Talk:Allopathic medicine

Some contents of this article were merged: See old talk-page here

/archive1

A little glitzy...

It seems to me that the intro reads a little un-NPOV, like someone had a grudge to bear. Even if this is the case for the article, it doesn't read very encyclopedic, so I'm putting a magazine template. Rhetth 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to allopathic MD schools and ACGME. -Sparaig 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • With thanks from the American Medical Association for your input.

I agree with the other comments, this article appears to have an axe to grind and underplays the fact that the major associations representing "conventional medicine" in the U.S. universally and unashamedly embrace the term "allopathic medicine" (primarily to distinguish itself from ostopathic medicine). Maybe the term has a controversal heritage, but today it's simply a useful adjective to refer to MDs specifically when contrasting them with DOs. Having said that I don't see myself as personally qualified to correct this. XKL 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important not only doctors opinion but for the general public to understand this term. I would say that this article may clarify an important content of the difference in use, therefore people may interpret it under the different context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.90.150.114 (talk • contribs).

Call Modern Western Medicine

No doubt the term '''Allopathy''' is given by the founder of Homoeopathy Dr. CFS Hahnemann of Germany. But today Allopathy is also known Modern Western Medicine. I think , this could be a good and appealing title for Allopathy. user:debbe, 30 April 2007, 07:25 PM IST

Revamping this article

This article needs to be revamped. The article lacks a neutral point of view. There is some controversy here that needs to be addressed. My concern is how much to emphasize the controversial aspect of the term. As it stands now, this article seems to be an article about the controvery surrounding the term, but not about the term itself. Main points:

• The word allopathic medicine has an "everyday," current usage. The main function the term serves is to differentiate between osteopathic and non-osteopathic medical schools/degrees/practices. The only context in which the term is regularly used is in a discussion of osteopathic medical schools, osteopathic associations, etc. Outside of contexts where this differentiation is being made, the term is rarely used. Instead, one would simply say "medicine" or perhaps "conventional medicine" - though the term "conventional" medicine also has unintended connotations. Other possible terms to consider are "clinical medicine" or "evidence-based" medicine. Unfortunely, none of these terms comes close to the same functional meaning as "allopathic medicine." Further, none of these terms as satisfactory since Osteopathic medical schools now teach the same traditional, conventional, evidence-based medicine as allopathic schools.
• This modern, current usage carries no-negative connotation. It simply serves a function. The main evidence I think of that supports this several organizations which represent the type of medicine to which the term refers, use is to describe themselves, as User: XKL noted.

• The word has an original usage which carried a perjorative message. This is part of the term history. This should be noted.

Questions/Problems, input requested.

• To propery address the controvery surrounding the term allopathic requires a discussion of the history of the conflictling schools of medicine; without this context the discussion is incomplete. This is especially important since the term took on new significance during each historical period: (please amend w/ suggestions as you see fit)
  • 19th century America - osteopathy, homeopathy, allopathy - conflicts over the basic model of medical therapy. Advent of clinical medicine which osteopathy and allopathy embrace while homeopathy rejects.
  • 20th century America - osteopathy v allopathy - conflicts over licensure, practice rights, accredidation. California in ’68: AOA v AMA, etc. The advent of "evidence-based" medicine.
  • 21st century America - osteopathy and allopathy differences blur. The advent of "alternative medicine" and "complementary medicine" further changes the meaning of both terms.
• A second major problem is the regional issue. As far as I know, the term "allopathic" is only commonly used in the United States. Add to this the fact that "Osteopathy" and "Osteopathic medicine" means something entirely different in all of the non-US world. Needs to be addressed.
• ”Osteopathic medicine" the branch of medicine which "allopathic" seems to exist to differntiate from, also has a questionable meaning. Today, all Osteopathic medical schools embrace clinical, evidence-based, conventional medicine. Osteopathic medical students take the same national exams (MCAT, USMLE) and are the vast majoity are trained in allopathic resident training programs. The majority of Osteopathic physicians in America do not practice any form of Osteopathic manipulation. Does this suggest that Osteopathic medicine includes all of allopathic medicine but adds the option of manipulation? Where does that leave the term allopathic?

In my experience (I attend as Osteopathic medical school), the cirricula of osteopathic and allopathic medical schools are functionally identical, the one exception to this being the additional material on "Osteopathic medical theory and manipulation." But this is additional material, not given at the expense of conventional medicine. This still leaves the question of what actually is the difference, and what does the term allopath even mean, other than non-Osteopathic.

Suggestions in the search for a statisfying, accurate approximation of term's funtional meaning

• Emphasizing the fact that a greater percentage of US osteopaths go into primary care, while a greater percentage of allopaths go into a specialty medical field.
• Emphasizing that Osteopathic/Allopathic refers to two education routes with same destination, professional "licensure" as a medical doctor. Compare to other circumstances where two similar, yet distinct degrees lead to same licensure, i.e. PsyD and a PhD can lead to a license in psychology.
• Somehow addressing the difficult to document, yet somehow intuitively-important notion that osteopathic/allopathic refers to the perception of an "attitude" or an openess towards alternative/complementary medical practices. Osteopaths being open to non-evidence based therapies, in addition to conventional ones. The perception that allopaths are less-so.
• Somehow address that there is a slow, but clear convergence in all remaining differnces between the two previously disimilar branches of medicine. Cite examples of allopathic institutions (Harvard medical school) teaching Osteopathic principles/manipulation. More than anything, the over-emphasis on the controversial nature of the term allpathic obscures this important trend. The meaning of the term allopath is clearly in flux. One might say it is becoming less meaningful, or more limited. User: OsteopathicFreak 24 May 2007

When the dictionaries reflect what you claim is the "current" meaning, this article should reflect that fact. You need references to back up your claims, otherwise it's all just original research. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Allopathic Medicine

This is a dispute about what the introductory section for the entry "allopathic medicine." 25 May 2007 There are two versions of the intro section:

Allopathy or Allopathic medicine (from Gr. allos, other, and pathos, suffering) is the name given by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy,[1] to the methods of his medical foes. The term is sometimes used today to refer to conventional medicine. The correct meaning and use of the term is a point of contention, even among authorities on the subject.

or

The terms Allopathy or Allopathic medicine refers to the treatment of disease using conventional medical therapies, as opposed the use of alternative medical or non-conventional therapies. The meaning and controversy surrounding the term can be traced to its original usage during a contentious, 19th-century debate between practioners of homeopathic, osteopathic and allopathic medicine. (see history of term) In modern times, "allopathic" is used infrequently to refer to a specific type or field of medicine, rather the American Medical Association and the National Residency Matching Program[1] use the term to refer to the schools and residency training programs which they govern, e.g. an allopathic medical student. Thus, the term distiguishes these schools and programs from those that receive accredidation by the American Osteopathic Association.

25 May 2007 User:OsteopathicFreak

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The word allopathic medicine has an "everyday," current usage. This modern, current usage carries no-negative connotation. It simply serves a function. The main evidence I think of that supports this several organizations which represent the type of medicine to which the term refers, use is to describe themselves, as User:XKL noted. User:OsteopathicFreak
• The word has an original usage which carried a perjorative message. This is part of the term history. This should be noted. User:OsteopathicFreak
• When the dictionaries reflect what you claim is the "current" meaning, this article should reflect that fact. You need references to back up your claims, otherwise it's all just original research. - User:Nunh-huh 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

You can't elevate Wikipedian's thoughts or observations on what the primary meaning of a word is over that given by standard reference works - in this case, published, reputable dictionaries. Finding some organization using it in a given way on the Internet is, perhaps, evidence that that meaning of the word is headed towards acceptance, but until it's so reported by dictionaries, it's original research and crystal-ball gazing to say so. No dictionary reports the meaning you want to make primary as the primary meaning. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What standard reference works do not define it similarly to the definition given? The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "ordinary or traditional medical practice." Stedman's medical dictionary does the same. In the UK, the term seems to be most often used to distiguish conventional medicine from homeopathic medicine. In the US, the term seems to be used most often to distiguish between conventional medicine and osteopathic medicine. In either case, it seems to mean "conventional" or "traditional" medicine. The number of publications and organizations that use it in this way, to describe themselves, are literally too numerous to cite. I listed two that I thought were sufficient to establish the meaning and usage of the term. Numerous other source are discussed in the article. Does it not make sense to at least define the term, say how its used and who uses it, currently? Then have a discussion of the term's origins?OsteopathicFreak 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives such a definition, but not as the primary definition. So your impression of how it's used currently differs from that of the OED. What makes sense is to define the word with its primary definition, and give subsidiary definitions later. And it makes perfect sense to describe the origins of the word chronologically, first meanings first. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's a disagreement here, hence the RfC. I'll let others observations/comments guide the organization of this article. Stepping back for a while. OsteopathicFreak 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you're seeing a different Stedman's than I. All I see for allopathy is "A therapeutic system in which a disease is treated by producing a second condition that is incompatible with or antagonistic to the first. syn: heteropathy 2 Etymology: allo- + G. [pathos,] suffering " - Nunh-huh 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Need to split "allopathy" from "allopathic medicine." Similar distinction as "Osteopathy" and "Osteopathic medicine."OsteopathicFreak 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak you are wasting your time on here. Even though major allpathic institutions (AMA, ACGME, and AAMC) refer to what they do as allopathic medicine (examples from their publications have been supplied in the article) and even though nearly every medical dictionary cited defines allopathic medicine as mainstream medicine, Nunh-huh is going to insist that all of the sources are wrong and he is right. I, and many others before me, have been through this with him. A charitable reading of the situation would be that he is from a different age in medicine when the term was less common. All I know is that when I took the MCAT I had to check the box that said I was applying to allopathic medical schools. He is the only person I have ever heard object to this, and believe me--he is going to continue to object (even in the face of the ACGME, the AMA, the AAMC, etc.). But it doesn't really matter. In the end, the AMA, the ACGME, and the AAMC will continue to describe it as allopathic, even if he objects. Donaldal 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty to thinking that history didn't begin with Donaldal's first memories. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allopathic medicine → Allopathy — This article mostly pertains to the term allopathy. By changing the name of the article, the focus will shift from defining conventional medicine as allopathic to what allopathy means. This should alleviate some of the controversy and arguments indicated in the discussion above. Conventional medicine can be discussed in another article (maybe Medical education), and differences between MD and DO can be discussed in Medical education in the United States, Doctor of Medicine, and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. —Scott Alter 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose- Google search shows "allopathic medicine" to be more widely used; I believe this will be more commonly searched for and less confusing. —LactoseTI^T 08:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The purpose of this rename would be to complement the osteopathy article, assuming osteopathic medicine will be renamed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine". Please see comments at Talk:Osteopathic medicine#Requested move, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical education, and Talk:Medical education in the United States#Split Medical school into Medical school in the United States as to the changes I would like to make. I believe that if I make these changes, everything will be much more clear. If there aren't any other suggestions, I will go ahead and rename the articles soon. My changes are mostly of article names and not content. They could always be moved back if someone has another idea. I think some people might not understand how I envision the medical education articles, but I think everything will end up for the better. --Scott Alter 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the equation of M.D. with "allopath" is not appropriate, and not for the better. - Nunh-huh 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

