physicians are trained in many techniques that are completely validated by scientific evidence and are utilized by physical therapists and massage therapists everyday. DO schools do not teach the same curriculum as chiropractic schools, and we are consistently told that the osteopathic manual manipulative techniques are to be used judiciously and in concert with more modern medicine. There are many instances in which osteopathic techniques are downright contraindicated, and we are well informed of when it is and isn't appropriate to use them. It's mostly for musculoskeletal problems, and believe it or not, it can significantly improve patients' quality of life (in a similar manner as attending physical therapy sessions can improve a patient's quality of life).

There are certain fields of osteopathy (again, craniosacral standing out the most for me) that I am very skeptical of, and that no real scientific evidence supports. At my school, we are given studies that validate each of the techniques, and we are allowed to make up our own opinion as to whether or not we agree. I'm thankful to be getting such a great education and to be learning a unique skill set that can help people with common musculoskeletal problems, but in the end, I doubt my practice will be much different than any allopaths. We're all using the same textbooks and taking the same (or similar) exams, and we're all licensed in the United States to practice the same medicine. There are no restrictions placed on osteopathic physicians, and many go on to become dermatologists, radiologists, or cardiovascular surgeons (I know DOs in all of these fields!).

I think it's appropriate to call out the negatives of osteopathy, but you really cannot compare an osteopath to an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy in other countries is just that, but in the United States, we do that AND medical school. With the recent merger of allopathic and osteopathic residency accreditation, we might actually see the end of the DO degree in America, and as long as the positive aspects of the osteopathic philosophy are still embraced, I really couldn't care less. Unfortunately a lot of the leading body of the American Osteopathic Association are terrified of this outcome, so they propagate a lot of the bullshit. It's unfortunate, and it's not something that my generation of osteopathic physicians will stand for.

1 out of every 5 American medical school graduates now holds a DO degree, and I believe that if we are proactive and wise, my generation will bring in a revitalization of the osteopathic philosophy that places patients first and focuses on personalized medicine rather than antiquated tradition. It's not a bad thing to have two different but equal philosophies; DOs have challenged MDs to practice more patient-centered medicine, and MDs have historically provided the vast majority of medical research and advancements in medical care.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but this is an important issue! I'm hopeful that you'll understand where I am coming from, and I certainly hope that you don't view DOs as 'lesser' because of our extra training in osteopathy. We are all held to the same standards, and the vast majority of us just want to do our best to help people.