Jump to content

Talk:Osteopathy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OA2020 (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 25 August 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emarti84 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zsmith7.

Nomenclature

The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted from using their degree abbreviation?

The article says in the lede:

In the United States, osteopaths are legally restricted from using the title D.O. to avoid confusion with osteopathic physicians who are medical doctors trained and certified to practice medicine as well as osteopathic manipulation.

This is unsourced, and the equivalent statement in the body has been called out for a cite for several months. I find it dubious, not the least because it refer to a purported restriction "in the United States," when in fact, regulation of this type is done on a state-by-state basis. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Osteopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is Wikipedia sponsore by Pharma companies?

Just wondered. Because all of this - "While the national health services of some countries consider there is "good" evidence for osteopathy as a treatment for low back pain and "limited evidence to suggest it may be effective for some types of neck, shoulder or lower limb pain and recovery after hip or knee operations", there is little, or insufficient, evidence that osteopathy is effective as a treatment for health conditions "unrelated" to the bones and muscles, "such as headaches, migraines, painful periods, digestive disorders, depression and excessive crying in babies (colic)"; an explicit reference to the claims of osteopathic manipulative medicine.[9] Others have concluded that osteopathic style manipulation "failed to produce compelling evidence" for efficacy in treating musculoskeletal pain.[10]" - is in the intro to this subject.

Sure it belongs in a section about criticisms of Osteopathy. But in the intro??? Do all medical and drug related articles have such heavily 'anti' introductions? Nope. So why does this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:45D:5B00:142C:68A3:5DE:EC77 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The claim here is that the term "osteopath" is NOT applied to D.O.s (Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (USA)). This is wrong. Further, the confusion between an osteopath and a D.O. should be a top priority here and it is badly fumbled. This article needs a statement at the top CLEARLY discriminating between Osteopathic MEDICINE and the pseudo-scientific practice of (traditional) osteopathy. It seems that this difference may not be meaningful in countries other than the USA, if not, then the article needs to be clear about that, too.98.21.208.72 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this request was complied with in the recent edits, mainly my edit on Feb 8th. Nod if you disagree. Also, to the guy who quite combatively replaced a commonly-used latin phrase to its English equivalent: chill. Heptor talk 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has "For the American medical practice of osteopathic physicians in the United States, see Osteopathic medicine in the United States" at the beginning. I am going to disagree with that edit though, since there is no evidence in the article that "Some countries mandate that osteopathic practitioners must be physicians or medical doctors" and it is absolutely not the case (as established in the article) that "...a person without a medical degree is not allowed to call him- or herself an osteopath in the United States" or Osteopaths in the United States are osteopathic physicians and practice the full scope of modern medicine.--tronvillain (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this requires more research. In the US, medical licenses are granted by the state medical boards, not by the federal government. I suspect the article is not very wrong, there is an official osteopathic medical board in California at least, http://www.ombc.ca.gov/. I don't know if I have enough subject matter knowledge to make improvements, unfortunately. Heptor (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear that The American Osteopathic Association and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine recommend using the terms osteopathic physician (U.S.-trained only) and osteopathic medicine in reference to osteopathic medicine as practiced in the United States. What the language and limitations specified in state laws are is another question.--tronvillain (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Osteopathy and Chiropractic

Almost ten years ago an editor suggested adding a comparison between the two similar practices of Osteopathy and Chiropractic, but there was no response to that suggestion. I'm making it again. The Chiropractic article contains exhaustive and very helpful comparisons between the two as well as other forms of manual therapy. The same kind of comparison should be added to this article. Currently, it doesn't even contain the word "chiropractic" (or any word beginning with "chiro-") except in the Fringe Medicine sidebar. — 8.47.96.133 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful in the sense that it notes that they're both pseudoscientific garbage that hurts people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.200.183 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph to the osteopathy page has some inaccuracies. And I propose the changes as below:

1. The Forbes article by Salzberg that was referenced never mentioned osteopathy as "extra training in pseudoscientific practices" with regards to the statement regarding osteopathic training in medical school.

2. The statement: "Osteopathic medical schools also tend to be weaker than MD schools with regard to research and the understanding of scientific inquiry." is inaccurate. The author of this statement cited 3 studies. One is from 1987, this source is over 30 years old and cannot be used to compare osteopathic medical schools to allopathic medical schools in 2019. Another source stated that osteopathic research was lacking in the early and mid 20th centuries but there was no mention of other types of research lacking (in fields outside of osteopathy), therefore the comparison cannot be made to the counterpart MD schools. The third source cited a report from Abraham Flexner in 1910 who made this assertation.