M.D. would not be equated with allopath any more than it is now. If anything, it would be more separated. By renaming [allopathic medicine]] to "allopathy", the focus shifts from the type of medicine practiced (called allopathic medicine by some, who may assume that MDs practice this) to the term allopathy (which is what the article is currently about). The term "allopath" would not be used to described an MD, as I do not believe it is used now. I am only proposing to rename the article so that the title matches the content. The article is about the term allopathy, rather than what "allopathic medicine" is (or whatever you call allopathic medicine - conventional, traditional, non-osteopathic, etc). --Scott Alter 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Conventional or traditional is far less tendentious than "allopathic". There are journal articles that I have cited on Wikipedia previously (I'll find them again if need be) that document the sordid origins of the term allopathy, and the remaining opposition by many to the use of term. I think you all are giving User:Nunh-huh too hard of a time here; one can ignore the controversy, but that does not make it cease to exist, or have existed. Antelan ^talk 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood the re-organizational plan Scottalter has outlined, which seemed to me to want to memorialize the "osteopathic/non-osteopathic" as "osteopathic/allopathic". He now seems to say that is not his intent, and I would welcome clarification on that point. It also seems he wants to make an artificial, and therefore necessarily idiosyncratic, distinction between "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine", which are synonyms. I suspect that distinction will confuse rather than enlighten our readers. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear. The only thing I want to do is make a direct comparison between are the M.D. and D.O. degrees. Not on allopathic and osteopathic. This is why I would like to rename "Osteopathic medicine" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine". I would also like to rename "allopathic medicine" to "allopathy". My reason for this is partially because of the controversy over the word allopath. Regardless of the content, having a phrase containing the word medicine in the title makes the article seem like it is about the actual type of medicine. The "allopathic medicine" article is almost entirely discussing the origin and usage of the word allopath, and not about non-osteopathic medicine (called allopathic by some). Therefore, I believe "allopathy" is a better title for the article than "allopathic medicine". The non-osteopathic (allopathic) medicine is explained in medicine and all other medical articles. I do not want to separate allopathy and allopathic medicine into separate articles. They are the same thing, which would confuse everyone. This is not my intent. To lessen confusion, I do want only one osteopathy/osteopathic medicine article. If "Osteopathic medicine" is renamed to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", then this will accomplish that goal. --Scott Alter 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott, if the following isn't a correct interpretation of your goals, can you copy and update it to explain what your aim is? I'm hoping a delineated layout like this will help clarify what you're working for.

Allopathy

An article about the term allopathy, its pejorative origins, and its contradistinction to homeopathic medicine, its non-pejorative uses (etc.)

Doctor of medicine

An article about the title and the attributes of those who possess it

Osteopathy

An article about the term and its usage in and out of the USA

Doctor of osteopathic medicine

An article about the title and the attributes of those who possess it

Thanks, Antelan ^talk 05:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, what you outlined is a good description of what I would like to do. It is also basically what the current articles are about, just with their current names. This can be accomplished by performing 2 steps:

1. Rename Osteopathic medicine → Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (and possibly move/copy some content to osteopathy)
2. Rename Allopathic medicine → Allopathy

Doctor of Medicine and Osteopathy will remain as-is. --Scott Alter 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the only question touching on this article is allopathic medicine vs. allopathy, they are synonyms and I don't care which is used. (I don't know why Scottalter prefers one over the other, but I have no objections to him moving it.) - Nunh-huh 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. I can't find a single use of the term "allopathy" outside of two contexts - 1. Criticisms of traditional medicine. 2. Criticisms of the use of the term "allopathic." I can find numerous examples of the phrase "allopathic medicine" by practitioners of traditional medicine in a neutral, non-derogatory sense, e.g. the NRMP uses it to describe graduates of non-osteopathic medical schools. I agree with Scott Alter that the article as it stands focuses on the controversy surrounding the use of the term. Though I oppose the move, I support anything that clarifies the confusion of this article. As it stands now, it misrepresents the topic, ignores the current usage of the term "allopathic" in favor of editorializing on the appropriateness of these terms.

It is clear that there are strongly held opinions on this topic. As I am new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure how these issue get resolved. From my point of view, these articles, the very way they are structured, all carry a clear Non-NPOV. This is similar to the "See Also Osteopathic Medical Schools" business from a while back. I'm not sure what evidence to offer to aid others in seeing this bias.

For the record, I feel that most of these distinctions are just nonsense. Discussions of this nature quickly devolve into such convoluted and legalistic jargon as to become almost meaningless. Nevertheless, the history is interesting and I think Wikipedia could do the topic justice. But I'm saddened that I don't really think that will happen in the face of an apparent commitment to a one-sided recounting of the history from a single point of view, to the exclusion of all others.

Note that Osteopathic medicine is not synonymous with Osteopathy. At least legally.OsteopathicFreak 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"MD residencies" and "traditional"

Hi - So I'm sorry if my edit was untoward. Here's my point. People are confused on this topic, let's shep some light on it, not obscure things. "Allopathic med schools" graduate MDs and "osteopathic med schools" graduate DOs, exclusively. This is in sharp contrast with "allopathic residencies" which train MDs and DOs. Almost half of DO grads go on to "allopathic" residencies.[2] And many "allopathic" residencies are also accredited by the AOA. So the residency is "allopathic" and "osteopathic" at the same time. Just think it might be misleading if you don't clarify this.

I think the problem is, "MD residencies" sounds like its for MDs. Are the DO residents who train in allopathic programs now allopaths? Are they now MDs? The whole thing is silly, of course.

Also the word "traditional" medical degree is a bit problematic, especially when you throw in the british comparison. In the US, osteopathic medicine degrees are just as "traditional" as allopathic. In Britain, an Osteopathic degree is something wholly different.OsteopathicFreak 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that allopathic residencies are open to M.D.'s and D.O.'s, the residency programs themselves are called allopathic. As this is verifiable and attributed, I'm not sure why it's a problem.

With regards to your concern about the term "traditional" - both are not equally traditional. The M.D. precedes the D.O., and while both have the same rights under the law in the U.S., labeling the M.D. degree "traditional" - especially in this context, where it is not contrasted with D.O. but instead with homeopathy, and furthermore includes reference to the British system where you correctly note that osteopathic degrees are unlike the D.O. degree available in the United States - is appropriate. Antelan ^talk 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. I'm just saying there's a lot of confusion out there, what these descriptions refer to is often misunderstood. This article is an opportunity to clarify the boundaries, and show how much overlap there is with the terms and how they are used. That's all. I really don't want this to be a DO/MD war. I just hoped the article could clear up some confusion. At this point, the article implies that "allopathic" is used by homeopaths in some special way. While all the references in the professional organization section are NOT referring to this usage at all. Clearly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs, in a non-derogatory sense.

Can't we present the Osteopathic/Allopathic distinction in this article with a NPOV? Since that is clearly the most common current usage of the term, a neutral one? Can't we somehow represent the truth that these terms describe two largely overlapping, completely equal branches of modern, conventional medicine - equal in their scopes of practice yet different in other ways? Perhaps listing some of those differences unique to allopathic medicine in this article?OsteopathicFreak 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be useful to state many of the things you've mentioned in this article. However, we have to do it in a way that makes sense to the reader. This discussion deserves its own brief paragraph; it is confusing to try to compress the discussion into the tail end of a long sentence about graduate medical education.

Also, I am not convinced that "[c]learly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs". I mean no offense, but I'd like to see some sort of historical discussion (in a text or a paper) to support that. I find it more likely a priori, knowing something of the history of the term, that the usage is to distinguish the programs from homeopathic/etc. programs. Then, the term osteopathic arose in contradistinction to allopathic. At any rate, one of us is probably right, and perhaps both of us are right to a degree, but we need sources to discover this; it's not intuitable.

Antelan ^talk 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The ACGME is trying to make sure the homeopaths know this program isn't for them? I FULLY support a thorough discussion of the history of the term, including all its controversial roots. But I really think it needs to be clarified what is meant when it is used now. And perhaps just as importantly, what it does not mean. How many sources/articles does one need to cite to demonstrate that the term is used to contradistinct from Osteopathic medical schools? And that this distinction (as with residencies) is often not exclusive of osteopathic docs, and that (at least in the US) the distinction is actually quite flexible? I'd be happy to compile a list of numerous articles and sources, but something tell me that wouldn't be enough somehow. OsteopathicFreak 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I agreed that this article should have a paragraph on the most common modern usage of the term (which, to my knowledge, is to distinguish M.D. from D.O.). I also said that we'd need evidence to support your or my claims regarding the reason that graduate medical programs call themselves allopathic. Antelan ^talk 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This statement - Also, I am not convinced that "[c]learly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs". You say you are not convinced. As far as I know, the term is used so frequently that I just assume its meaning is obvious, (perhaps I see it this way b/c I attend an Osteopathic school). But I guess that's not the case. User:Nunh-huh has expressed similar sentiments that using "allopathic" to contradistinct from "osetopathic" is incorrect. As far as I can see, that is exactly how it is used in the US, and with notable frequency. Certainly with greater frequency than any other usage that I can find.

Articles using the term allopathic, published by "non-Osteopathic specific" institutions. (there are thousands more)

American Medical Student Association: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

American Medical Association: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

New England Journal of Medicine: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [25] [26] [27]

Johns Hopkins: [28] [29]

Harvard Medical School: [30]

UCSF: [31] [32]

Cleveland Clinic: [33]

Columbia Med: [34] [35]

Yale Med: [36]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [37] [38] [39]

Others: [40] [41]

I'm NOT suggesting that all these people are using the term correctly. I'm just saying they are using it to mean a particular thing, even if they are wrong according to some higher authority. In many cases (I won't say most, b/c I didn't actually count), its used side by side with the term "osteopathic." Its hard for me to swallow this the word is about drawing some distinction with homeopathy. OsteopathicFreak 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary usage of allopathic isn't in question. The resources that you found are interesting in their own right but are very broad, and don't speak to the specific question that I raised about the residency programs. At any rate, I think the article could use a paragraph about allo-osteo, as I've stated before. I don't see the battle that you see. Antelan ^talk 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

OsteopathicFreak, can you explain why you removed the statement about the fact that the term is controversial? Antelan ^talk 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a controversy/disagreement statement into the new section. I thought we could reserve the "current usage" section for actual dictionary definitions of the term "allopathic medicine" since that's what this article is about. Perhaps we need another article to explain allopathy. The "current usage" section was really broken up and disjointed. So I created a new section with a breakdown of each area that the term seems to be used in the US. We can discuss the usage within each context, since the context seems to play a role in how it is used. What do you think of this?OsteopathicFreak 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

So I overhauled this page. I tried to sort all the information into categories, to organize the different contexts in which the term is applicable, in a sequence that has some logical flow. The various usages of all these terms are somewhat overlapping and the old format obscured and/or exaggerated the distinctions being made. I really made an effort to include all controversies/critiques about this term, which are numerous to be sure. One needs a minimal amount of context to understand the arguments, i.e. you can't really understand the term allopathic medicine, without knowing a little about osteopathic medicine. I tired to source every statement that seemed original researchy. I hope this will satisfy everyone, or at least move the article in forward. I did almost nothing with the history section, which badly needs some lovin'.OsteopathicFreak 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While the content you contributed is entirely needed in Wikipedia, I'm not sure this article is the right place for it. It is mostly a comparison between allopathic vs osteopathic medicine, rather than a description of what allopathic medicine is. Perhaps this is better suited for a "Medicine in the United States" article. Allopathic medicine is world-wide, yet the new content is completely US-specific, which would be another reason for it to be in a different article. Also, I do not think articles on allopathic medicine or general medicine articles (such as Physician) should be in Category:Osteopathic medicine. If you want to have an osteopathic medicine category as a sub-category of Category:Medicine, maybe there should be Category:Allopathic medicine too. If there are only going to be a couple of articles in each of these categories, they might not be necessary at all. --Scott Alter 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Category:Osteopathic medicine even needed at all? It seems like it would be a duplicate of Category:Osteopathy. How about renaming Osteopathy to Osteopathic medicine? Outside of the U.S., is it improper to call "osteopathy" "osteopathic medicine"? If not, this rename might make more sense than keeping Osteopathy. --Scott Alter 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is improper to refer to osteopathy outside the US as osteopathic medicine. I know this sounds ridiculous to the uninitiated, but that's the truth. I'm sure many would take odds with this, but . . . formally, they are not the same. Osteopathy outside the US does not incorporate clinical, conventional, evidence-based medicine. They use an entirely non-conventional system of diagnosis and treatment. Osteopathic medicine in the US uses all the tools of conventional medicine - drugs, surgery, radiation plus Osteopathic manipulation.

I appreciate you agreeing that this information is necessary on Wikipedia. I'd like to respond to where it belongs. "Allopathic medicine is worldwide." I'd disagree with this statement. The term isn't really used with the same frequency out the US, or at least in the same way. This is similar to the "Osteopathy outside to the US" issue. Osteopathy outside the US is an entirely different phenomenon, hence the term "osteopathic medicine" to distinguish the two. The relationship between "Allopathic medicine" and "osteopathy" outside the US is entirely unlike within the US. For example, a search on the British Medical society webpage for "allopathic medicine" gives you no results. [42] While a similar search on American Medical Association's webpage gives hundreds. Likewise, British & Australian residencies don't refer to themselves as "allopathic" while US ones do, in limited contexts, almost always involving distinctions from osteopathic programs. There's no such thing as a "allopathic medicine program" let alone a "combined osteo/allo" program, anywhere outside the US, they don't exist. The term is very US specific, at least a certain facet of it is. I don't find any of this satisfying in the least, but this is the situation as it now stands and I think we should present it. If someone wants to add a section called "allopathic medicine outside the US", I think that would be great.OsteopathicFreak 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the term allopathic is unique to the US. I think it is fair to say that medicine practiced overseas is comparable to (if not the same as) allopathic medicine. That's all that I meant by "allopathic medicine is worldwide." I am not too familiar with osteopathy outside of the US, but could you say for US medicine: "osteopathy + conventional medicine = osteopathic medicine" and "conventional medicine = allopathic medicine"? --Scott Alter 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got it. The issue is that the term means these very specific things in the US, and is used all this time, but only in certain contexts. If the term is used only in these contexts in the US, why not say that? Giving numerous examples of those contextualized usages. This is an issue which somewhat defies explanation, since everyone disagrees on what it means, as a stand alone term. Again, some people even find it offensive. Yet, when used in a specific, technical context, everyone knows exactly to what you are referring.OsteopathicFreak 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had another idea of how to handle allopathic/osteopathic medicine. Since articles on either topic always relate to the other topic, why not just have one article about both. Neither an article on allopathic or osteopathic medicine can exist without heavily writing about the comparison with the other. What if this article were renamed to Medicine in the United States? The content that OsteopathicFreak added today would be perfect for that topic. All that would be needed is some content taken from the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and/or Osteopathy articles for the intro and history sections. Merging allopathic and osteopathic medicine in to one article would go along with the current theme on Wikipedia of combining the two together (as seen in List of medical schools in the United States and Medical school in the United States). --Scott Alter 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving this to "Medicine in the United States" is an interesting idea. I think people would strongly object to the use of the term allopathic in any general discussion of US medicine. You could say that it would be misleading, as it would exaggerate the controversy, making it sound like a problem at center stage of Medicine in the US, which it's not. For most physicians, the day they finish their residency they forget all about this osteopathic/allopathic business. However, I think it would be appropriate to merging much of this information into Medical education in the United States, where it is very relevant.OsteopathicFreak 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I really think the term deserves it own page. Outside of medicine, who has ever even heard of "allopathic medicine" - its a curiosity, and deserves to be fleshed out for its own sake, not only in some other discussion.OsteopathicFreak 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, about your equation. Osteopathy + convention medicine = Osteopathic medicine. This is not exactly correct. More like, Osteopathic manipulative therapy + conventional medicine = Osteopathic medicine. Also, Osteopathy - osteopathic manipulative medicine = a system of diagnosis not taught or utilized by US osteopathic physicians or taught at US osteopathic medical school, but still widely promoted by non-US Osteopaths. In other words, Osteopathic medicine in the US has rejected a great deal of what classic osteopaths are still trained in at Osteopathy schools outside of the US. They reject it because "it is not congruous with modern medicine." Osteopaths outside the US are not trying to be congruous with conventional medicine. I'm oversimplifying, but trying to give some idea of the issues involved. Osteopaths outside of the US have more in common with US Chiropractors than US Osteopathic physicians, though chiropractors are largely concerns with the vertebral column whereas Osteopaths focus on other musculoskeletal structures as well, as well as practicing a form of Energy medicine. OsteopathicFreak 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I want you to know that, in general, in the few articles where I disagree with your wordings, it's because I think you overstate the degree of osteopathic medicine / allopathic medicine controversy. The term allopathic itself has intensely far-reaching meanings that pre-date the modern day osteo/allo domination of medicine. I know that, due to your osteo affiliations, the osteo/allo is a major component of this for you, and I want to validate that. However, we can't write the article that way because that's a modern footnote, and the bulk of the interesting history of this term is not dedicated to that distinction. The article is tilting towards becoming a list of dictionary definitions, and in future weeks I plan on changing this. In any edit I make, I'll nevertheless be sure to highlight the osteo/allo usage. Antelan ^talk 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Different contexts in which the term Allopathic is used

My expertise is very limited, but I do feel very familiar with the specific ways this term is used to differentiate Osteo and allo med. As I said previously, I did not overhaul the history section, because I have little expertise in that arena. I think it would be very appropriate to move the History section up, expand it, to highlight it more. It needs some lovin' too.OsteopathicFreak 02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Goldberg reference in the etymology section, will you quote (within the reference) what the book says precisely, so that those of us who don't have access to it can see it? This translation from the Greek is mediocre at best, and I'd like to see precisely what the source actually says. Thanks much. Antelan ^talk 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediocre? My undergraduate major was Ancient Greek. Allo means other.[43] Pathos is the verb "to suffer."[44]

OsteopathicFreak 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) The Goldberg reference is a 2 page article on Allopathic medicine. OsteopathicFreak 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the strict interpretations of the roots, but as you know, "allopath-" is not Ancient Greek. Keep in mind that this was a "back-translation" of a "concept" into the Greek language, not a truly Greek word. Hence, my criticism of the the translation from the Greek hinges upon the fact that the meaning, as derived from pure Greek, is not the same as the meaning that Hahnemann used. At any rate, would you quote the sentence from the reference? Antelan ^talk 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A 2-page article it may be, but without seeing the text, it's very difficult to know if this sentence correctly summarizes two pages worth of text. Antelan ^talk 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Goldberg, "other suffering" is the meaning Hahnemann intended, as per the the greek words "allo" meaning other and "pathos" meaning suffering. Goldberg says that Hahnemann used the term to highlight the terrible side effects caused by the drugs allopathic doctors of the day were using. Goldberg goes on to say that adverse side effects are a still major point of criticism against allopathic medicine by alternative medical practitioners today, as it was in Hahnemann's time. Other sources says Hahnemann also called it "heteropathy" and "entianopathy". Both of these terms seem to have something to do with this business of "opposing the suffering" versus homeopathy - "similar to the suffering." These latter two terms didn't carry the negative connotation of "allopathy." One additional point . . . I don't know if Hahnemann ever used the term "allopathic medicine" which is the title of this article. Perhaps its time for a split?OsteopathicFreak 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He, at the very least, refers to "allopathic physicians" http://www.homeoint.org/books4/bradford/chapter47.htm . I don't see the grounds for a split, but maybe I'm missing something. Antelan ^talk 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, does the source you've cited back the statement that the etymology had to do with adverse side-effects? This is the portion of the translation that I think doesn't fit, since Hahnemann's disciples applied the term much more broadly. Antelan ^talk 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your DO-focus (from OED): "‘The curing of a diseased action by the inducing of another of a different kind, yet not necessarily diseased.’ Syd. Soc. Lex. A term applied by hom{oe}opathists to the ordinary or traditional medical practice, and to a certain extent in common use to distinguish it from HOM{oe}OPATHY." Antelan ^talk 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Antelan,

1. Are not these definitions not well represented by at least one the groups in the Definitions section?
2. This isn't a dicitonary.
3. I've tried to make the point that the British usage and American usage of the term differ significantly. The British Medical Society does not use the term to describe anything about itself. The AMA does, frequently, as does every other body governing allopathic medicine in the US, to describe themselves. Is the AMA, and all these other organizations, trying to distinguish allopathic medicine from homeopathy? Is it 'just a coincidence' that the word only appears in discussions where a distinction with Osteopathic medicine is needed?
4. I said all over the page that using it in this way is "controversial" and questioned by many, as a nod to your concerns.
5. I am really frustrated. You say "This isn't a battle." Yet when I make edits, you respond with "we can't do it this way" and "I'm going to be making major changes to this." I don't understand why you question these facts. I've made statements that are well-sourced, yet they still get shot down by you. I really feel like you are hyper-criticizing every edit I've made. The term allopathic medicine is used widely, regularly, outside of Homeopathy, by major, US medical institutions. It is used in the manner in which I'm trying to describe, to differentiate some minor points of Allopathic training from Osteopathic training. Points which at one time were not so minor, but have changed significantly in recent years. I've given dozens of examples of this usage. It's frustrating that you don't acknowledge that. It's frustrating that you are insisting on one definition when the article already lists all of them, in an organized fashion that at least attempt to clarify a confusing situation, and attempts to do it fairly. Hahnemann died 164 years ago. Are we to stop discussing the history of medicine at 1843? Why can't we talk about both the historical and modern usages? US and British?