3. Regarding the statement of Osteopathy in the Cranial field; the reference is to only 1 author who listed cranial osteopathy as pseudoscience in a blog post. Therefore, one can label it as pseudoscience using a generalization statement and placed in the introductory paragraph. I had originally moved the criticism of cranial osteopathy to the criticism section, specifically the paragraph regarding Stephen Barrett, the physician who wrote the blog posts.

The 3 above edits were reverted without explanation. The only reasons given were "fringe sources" and "whitewashing" without further explanation. Please be aware that you are responsible for your edits made using the Twinkle Javascript gadget and you are required to explain edits or reverts of edits. I am proposing the above changes to the article, please be aware. Golan1911 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the Salzberg ref. Cranial osteopathy is obviously pseudoscience/quackery and so sources say so. Wikipedia must accordingly reflect that. "Criticism" sections are generally frowned on as non-neutral. Everything here now seems well-sourced, so these proposed changes would worsen the article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the explanation. However, you did not address my second point above. I would still like to remove the statement comparing osteopathic medical schools to allopathic ones regarding "research and the understanding of scientific inquiry". Again, I have shown that the 3 sources pertaining to this statement are outdated by at least 30 years. I would also like to add that this statement is vague.

Thank you for changing the reference regarding my first point above, but I still propose to remove the statement regarding Osteopathy as "extra-training in pseudo-scientific practices".

I would also like to point out that the same author (Steven Salzberg) posted another article only 2 days after the original one (where he mentioned osteopathy as extra training in pseudo-scientific practices). In this article, titled "Second Thoughts on Osteopathic Medicine", Salzberg states:

"My post also included an implication that, because osteopathic medicine was founded in the 19th century by someone (Andrew Still) with some wacky ideas, that modern-day practice still included those ideas. I didn't write this explicitly, but the suggestion was there, and that was both unfair and inaccurate. Conventional medicine included all kinds of nutty practices in the past (bloodletting, for example), but it has moved on, as has osteopathy."

Golan1911 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems fine. Some of your points would seem to apply more to Osteopathic medicine in the United States. This article is about osteopathy at large as an alternative medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made suggestion in next section. However, speaking about cranial osteopathy, there are MEDRS sources, such as this and this. They say this is a poorly studied and poorly justified treatment, and more research is needed. They do NOT say this is a "pseudoscience/quackery". My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's a lot of wanky research weaselling away with More research is needed clichés, but cranial osteopathy is a canonical quackery, per WP:RS. I mean "let me feel the vibrations in your skull and my magic hands will realign your skull bones to solve any health problem"?! Fuck no. You could use your argument to legitimize any quackery, from homeopathy to bleach therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Osteopathic medicine