OsteopathicFreak 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this just be "A discussion of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the USA"?

OsteopathicFreak, you seem to be rewriting this article as an allopathic/osteopathic expose, which is not true to the origins and history of this word. The osteo/allo perhaps deserves its own article, but within this article it deserves no more than a 4 sentence paragraph to clear up any confusion. Antelan ^talk 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is allopathic medicine? That what this article is about. This article is not only about the origins and history of this word. Why must any other information besides its origins and history be excluded. We can have a 250 page discussion of the origins and history of the word. I have no problem with that. But there must also be a discussion of allopathic medicine, as it stands now, in the U. S., in the U. K. and everywhere else that allopathic medicine is taught and practiced. OsteopathicFreak 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the osteo/allo discussion that you've added to this article goes far beyond what is necessary and sufficient for this article. We're running the risk now of overwhelming this article with pages of material of little importance that could be concisely explained in a paragraph. Antelan 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. I think that the entire article goes "far beyond" what is "necessary" in discussing the origins the term. I think the article is completely "overwhelmed" by the implication that allopathic medicine is some expletive used by homeopaths. Its not. It has other uses, much more common. And I've sourced that. The Hanehman story is way over emphasized, IMO. The emphasis on Hanehman is editorializing, in an attempt to discredit the term. To pretend like allopathic medicine does really exist or something.OsteopathicFreak 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's your opinion against mine regarding both content and length. Sounds like a time for a request for comment on this article since I'm not sure we're going anywhere helpful right now. Antelan ^talk 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

1. The attribution of several claims to pages on hopkinsmedicine.org that have no avowed author is inappropriate. I have removed these twice, and twice you have added them back in. I encourage you to remove them yourself.
2. On the Osteopathic medicine article, there was a section discussing MCAT scores. They are much lower for admitted osteopathic students than for admitted allopathic students. Nevertheless, we ended up removing the comparison from that page, since it was inappropriate for that page. Likewise, your critical comparisons of allo vs osteo are inappropriate to this page. Antelan ^talk 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Johns Hopkins Medicine Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a well-respected, reputable source for information. The quotes give a reasonably representative example of one criticism of allopathic medicine. The citation is very clear. I see no reason why it should be removed. Please don't delete it again.

As I have mentioned before, it is not attributable as a stance of an individual or of the organization in general. From WP:ATT "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We have no idea what the publication process for this blurb was, nor who the author was. Finally, I am confident that were I to go speak with the director of the center, he would object to your labeling of this as a "criticism". This is inappropriate, and should be removed. Antelan ^talk 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem very interested in giving lengthy space to Haneman's critique of allopathic medicine. Why not other critiques? Perhaps ones that were published less that 150 years ago? I think I gave numerous examples of how the two are comparable and complementary.OsteopathicFreak 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeasement is a term that came into popularity as a criticism during World War II. The wikipedia article on the subject focuses heavily on this. Allopathic medicine is a term that came into usage due to Hahnemann and the homeopathic movement. The history section is lengthy because it describes the history of the term. It's not about Hahnemann's critiques, except insofar as they are the origin of the term. The incidental critiques that you continue to find don't help this article. Focus and neutrality are what this article used to have, and now lacks. Strikingly, despite its continued popularity and usage, the appeasement article doesn't suffer from the same problems that have been introduced into the allopathic medicine article. Antelan ^talk 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in history

OsteopathicFreak, I noticed that you tossed up an NPOV flag on the history section, but you haven't explained why you did so on the talk page.Antelan ^talk 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An allopathic school

Is there some new style guide where every time we reference any school of medicine we have to say (an allopathic school) after the name? Is this good style? Is it an indicator that what is going to be said is contentious? Antelan ^talk 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. This an article about allopathic medicine. It seems relevant to use the term on this page.
2. I only added those descriptors in the spirit of fairness and disclosure. It seems relevant that the information is coming from an allopathic organization, i.e. not an osteopathic or homeopathic one.
3. You seem to deeply object to any use of this term. I respect that. Clearly there are authors that agree with you. I'm all for representing that point of view more fully on this page, balanced with other points of view, e.g. those that use the term freely.
4. I think everyone agrees, the term allopathic is often associated with critiques of conventional medicine. In other words, an article about allopathic medicine will likely have a lot of criticism in it.
5. In comparisons with osteopathic medicine, the term usually seems to be non-pejorative. That usage deserves some airtime too.
6. We're not talking about fringe theories and paranormal phenomenon. This is all pretty common place. Hence the regular usage of the term by John Hopkins, Harvard, the AMA and the US Dept of Health - not exactly minor voices in American medicine.

OsteopathicFreak 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have made incorrect assumptions about my opinions of the usage of this term. Second, my personal preferences are irrelevant. Third, your parentheticals about "an allopathic school" are highly irregular. I am unaware of any similar approach taken on any page in Wikipedia. Antelan ^talk 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You lose me at #2. It's a term rarely used today, and nearly always to create a distinction between mainstream medicine and something else that wants to put itself on an equal footing with it. That is, it seeks to lower standard medical practice to just another "denomination" of medicine on equal footing with the minority view doing the distinquishing. You seem to want to overemphasize the importance of the fact that, say, the AMA uses a term (in a fairly limited way). This always reminds me of Miracle on 34th Street", where someone is "proved" to be Santa Claus because the post office delivers Santa's mail to him. This page, by the way, is not the place for this discussion, which should be held on the talk pages of the respective articles. - Nunh-huh 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I don't have a problem giving full representation of this point of view on the allopathic medicine page. I just ask that other definitions of the term be represented. Do we agree that the OED, and other authoritative sources, list definitions other than the one you are giving?Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any other definition given by any quoted dictionary, included the OED, are subordinate or secondary. Yet you seek to promote the definitions to equal status with the primary definition. To do that is to misrepresent matters. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Nunh-huh by Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK User:Nunh-huh - let's try this. How far do you get?

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term rarely used today, in a non-pejorative manner, and nearly always to create a distinction between mainstream medicine and something else. Examples include including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is confusing and misleading. A vocal minority keeps pushing a confusing agenda. When the AMA refers to allopathic medicine, they are NOT trying to contrast it with homeopathy. This article is irresponsible and misleading. Donaldal 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine#Allopathic medicine in the United States

The subsection Allopathic medicine#Allopathic medicine in the United States should be deleted. Some contents are more appropriate for Differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine, some already discussed in other articles (for example Allopathic residency training and Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine#Residency_Training are very similar) and some sources do not pass WP:MEDRS.--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete. This is the most reliably sourced section of the entire article. Some points are sourced multiple times. This is a misunderstood, confusing topic that needs to be explained, thoroughly. Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is well sourced, but already covered in articles more specifically relevant to the subject at hand. This section should be reduced to a stub with links to the pertinent, full-fledged articles. Antelan ^talk 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic_medicine#Historical_origins

This section is unsourced. The tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The diction editorializes the topic. Its placement at the head of the article exaggerates the importance of a controversy from the 1830's, a the expense of misleading the reader into believing the term is not used in other contexts. It is used, widely, by everyone from the US government to the American Medical Association to the American Medical Student Association. Some people don't like it, that's an opinion, not a fact.Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

History is generally placed at the beginning of articles. Oh wow, I just noticed the WP:POINT you're making with the fact tags. That's highly disruptive. Antelan ^talk 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. At the beginning it is. What's a fact tag? Sorry, I don't know all the terms. WP:POINT, how does that apply? OsteopathicFreak ^{T  ?} 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact tag is the {{fact}} tag that you placed after every sentence in the history section. Antelan ^talk 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I just put the tags on the statements that seemed both questionable and unsourced. Does anyone have a source to cite? OsteopathicFreak ^{T  ?} 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

latest revert

The second half of the article was removed in order to avoid deletion of the article altogether. There was essentially total consensus that it was irrelevant and POV to the extent that the article could not stand with it in. I'm reverting to the version passed at AfD. My suggestion is that if the 2nd part of the content is desired, that an attempt be made to put it into a new article--it was simply not a discussion of allopathic medicine but a content fork of the articles on osteopathic medicine. DGG (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• This edit History by OsteopathicFreak, accidently removed references to replace it with unreferenced content please be more careful in your edits. Jeepday (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• A longer article is not necessarily a better article. Quality, not quantity - and quality implies references. >Radiant< 10:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If we're aiming for a definition of quality, I'd say that quality also implies WP:NPOV and WP:V. DGG prevented this article from being deleted by removing a version that, at times, read like a polemic. Antelan ^talk 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the AfD discussion that DGG is referring to? That might help inform the current discussion. 206.221.128.1 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look back under the article history you'll find a recent version that links to the AfD. Antelan ^talk 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Question? I really have major POV issues with the article. The words "sometimes" and "informally" in reference to AMA and NRMP using the term are utterly OR. Many organizations use the term, this is a fact. Why are people so opposed to simply stating that? ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From the examples you've given, it sounds like you have issues with apparent OR in the article, not with the POV of the article. Strikingly, you are removing material that does a nice job of summarizing the differences between dictionary accounts of the word. The previous version of the article discussed the different ways in which the term was defined. The version that you prefer removes the synthesis, leaving the reader with a list of dictionary definitions. This is becoming a non-encyclopedic entry. Antelan ^talk 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Not only is this article is heavily biased, it fails to discuss the topic. 206.221.128.1 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is biased, miseading, and confusing. It fails to represent usage of the term by major allopathic bodies (AMA, etc) and overstates an interesting but non-current historical meaning. The history of the term, though interesting, should not be the focus of the article. Numerous citations of use by all major US allopathic institutions have been supplied.Donaldal 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here are some references listed above

American Medical Student Association: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

American Medical Association: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

New England Journal of Medicine: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [67] [68] [69]

Johns Hopkins: [70] [71]

Harvard Medical School: [72]

UCSF: [73] [74]

Cleveland Clinic: [75]

Columbia Med: [76] [77]

Yale Med: [78]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [79] [80] [81]

Others: [82] [83]Donaldal 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The usage of this term currently is very well established. Why the refusal to acknowledge that here? The article is a POV nightmare, committed to trashing homeopathic medicine, while the current usage of the term has nothing to do with homeopathy. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the term "allopath" is not applied to you, it is easy to dismiss its pejorative meaning, isn't it? Such is the case with most terms that are used to discriminate against groups. It's just like any epithet that targets people by color, SES, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the current way that we distinguish between osteopathic and orthodox medicine is with the term "allopathic". To emphasize the extent to which osteopathic medicine is actually a part of the orthodoxy, orthodox medicine doesn't monopolize that label for itself but instead it uses, as infrequently as possible, the "allopathic" label. Were it not for the goal of distinguishing between orthodox and osteopathic medicine when necessary, the term "allopathic medicine" would be in disuse. However you slice things, though, the origin of this term is far more important than the "disambiguation" purpose that it serves in the modern day, which could be summarized in a sentence. Antelan ^talk 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's just like any epithet that targets people by color, SES, or sexual orientation." Are you kidding? The AMA, ACGME etc. use the term liberally. It is not any thing of the sort. Your statement is exactly why this article is irresponbsible and silly.Donaldal 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't suggested that I'm wrong, you've just gone on an ad hom binge. Content, not contributor. Antelan ^talk 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the tone of this conversation have to get so intense so quickly? What is this about? ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

As I've noted many times, it is true that orthodox medical organizations such as the AMA use the term to describe themselves, but as a rule they do so only to distinguish themselves from osteopathic medicine. That type of usage requires about one sentence to explain. The rest of the article ought to explain the historical origins and usage of the term. Let's not fall into the WP:Recentism trap. ("Even when they are still significiant, or have grown in significiance, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the defining traits"). The fact that the term is currently used for disambiguation is not its defining trait, nor should it be a major focus of this article. Antelan ^talk 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Were it not for the goal of distinguishing between orthodox and osteopathic medicine when necessary, the term "allopathic medicine" would be in disuse." I'd like to emphasize the were it not clause here. I completely agree with you. But what I don't understand is that you don't acknowledge this "goal" comes up a lot. There are two, more or less equal branches of "conventional" medicine in the US, and occasionally one needs to contradistinct between the two. And it is completely not pejorative, hence major organizations using it with regular frequency.

You have made your point that there are objection to the use of the term. That should and is noted. However, the term is used all the time. And you can't just explain it away in one sentence.

I'm really pleading here that we can see eye to eye on this. I fully appreciate that you object to the use of this term, and that you find it insulting, as do others. However, for many people, the term is useful and commonly used. I don't understand how we can do such a thorough treatment of the history of the term, and ignore or utterly under emphasize and other POV on this term - that "allopathic physican, student, school, etc." is commonly used by AMA, AOA, AMSA, ACGME, NRMP, etc, etc.

Wikipedia has articles on other pejorative terms too, which are willing to discuss the full range of usages of a term. See also: bitch nigger asshole wetback

This article so heavily relies on the "Misuse of the Term "Allopathy" article. Which is (to use your phrase) a POV nightmare. It was written in 1996. It is one-sided. There are other points of view out there.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is used "all the time" when ostoepathic and orthodox medicine have to be distinguished, which is fewer than 20 times on the AMA website. I'm not kidding when I say that the AMA only uses the term for that purpose. I don't disagree at all that osteo and allo are essentially the same entity; indeed, you'll find sources that consider osteopathic medicine to be a branch of allopathic medicine, which, post-Flexner, is essentially tautological. You choose to use my turn of phrase to describe an entirely different source; while your deference to my English verbiage is appreciated, it cannot be said that both targets of the term "nightmare" are equally antithetical to orthodox medicine. The link that I removed was, without question, a nightmare; I don't actually know what you mean when you say "Misuse of the Term "Allopathy" article". Best, Antelan ^talk 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, since by parallelism you apparently agree that this term is equivalent to the epithets that you cited above, and since the Wiki articles about those epithets identify them as such within the intro, I can only surmise that you agree that this term should be identified as pejorative within the intro to this article. Antelan ^talk 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can source that the term allopathic is as offensive as those terms, then absolutely I think it should be mentioned in the intro. In my experience, its not. If there's a dictionary that list the term as a vulgarity, then that should be mentioned. My point in citing those terms was simply to point out that Wikipedia does discuss terms that are offensive to some, often at length.

When I said "Misuse of the term" article, I was referring to the Jarvis article listed under external links with that title. Sorry for any confusion. Again, I think this this link has POV issues. I point it out since I've noticed that you are very quick to remove "POV nightmares" when the POV is coming from one side of the aisle, while the other POV is deemed acceptable.

You may say that the term allopathic medicine only occurs 20 times on the AMA website. But, how many times does the phrase "orthodox medicine" appear on the AMA website? Or AMSA's? Or NRMP? Or ACGME? Or JAMA? Or NEJM? This article cannot ignore the fact that the phrase is used, by all these organization and publications.

I don't have any problem with your sources that osteopathic is essentially a branch of allopathic. I largely agree. Though I think its noteworthy that many disagree with both of us. Likewise, I find it interesting that it wasn't always so. That there has been a gradual merger over time. Let's not forget that only 20-30 years ago it was unacceptable to the AMA for an MD to refer someone to an acupuncturist, chiropractor or osteopath. A great deal has changed. If we don't discuss in the article the current situation, because of some adherence to recentism, then we ignore this noteworthy trend. For example, it is interesting that the term allopathic medicine does not appear in the previous editions of Harrison's or Cecil's. Yet it does appear in the latest versions. A trend?

I agree that the term seems to be currently used, more of less exclusively, in contexts where a distinction from osteopathic medicine is needed. This has been my point from day 1. This is how the term is used. This is what the term means. Yes, there is some interesting history to the term, but, come on, no one is referring to that history when they use it today. Best regards as well. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 12:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You say, "This is how the term is used. This is what the term means." We have to represent the term more fully than you're advocating for. You've identified one portion of the term's meaning, and one way in which it is used. However, you haven't exhausted its meanings, which this article about the subject is perfectly primed and perhaps duty-bound to do. Antelan ^talk 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your claims that I only remove POV nightmares when they come from one side of the aisle, I must disagree. I argued strongly on the osteopathic medicine page against prominently placing a description of the lower GPAs and test scores required, on average, to matriculate into DO schools. When I see POV problems, I do what I can to resolve them. I don't see the POV issues that you're talking about, but am not opposed to being educated. Antelan ^talk 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should do a full treatment of the terms meaning, all of them. I would agrue that the contra-distinction from Osteo med is the more important component of that meaning, but I fully aknowlege the neccessity of a fully developed history of the term in this article. So we agree on that as well. As for the content of any history section, we need to watch out for POV issues, and I feel the current history section has many. It has an editorial tone and is poorly sourced. I'm in agreement with all the information in that section, but I'd like to see it formalized, with better references. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

psudoetymology

etymology needs to be attested by reliable dictionaries. the use of the components of a word to 'deconstruct' the meaning is not etymology. DGG (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

can you suggest a different way to present the information from this source? i used etymology for lack of a more precise word. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A fine word gone bad

In the original, strictist sense, allopathy is a *mode of treatment* which seeks to reduce symptoms of disease by creating an opposing symptom in the body. This way of treating is not a school or field of medicine in itself. Historically, the word came to take on a secondary meaning such that 'allopath' came to describe *a type of practitioner* who used (or was perceived to use) allopathy as their primary mode of treatment. It was at this point that the term took on a pejoritive meaning to some. The most recent usage to distinguish 'conventional' or 'western' medicine from other systems (naturopathy, osteopathy, homeopathy amongst others) is unfortunate since 'regular medical doctors' do not exclusively use allopathic interventions. Still, the term is being used in this third sense to describe the dominant system of medicine used around the world. Too bad, because in its original sense it is actually a very useful word. So although you may find someone who calls themselves (or is called by others) a practitioner of 'Allopathic medicine', you will probably never find someone who actually uses allopathy as an exclusive mode of treatment. Likewise, I'd wager that all types of practitioners use allopathic modes of treatment to one extent or the other in their practices, so its use as an insult is equally regrettable. 206.47.252.66 02:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like it could be true (I wasn't aware of usage until Hahnemann, but if there is prior usage, I'm game to learn about it). If you can find a good source I'll substantially update this article (the source would preferably be online but I have access to a univ. library so I'll find it if you say it's good). Antelan ^talk 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice artwork

I really like the addition of the painting. It does a good job illustrating the history of the term. We need more primary source stuff like that.Donaldal 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the painting is an attractive work but I think that it is a terrible addition in terms of keeping the article unbiased. The piece seems little more than a characture of the evils of Allopathy and instantly skews peoples perceptions with dramatic skeletons bedecking the doctors on the left. I would like to see it removed and replaced with a more neutral illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvincent (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Painting is illustrative. User:Hopping ^T 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Allopathic into Allopathic Medicine. Antelan ^talk 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic, not being a distinct subject, should be merged into this article. Antelan ^talk 05:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; it should be merged. Axl 10:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Allopathic is an adjective that should be included in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I don't think an encyclopedia is the proper place for the history of adjective usages, though the history of the term allopathic medicine would belong in its respective article. --Scott Alter 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've had a hard time even reaching any consensus on what the terms "allopathic" and "allopathic medicine" refer to. I think we need to establish some consensus, in at least one of the articles, before a merger can be properly discussed.User:Hopping ^T 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there does need to be discussion on the proper usage of the terms, which seems to have been ongoing for quite some time. Regarding this, there has only been one real issue bought up needing consensus - whether the term "allopathic" can or should be used to describe traditional/convention/M.D. medicine. Let's not argue this here. It is best suited to have one location for such discussion, and combining smaller articles might help condense this discussion. You mention having a consensus on this topic before considering a merger, but consensus probably should have been reached before the creation of an article at allopathic.