I understand that osteopathic doctors in the United States practice very same Osteopathy (including cranial osteopathy) as described on this page. Here is page in Encyclopedia Brittannica. It tells that Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine is the same. Why we treat them differently? Even according to this very page, Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine is exactly the same subject - see section Osteopathy#Regulation_and_legal_status and History. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In practice osteopathic doctors in the USA mostly practice only allopathic treatment, with some mild conceptual differences if any. In practice they are actually regular MDs. There are many references to this in the criticism section. The right thing would be to do what is suggested in reference number one. There is a world of difference between what osteopathic doctors practice and osteopathy. Oriho (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, a lot of them work exactly as regular MD, except that the formal title of their degree is different. The students even pass the same exams as regular MD, in addition to exams in the Osteopathic medicine. All these people do not work in the field of alternative medicine. But for example, this article includes big section "Regulation_and_legal_status" with subsection Osteopathy#United_States and link to Osteopathic medicine in the United States. That seems to be correct. Are you saying this whole section about regulation/legal status of the Osteopathy aka "osteopathic medicine" (in the US, Canada, UK and other countries) is out of place and belongs somewhere else? And if it does belong here, is not it the same subject, exactly as Encyclopedia Brittannica frames it? In addition, the DO in US do practice cranial osteopathy, do not they? My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also realize that some people are trained only in manual osteopathic treatment to relieve muscular and skeletal conditions; they are not DO and referred to simply as "osteopaths" (I assume they should have a license), but they practice basically the same approach, which is the subject of this page. I also realize that some of the techniques, such as cranial osteopathy, can be questioned, and rightly so (just as many conventional drugs were criticized and even resulted in deaths of some patients), but this is still the same subject.My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Osteopathy in the US is an anomoly worldwide. UK osteopaths by no means deserve to be mixed in with the respectable American counterparts. The merge would do a disservice to every English-speaking except the US and maybe Canada. There IS no equivalent to US Osteopathic medicine outside of the US. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 21:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are voting on a different proposal. I did not suggest to merge this page with Osteopathic medicine in the United States (of course that one is separate!). I suggested to merge with page Osteopathic medicine (see the title of the thread), which is not about US, abut also about other countries. According to page Osteopathic medicine, "Osteopathic medicine is a branch of the medical profession practiced primarily in the United States,[1][2] but has also spread to 85 other countries, with universities throughout Europe and Asia, and including Australia, New Zealand and Canada.. I assume this is correct information. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page looks like a WP:COATRACK. It makes vague statements about 85 countries, and only talks about the practice in exactly two. I have extreme doubts about its lead, as it literally has no references in the whole article that aren't about the US or Canada. An unsourced claim in a dubious article does not justify a merge. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the underlined statement seem to be supported by references in section "Regulation and legal status" of this page. Simply having such section in this page means that the Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine is essentially the same subject (per Encyclopedia Britannica), except that in some countries the practitioners/doctors have a more advanced degree named DO, but "DO" indeed belongs to the page Osteopathic medicine in the United States which should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List_of_osteopathic_colleges lists about 20 countries, and not all of them seem to even have a single accredited university degree, which would be the minimum required for statements about having "universities throughout Europe and Asia". That would still be misleading - "university degrees" would be the most you could claim unless the university focused on Osteopathy. It doesn't appear to be true, though. The only New Zealand course, for example, is the ability to get an add-on Master's Degree in Osteopathy if you already have a Bachelor's in something else, and a single course hardly seems worth the emphasis. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So, the practitioners/doctors will have very different level of education and preparation in different countries. This is very common for all professions, even for scientific researchers. For example, a PhD degree in history from Moscow may not be accepted in the US. But it does not make all representatives of a profession "pseudo-scientists". My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it all seems a little more complicated. There’s a suite of articles here which also includes Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which may be a more appropriate place for Osteopathic medicine to redirect to, given that ‘Osteopathic medicine’ is essentially just medicine practised by a DO. As another indication that this article should not be merged with Osteopathic medicine, that article actually carries a note saying “not to be confused with osteopathy”. Brunton (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose they are quite different and should not be conflated in direct opposition to the OP's unfortunate (and incorrect) views on this matter. The cited Encyclopedia Brittanica article also does not say they are the same. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come? Here is article in EB named "Osteopathy", and it tells "Osteopathic medicine began in the United States in the 19th century..." and so on. Osteopathic medicine. Then the article in EB tells that "In Great Britain there are two schools of osteopathic medicine". Osteopathic medicine again. Hence it treats this as the same subject, and not only something in USA. So does this page. Section "History" begins from the history of "Osteopathic medicine in the United States". All of that (in EB and on this page) seems to be correct and supported by references. What is wrong? My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shown and the intro paragraph seem intentionally derogatory.

As an osteopath and someone who employs and has employed dozens of osteopaths, never once have I or any member of our team performed the technique demonstrated at the beginning of the article- ‘to cure impotence’.

It seems whomever last edited it chose some random and unusual technique (and intentionally provocative) performed by a practitioner from an era past to somehow paint a negative image of the profession.

95% of what Osteopaths treat includes neck, back and joint pain, sporting injuries, and post-op rehab.

If surgeons in 2020 were judged by what their predecessors did in 1920, their would be an outrage. The same outrage should be applied in the case.

I request that this article be updated to reflect the profession as it stands in 2020, and not how those who’s opinions differ perceive the profession to be. Kevin Finnan (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia (rather than a brochure) includes a historical perspective. Since osteopathy is largely a historical thing (with just a fringe rump these days), the use of a historical image is surely apt. On the other hand "surgery" in general is something that has changed markedly over the decades and is known to be an effective medical technique. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(E/C) But it does represent what medically reliable sources WP:MEDRS say about the profession as it stands in 2020. You need to use reliable sources if you want to change the WP:NPOV tone of this article. I'm very happy that you guys don't perform that anti impotence maneuver nowadays though. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you are citing "What people say about a profession" but that is not evidence based, just anecdotal. OA2020 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further do you have any cited evidence to demonstrate this technique is used now or even taught in universities...again where is your evidence and citation? 

OA2020 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathy&oldid=974955598"