This specific discussion related to merger is strictly about whether there should be a standalone article called allopathic. Allopathic fails several criteria to warrant its own article, including Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). The first specifically mentions that etymology should not be included in Wikipedia (but is suited for Wictionarty). The second states that articles should not be named as adjectives, but converted to the noun form. The noun form of allopathic, allopathy, is synonymous with allopathic medicine, which would support a merger. But based on failing these criteria alone, I'd say the article could even be put up for deletion. It actually would be a legitimate nomination, as allopathic could fall under the "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" reason for deletion. I doubt the content would be outright deleted, but the results probably would be "merge to allopathic medicine." Maybe the article needs to be nominated at AfD to get outside opinions. --Scott Alter 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per those recommendations, I would list it there, but I think it would look untoward for me to be recommending a merger and a deletion at the same time. If someone were to recommend deletion, I would not be offended. The bulk of the relevant material is already present in the allopathic medicine article. Antelan ^talk 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Scott's analysis. In light of these Wikipedia policies, I support a merger of the two articles.User:Hopping ^T 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring for Safety Section

Could anonymous please enlighten me why a perfectly referenced safety section with articles from JAMA and other peer reviewed journals is being deleted and cited as vandalism when it clearly is not? Does safety not belong in medical articles? EBDCM (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with User:EBDCM it is a relevant passage. Peter morrell 07:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believed it was also fair game. If language is an issue we can hammer out a compromise here, but the sources I presented as evidence came from mainstream medical journals and to wipe it out 3x and citing it as vandalism was in poor taste and was misleading. Considering that safety forms a big part of many complementary and alternative medicine pages (at least mainstream medical proponents edit away and cite the risks of CAM) it is a double standard if safety is not addressed by the biggest, most politically dominant force in health care, namely allopathic med. EBDCM (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I think the concern with this passage is not its existence, but its placement in this particular article. I would say its a style issue. As you may gather from reading the article, this article is about the term "allopathic medicine", it is not necessarily about about a "body of medical practices." My point is that your criticisms would be better suited in an article about "medicine" or "criticism of medicine" or "drug safety" or "drug regulation" or "adverse drug reactions". This has been an ongoing question with material in this article. Is the article about a "term" or a "type of medicine"?

In India, the term clearly refers to "conventional medicine (drugs & surgery), vis-a-vis ayruvedic medicine." In the United States, it is not clear that the term "allopathic" refers to a type of medical practice, at times it seems refer to a "branch of the (conventional) medical profession, vis-a-vis osteopathic medicine" and at other times to distinguish conventional medical therapy from complementary/integrative practices.

Let me be clear, I'm all for including the material you are citing in a Wikipedia article. But I think you'll have a very hard time establishing a consensus for placement of it here.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but it comes from the experience of many discussions here about this article.Bryan Hopping ^T 02:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The following article may substantiate the inclusion of such material in this article. Thoughts?

• James Lake, MD Research Funding Favors Allopathic Medications American Medical Association. Virtual Mentor. March 2008, Volume 10, Number 3: 165-170.

Bryan Hopping ^T 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Quotes from the sources: "medicine never accepted the label of allopathy", and "allopathic medicine, a pejorative term coined by the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. Those who use it to describe modern medicine only betray their ignorance. Ironically, one place in North America that still gives a favorable nod to what Hahnemann meant by "allopathic medicine" -- the prescientific, highly toxic practices of bloodletting, purging, scalding, etc., based on the "four humours" -- is Bastyr University." Hope this clears things up. Antelan^talk 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

These sources say nothing about "the medical establishment," a phrase which refers to some unknown body. Presumably Mr Jarvis is talking about powerful medical associations, like the AMA, the AMA, or the Federation of State Licensing Boards, all of whom use the term. If you want to put in a quote and say "Jarvis claims that 'such and such'" I'd support that. Bryan Hopping ^T 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed a sentence and 2 sources because one word didn't match? Antelan^talk 07:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed the sentence because it did not reflect the sources.Bryan Hopping ^T 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the content of the sentence certainly matched, though the wording was different. Antelan^talk 07:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The content is not the same. Jarvis quote is "Although medicine never accepted the label of allopathy, nonmedical practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths regularly misrepresent physicians as "allopaths." Atwood doesn't comment on the acceptance of the term by "the medical establishment" rather she says "There is no such thing as "allopathic" medicine." And says that "Those who use it to describe modern medicine only betray their ignorance." I have no problem with including these quotes in the article, but I do have a problem with them being used to support the statement: "Today, the term "allopathic medicine" has been revived by some, and its use as a synonym for mainstream medicine has become common among homeopaths. While some authors claim the label has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and may still be considered pejorative . . . " Bryan Hopping ^T 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jarvis, not Atwood, talks about the medical establishment. Antelan^talk 07:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions: #1 Then why is Atwood listed as a source? #2 "Medical establishment" does not appear in the Jarvis article, which doesn't appear to be published in a journal, BTW. Bryan Hopping ^T 07:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't read these sources for you. I've quoted from them above (Jarvis is the first set of quotations, Atwood, the second). If you are concerned that I'm not being faithful to the sources, consider asking about this at WP:MED or elsewhere. Again, if you'd prefer I change "medical establishment" to "medicine", that's perfectly fine, but your removal of this information is not supported on your explanation, and is in contradiction to the sourcing I've provided. Antelan^talk 07:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being mean. Bryan Hopping ^T 07:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming from someone who assailed my character in response to a content question on WP:MED, I'll take that for what it's worth. For what it's worth, it's not mean to point out the obvious. Antelan^talk 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop arguing....Peter morrell 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that your last revert might have been a WP:3RR violation. I am asking, as I'm not familiar with the exact policy of the rule. Forgive me if I am incorrect.Bryan Hopping ^T 07:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me my third revert, I'll forgive you your fourth. Antelan^talk 09:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lacks definition

The term allopathy has a specific meaning that is not even mentioned in this article. Seeing that Hahnemann, who first coined the term, was mutli-lingual, don't you think the article should give the correct definition of the term? right at the start! thanks Peter morrell 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - big oversight! Any preference on how it should be worded? I don't have an English Organon immediately available (and I'm not sure if that's even the best source) so if you've got anything, I'd appreciate it. Antelan^talk 07:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that no one agrees on what that "specific meaning" is. No? Bryan Hopping ^T 07:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most people agree on what the term means (per the WP:MED discussion and peter's here). Antelan^talk 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will find the exact quotes and post them here for discussion. Peter morrell 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Antelan^talk 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few definitions. They are probably U.S. specific.

• United States Institute of Health "allopathic medicine (A-loh-PA-thik MEH-dih-sin) A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called conventional medicine, Western medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and biomedicine."
• American Medical Association "Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree."
• National Resident Matching Program Allopathic graduate: "A graduate of a Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited U.S. allopathic school of medicine."
• Merriam-Webster relating to or being a system of medicine that aims to combat disease by using remedies (as drugs or surgery) which produce effects that are different from or incompatible with those of the disease being treated.

Bryan Hopping ^T 08:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall that Peter Morrell is talking about the definition of the word as coined by Hahnemann. Antelan^talk 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, are you looking for Hahneman's definition? Or modern definitions? Or both? Bryan Hopping ^T 08:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions for allopathy From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): Allopathy [Gr. ? other + ? suffering, ?, ?, to suffer: cf. G. allopathie, F. allopathie. See Pathos.] That system of medical practice which aims to combat disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the special disease treated; -- a term invented by Hahnemann to designate the ordinary practice, as opposed to homeopathy.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 : allopathy n : the usual method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects differing from those produced by the disease itself [ant: homeopathy]

Hahnemann variously defines allopathy as merely “the method of treatment of the old school of medicne,” [Lesser writings, 736] or as “allopathic [‘alloia’ - aliena, ad rem non pertinentia, unsuitable]…hence inappropriate medicines,” [Lesser Writings, 742]

In the Organon we read “allopathic or heteropathic, which, without any pathological relation to what is actually diseased…attacks the parts most exempt from disease, in order to draw away the disease through them and thus to expel it,” [Organon, Aph 55]. In aphorism 56 he states a third method, “is the antipathic [enantiopathic] or palliative methods…deluding the patient with momentary amelioration…” [Organon, Aph 56]. “this antipathic method…[prescribes] for a single troublesome symptom from among the many other symptoms of the disease which he passes by unheeded…such as large doses of Opium for pains of all sorts…and the same remedy for diarrhoea…and also for sleeplessness…purgatives…for constipation…a burnt hand to be plunged into cold water…and in like manner he employs other opposite [antipathic] remedial means,” [Aph 57] and he further denounces this approach by claiming that such practitioners “devotes his attention in a merely one-sided manner to a single symptom…to only a small part of the whole, whereby relief for the totality of the disease…cannot be evidently expected…and after such short antipathic amelioration, aggravation follows in every case without exception,” [Aph 58]

“Hahnemann purposely set down his principle [of similia] in contrast to contraria contraries, which was the only therapeutic method obtaining at that time, and which he therefore named allopathy…the word allopathy comes from the Greek ‘alloion,’ of a different kind and ‘pathos,’ disease or suffering…there is no direct reference to the curing of disease with remedies, which have a ‘different kind’…one has to complete the sense to the effect that diseases are cured by remedies showing the opposite effect, e.g. constipation, by strong doses of aloes and laxative salts; chronic blood surgings by phlebotomy, nitric acid powder; chronic stomach troubles by bitter salts; chronic pains by poppy juice, etc,” [Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Works, 1922, Vol. 1, 67]

Maybe you can sort through that and use bits of the etymology as you see fit. His Organon is online but the Lesser Writings are only found here and there in scattered fragments on non-RS sites. Haehl is not online as yet. thanks Peter morrell 08:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, how Hahnemann just loved the heroic medicine of the time. There is a lot of meat there; do you have a suggestion for how to synthesize it into 1-2 sentences? I bet you have a better sense than I do of what Hahnemann considered the core of "allopathy." Antelan^talk 08:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The main points are that it was a well-chosen term used to depict a medicine based on the ancient Galenic maxim: 'contraria contrariis' that is the use of medicines that oppose the action of the sickness and subdue, pacify and palliate symptoms. That has also a value judgement which is that this is a non-curative and superficial treatment, in Hahnemann's view. We need to say that it stems from the roots 'alloion' meaning other or dissimilar and 'pathos' meaning sickness...so it means treating sickness with dissimilar medicines that is medicines that act like rhubarb or aloes to relax the bowels in a case of constipation, say, or what he also termed 'antipathic' methods. He also used 'enantiopathic' and 'heteropathic' meaning similar things to allopathic: use of opposites, or dissimilar methods and which are hence non-homeopathic (which uses drugs that produce symptoms similar to the sickness). How does that sound? Peter morrell 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And also this is STILL broadly true of mainstream medicine today. The depiction still applies because of anti-histamines, anti-biotics, anti-inflammatories, etc medicine still uses antipathic methods and ignores the principle of similars. It does so randomly and non-systematically and unknowingly but it is still a correct term. IMO Peter morrell 08:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds good, perhaps as its own paragraph; if we did that, how would you summarize the paragraph into 1-2 sentences for the lead? I know I'm just sitting here asking questions and making you do all the work, but you're the one with much more experience with this material so I figured this would be the most advantageous approach. Getting to your commentary, I'd rather avoid a big philosophical discussion here, but I'm wondering out of sheer curiosity if you think, for example, that imatinib could accurately be called either allopathic or homeopathic. To the extent that modern/evidenced-based medicine has a philosophy, it's "do what works," be it homeo/allo/neither in nature. Proving what works, of course, is hard. Antelan^talk 09:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is because in time the primary meaning we have described became added to so that it then began also to mean the use of methods that merely palliate temporarily and do not go deep into the problem. It also means to treat parts rather than wholes, etc. This raises the issue of what a living organism is and how the differing perceptions of the organism and sickness have changed over the past 200 years. Homeopathy still adheres to a vitalistic and holistic view which has gone from modern medicine. Allopathic approach has been sanctioned the world over as 'scientific' both in the sense of evidence and trials and 'what works' but also at a deeper philosophical level about the way physiology describes a living organism. Whether it 'works' or just palliates however is still a matter of opinion. The drug you mention is not homeopathic because it does not produce in healthy people the symtpoms it is used to traet and nor has it been proved in drug provings and its detailed symptomatology logged. How/why do you think it might be homeopathic? I will try to suggest a sentence for the lead. Peter morrell 09:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see how my question was hard to interpret. I was equally asking whether it could truly be called homeopathic (and you have said no) or allopathic (and I would be surprised if your answer here was 'yes'). I just thought it was a good example of evidence-based medicine, which is agnostic on the theory of homeopathy or any other theory. Antelan^talk 09:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for the lead? The term allopathy was first coined by Hahnemann in 1789 [add cite] to describe the medicine of his day that treated parts rather than wholes and employed medicines to stimulate a response from the organism opposite to the symptoms of the sickness. Thus, laxatives for constipation, drugs like coffee for sleepiness, drugs like peppers and ginger to induce a warming effect or counter-irritation to the skin in cases of cold. [add cite] In coining the term he wanted to distinguish his own system of homeopathy (similia similibus curentur; like cures like) from the then dominant Galenic approach of cure by opposites (contraria contrariis curentur). how does this sound is it too long? It needs cites. Peter morrell 09:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it works well. I also think mentioning of these others terms, antipathic and enantiopathic, somewhere in the article would be useful, though not necessarily in the lead.Bryan Hopping ^T 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The term as coined by Hahnemann does not apply to modern medicine. The term, when applied to modern medicine, cannot carry Hahnemann's meaning. The term thus can't be "defined" by one definition, because the "modern" definition and Hahnemann's are incompatible. Further, Hahnemann's observation was wrong: the medicine of his time was not based on a principle of contraria contrariis curentur- an ancient maxim which he was taken with, but was not the basis of medicine at his time, Peter Morell's essays to the contrary notwithstanding. - Nunh-huh 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the evidence that supports your strong POV. Peter morrell 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean you've been writing essays to support your point of view without being familiar with the evidence!? -Nunh-huh 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can supply the evidence for your POV, then we can consider it here. Otherwise you will be seen merely as stalling and stonewalling, not to mention timewasting. Where is your wonderful evidence? Peter morrell 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure to answer such a delightful and polite request. From the Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine, ed. W.F. Bynam and Roy Porter, Routledge, London, 2001, p. 605, on the status of medicine at the time of Hahnemann: "In the eighteenth century, medicine in Europe was characterized by competing forces. On the one hand, there was a long line of theorists [...,] on the other hand there was a growing effort to eschew theory arrived at by deduction, and instead to ground medicine upon the direct observation and measurement of phenomena, to conduct controlled experiments and to correlate facts." To describe medicine at that time as governed by "contraria contrariis curentur" - a single Galenic maxim that was never the sole dictum of any form of medicine (unlike similia similibus curantur) - is simply misrepresentation. On page 608, we note the origin of "allopathy": Hahnemann "gave an all-embracing name to regular practice, calling it 'allopathy'. This term, however imprecise, was employed by his followers and other unorthodox movement to identify the prevailing methods as constituting nothing more than a competing 'school' of medicine". - Nunh-huh 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK one has to accept that is ONE view. It is merely the allopathic medical historian's view and a denial of Hahnemann. Nothing unusual in that. So can you suggest a change to the wording? We have two different views that both need to be neutrally incorporated and cited. You can use Bynum and Porter which is just about as anti-homeopathic as that wonderful tome of US medical history by F. Garrison, who gave a mere 1/2 page mention to homeopathy in a so-called history of medicine of 996 pages in length [Introduction to the History of Medicine, published in 1913]. Such is the vitriolic view of allopaths take of homeopathy. As I said, nothing new at all. A neutral view here should incorporate and refer to BOTH sides. Peter morrell 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then you were familiar with the evidence which you disputed the existence of?

Of course it's not "merely the allopathic medical historian's view", it's the accepted, mainstream historical view. The NPOV policy, as you ought to know, does not give equal weight to views merely because they are in opposition, but in proportion to the numbers of experts who espouse them. Any treatment that lumps all of medicine except "homeopathy" together as "allopathic" is propaganda, and any treatment which portrays homeopathy's views on the subject as anything other than a fringe minority view isn't acceptable. - Nunh-huh 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you will now actually respond to my previous request and help the encyclopedia by suggesting a neutral rewording with citations that encompasses both views? Then we can move on. Peter morrell 13:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was "actually" responding to your previous request (to supply "evidence" that you were pretending you didn't know about). In some way I suppose that was "helping the encyclopedia". Exactly which wording are you asking about? Some have been bad, and need "rewording", others need no "rewording". What do you want to replace, and with what? - Nunh-huh 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the paragraph I wrote above, you objected to, which was a provisional re-write of the article start about defining what allopathy means. Don't you remember? It starts: The term allopathy was first coined by Hahnemann in 1789 [add cite] to describe the medicine of his day that treated parts rather than wholes and employed medicines to stimulate a response from the organism opposite.... Not sure if that date is correct actually but you get the drift. Now, you said that was all wildly inaccurate POV stuff and wanted another view adding. So maybe you can now suggest a rewording of that para, with your cites, and then we can discuss further progress here. Is that OK? thanks Peter morrell 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you want to place "The term allopathy was first coined by Hahnemann in 1789 [add cite] to describe the medicine of his day that treated parts rather than wholes and employed medicines to stimulate a response from the organism opposite to the symptoms of the sickness. Thus, laxatives for constipation, drugs like coffee for sleepiness, drugs like peppers and ginger to induce a warming effect or counter-irritation to the skin in cases of cold. [add cite] In coining the term he wanted to distinguish his own system of homeopathy (similia similibus curentur; like cures like) from the then dominant Galenic approach of cure by opposites (contraria contrariis curentur) at the start of the article, replacing the current, more accurate "The term allopathic was used through the 19th Century as a derogatory term for the practitioners of heroic medicine, a precursor to modern medicine that did not rely on evidence. The meaning and controversy surrounding the term can be traced to its original usage during a heated 19th-century debate between practitioners of homeopathy, and those they derisively referred to as "allopaths." I don't think any amount of rewording can correct your paragraph, which puts Hahnemann's mischaracterization of the basis of the medicine of his day into Wikipedia's mouth. Nor is an introductory lede the place for specifics (coffee, laxatives, etc.) I'm not convinced the opening needs tinkering, but if one purpose is moving the attribution to Hahnemann up, perhaps "The term allopathic was coined by Hahnemann in 1789 and used through the 19th Century as a derogatory term for the practitioners of heroic medicine, a precursor to modern medicine that did not rely on evidence. The meaning and controversy surrounding the term can be traced to its original usage during this heated 19th-century debate between practitioners of homeopathy, and those they mischaracterized as "allopaths." " will do the job. - Nunh-huh 15:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are not going to be even remotely reasonable and work towards a compromise, then consensus will be impossible and admins have been informed so we will have to get the article monitored and if necessary protected. So be it. Peter morrell 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly reasonable. I'm just disagreeing with you, on a talk page. I'm confident you'll find that no one will find that calls for further action. I'm not so confident that further action wouldn't be needed if changes are made in the article without consensus. - Nunh-huh 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter, recall that I thought this belonged as a body paragraph, with a 1 sentence summary as part of the lead. I don't think you'll find consensus for placing all of this material in the lead. Antelan^talk 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I actually make that proposal? Answer = I didn't. Do what you like the atmosphere here is way too poisonous. The article can stay in its present appalling and POV state. Find another medical historian to sort it out. Peter morrell 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you're replying to me) - you stated it explicitly: How about this for the lead? Antelan^talk 17:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

re Changing Definitions - ?synthesis

In order to show changes over time, these isolated selective individual quoted cases need to be linked together (as being a valid description of progression over time) by reference to a WP:Reliable source citation. But citing from different dictionaries from different times to advance a case might be a case of selective quoting and a WP:Synthesis of ideas, and so risks being WP:Original research. I've added a synthesis tag for now, but if primary source for discussing changes over time can not be found (which I really would be interested in reading), then I suggest a compromise of:

Alternatively what is needed is not selective choosing of cases, but directly shown changes from different editions of the same dictionary. Then to show this is not an isolated minority viewpoint, then repeat this process for different dictionaries. Hence show OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 1971 and then a later edition, with STEDMAN'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 2007 and its previous versions etc. David Ruben ^Talk 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Current OED

The current OED (2nd Ed. 1989) gives Black, Francis "Principles and practice of homæopathy" 1842 as the first usage in English and says "first used in Ger. (allopathie) by Hahnemann" as the origin. Defines this as "A term applied by hom{oe}opathists to the ordinary or traditional medical practice, and to a certain extent in common use to distinguish it from HOM{oe}OPATHY." I hope this helps. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the same thing. So, let's allow homeopathic supporters call real physicians allopaths if they so choose. But frankly, DO's and MD's are exactly the same in training, education, licensing, etc. There is no difference between the two, except it's much harder to get into Medical School than Osteopathy, but it's only a matter of degree, meaning in today's world, I'd get into neither program!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like, although you'd have to check the original Greek, Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopathy is a term applied by homeopaths to highlight the difference between homeopathy and conventional medicine. It derives from the Greek {Allo} other, different + {pathy} suffering. The distinction comes from the use in homeopathy of substances that cause similar effects as the symptoms of a disease to treat patients (homeo - meaning similar), this contrasts to some conventional, or "allopathic", treatments of a disease that aim to directly counter or offset a patient's symptoms (symptomatic treatments). Other conventional medical treatments do not fit this definition, as they seek to prevent illness, or remove the cause of an illness by acting on the etiology of disease.

The term was first used by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, and the term "allopathic medicine" as a synonym for mainstream medicine remains common among homeopaths. The label has never been accepted by conventional medicine, and may still be considered pejorative. In recent years, some American M.D.s who also practice alternative medicine have accepted the designation of "allopathic physician." In the United States, "allopathic medicine" has also been used in contradistinction to "osteopathic medicine".

Obviously, this doesn't cover the current meaning of the word.Bryan Hopping ^T 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The word is a polyseme, like many others in English. Its meaning has evolved over time, like many others in English. Its meaning might be different in different communities or locations. So we describe it as such. So?--Filll (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't added the rest of the intro where it became the same as the current version. I've added and broken into 2 paras. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think putting the word "polyseme" in the Lead is the best idea I've heard for this article. But we need a source to verify this. Otherwise its OR. Finding a source for this could be impossible. Bryan Hopping ^T 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning of the word has changed over time. It's pejorative, and sadly, the whole point here is that Osteopaths and Medical Doctors are both the same--allopathy has NO meaning here. This is feeling like a POV pushing to get allopathy used everywhere. Once again, when Peter morrel says something on these points, I'm willing to listen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that in the United States, "osteopaths" are medical doctors. A bit confusing, don't you think? Bryan Hopping ^T 02:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to me replacing the current lead with the version above? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. Bryan Hopping ^T 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you propose is fine. "Allopathy is a term used by homeopaths to highlight the difference between homeopathy and conventional medicine. It derives from the Greek {allo} other, different + {pathy} suffering. The distinction comes from the use in homeopathy of small doses of substances that cause similar effects as the symptoms of a disease to treat patients (homeo - meaning similar)" is unobjectionable. However, "conventional, or "allopathic", treatments of a disease often aim to directly counter or offset a patient's symptoms," however, suggests that this is the basis of medicine: that is, it suggests that Hahnemann's mischaracterization of the basis of medicine is accurate. I suggest this part be left out, or rephrased to something like "conventional, or "allopathic", treatments of a disease are ideally based on demonstrated efficacy rather than on their conformity to a central principle of treating patients with drugs which elicit their symptoms when given to healthy persons." The remainder is unobjectionable. By "replace" the current lede, exactly what are you proposing to delete from the current article? - Nunh-huh 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be the first two paragraphs of the article. I've expanded the first one in the draft above, how does this look to you? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Edit conflict. Plus, TimVickers' new version addresses this point already, so I will leave it here for future readers looking for examples.) Let me try to illustrate Nunh-huh's point with an example: Loperamide is an antidiarrheal that works symptomatically, by countering the diarrhea. If given to an otherwise healthy person, loperamide could induce constipation (i.e., the opposite of what it is used to treat). This would fit with Hahnemann's description. However, Imatinib is a drug for CML. It does not counter CML symptoms, except insofar as it disinhibits tumor cell apoptosis. Lest I forget to make the point here: modern medicine deals with more than just symptomatic treatment. Antelan^talk 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite take that point that if you give ampicillin to somebody without a bacterial infection, its not really going to produce any symptoms - its not a symptomatic treatment. The introduction needs to explain that this is a term used by homeopaths, but that conventional medical practitioners consider it either insulting, or simply an over-simplification. Hopefully the new version does this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> Tim, your version works for me. Antelan, the drug, in both cases, is doing exactly what it's supposed to do pharmacologically. It has nothing to do with Homeopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly agreed. I was just offering an example of a drug that could never fit into the "allopathic" paradigm as evidence for why we shouldn't, by accident, suggest that "allopathic" actually applies to modern medicine. Antelan^talk 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the new version is quite there yet. We need to specify that conceptualizing "allopathic" medicine as that which counters symptoms, and that this is equivalent to adherence to the principle that "Opposites treat Opposites" is a specifically homeopathic understanding.

Perhaps

Allopathy is a term used by homeopaths to highlight the difference they perceive between homeopathy and conventional medicine. It derives from the Greek {allo} other, different + {pathy} suffering. The distinction comes from the use in homeopathy of substances that cause similar effects as the symptoms of a disease to treat patients (homeo - meaning similar). The term allopathy was meant to contrast the homeopathic approach with those conventional medical treatments that directly counter a patient's symptoms. Homeopaths saw such symptomatic treatments as "opposites treating opposites". However, many conventional medical treatments do not fit this definition of allopathy, as they seek to prevent illness, or remove the cause of an illness by acting on the etiology of disease.

The term was first used by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, and the term "allopathic medicine" as a synonym for mainstream medicine remains common among homeopaths. The label has never been accepted by conventional medicine, and may still be considered pejorative. In recent years, some American M.D.s who also practice alternative medicine have accepted the designation of "allopathic physician." In the United States, "allopathic medicine" has also been used in contradistinction to "osteopathic medicine".

- Nunh-huh 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tightened this a bit and added it to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

It turns out that the explanation of the word "allopathy" is not historically correct (although I think it is the one you can usually read in introductions to homeopathy). At least that's what de:Allopathie claims, and it seems to be right. This is from the 6th edition of Hahnemann's Organon:

Die außer diesen beiden noch mögliche Anwendungsart der Arzneien gegen Krankheiten ist die allöopathische Methode, wo Arzneien, deren Symptome keine direkte, pathische Beziehung auf den Krankheitszustand haben, also den Krankheitssymptomen weder ähnlich noch opponirt, sondern ganz heterogen sind, verordnet werden. Diese Verfahrungsweise treibt, wie ich schon anderswo gezeigt, ein unverantwortliches, mörderisches Spiel mit dem Leben des Kranken, mittels gefährlich heftiger, nach ihren Wirkungen ungekannter Arzneien, auf leere Vermuthungen hin, in großen, öfteren Gaben gereicht; […]

An approximate translation:

The other mode of application of medicines against complaints is the alloeopathic method, whereby medicines are prescribed whose symptoms are not in a direct, pathic relation to the condition, i.e. neither similar nor opposite to the complaint's symptoms, but are completely heterogeneous. As I have shown elsewhere, this method plays an irresponsible, murderous game with the patient's life, by means of violent medicines of unknown effect, given in large, frequent doses on mere supposition; […]

He defined the homoeopathic, isopathic, antipathic and alloeopathic method. The Organon was originally written in 1810. However in the preface of the 1842 edition he uses the word "alloeopathic" as a synonym for "old medicine", i.e. he used the word for the worst non-homoeopathic method as an umbrella term for all three. I would guess that this was because of a radicalisation, perhaps due to opposition from the main stream. The standard (and apparently wrong) explanation for "allopathy" seems to be the original one for "antipathy". We should probably mention both here. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the 4th edition of the Organon, Hahnemann distinguished the following methods for employing medicines against disease:

1. Antipathic (= enantiopathic = palliative). Employing medicines which produce effects of an opposite nature to the symptoms of the disease. Contraria contrariis opponenda.
2. Homeopathic. Administering medicine capable of producing effects similar to the one to be removed. Similia similibus curantur.
3. Allopathic (= heteropathic). Employing medicines which give rise to phenomena altogether different or foreign (neither similar nor exactly opposite) to those of the disease.

These three methods are described in a variety of sources from around 1850 in English, all available in fulltext PDF editions from Google Books:

• Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of homœopathic medicine, 1st/3rd American ed., Allentown 1836/New York 1849. §54-§56.
• Jonathan Pereira, The Elements of materia medica and thereapeutics, vol. I, 4th ed., London 1854. (This is a mainstream medicine source. Includes Greek derivations for "homeopathy" and "allopathy".)
• J.R. Buchanan, American eclecticism: an introductory lecture, Eclectic Medical Journal, New Series, vol. 2 (1850), p. 485. (The eclecticists accepted all three methods.) "The remedy must either directly oppose and overwhelm the disease, (which is Anti-pathy,) or it must coincide in tendency with the disease (which is Homœopathy,) or it must take an intermediate course, and neither coincide nor oppose, but simply produce a different action or diverson as in counter-irritation. This method in strict propriety is called Allopathy."
• P.V. Renouard, History of medicine from the origin to the nineteenth century, Cincinnati 1856. "1, The Allopathic method, which uses remedies whose effects are different from the symptoms of the disease. 2, The Homeopathic, which employs remedies whose effects have the closest possible resemblance with the symptoms of the disease. 3, The Antipathic method, which employs remedies contrary to the disease. This enumeration is not complete, and there should have been added to it, for greater exactness, the Isopathic, which consists in making use of means identical or of the same essence as the disease, such as inoculation, etc."
• G.H.G. Jahr, New homœopathic pharmacopœia and posology, Philadelphia and New York, 1842.

The following shows that there was already some confusion about these terms:

• Edwin Lee, Animal magnetism, and homœopathy, 2nd e., London 1838. "Medical doctrines are divided by Hahnemann into the allopathic, or method in general use, of curing diseases by remedies of an opposite nature—contraria contrariis,—the antipathic, or palliative method, and the homœopathic, the only true method […]." (This is a competing fringe source, hostile to homeopathy)

--Hans Adler (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

History section (draft)

The history section contains several inaccuracies and is self-contradictory. E.g.: Has the term "allopathy" always referred to the principle of administering substances that have the opposite effect (first paragraph), or did Hahnemann reserve the term for the practice of treating diseases by means of drugs inducing symptoms unrelated (i.e. neither similar nor opposite) to those of the disease (fifth paragraph)? The history of the term is fairly complicated, and I think the section needs to be rewritten from scratch. I will do this here so that others can participate.

There is still a lot missing, including some good ideas from the current section (historical criticism of the classification and the term allopathy) and the history of the use of "allopathy" for non-homeopathy and for antipathy. Perhaps the synonym "heteropathic", which has only the initial meaning, can be used to simplify the exposition, but I don't see exactly how.

Original definition
Hahnemann classified methods of administering medicine by the relation between the symptoms of the disease and the effects of the medicine when taken by a healthy person. Initially he distinguished between the following mutually contradictory methods:

• Antipathic method: The medicine is chosen so that the effects on a healthy person are opposite to the symptoms of the patient.
• Allopathic method: The medicine is chosen so that the effects on a healthy person are neither similar nor opposite to the symptoms of the patient.
• Homeopathic method: The medicine is chosen so that the effects on a healthy person are similar to the symptoms of the patient. [Organon 4th ed. §50-52, 5th ed. §54-56]

Thus the antipathic method is just Galen's principle contraria contrariis, i.e. opposites are healed by opposites. Hahnemann also referred to it as the palliative method, arguing that it aims at alleviating the symptoms without attacking the cause of the disease.
The allopathic method is based on the observation that some diseases disappear when a certain other disease sets in, and once the second disease is healed the first does not come back. Heroic medicine, which tried to heal by inducing symptoms such as bleeding, vomiting or sweating artificially, was the leading practice among the European physicians of Hahnemann's time. This practice was not very effective, and often harmful.
The homeopathic method, invented by Hahnemann, was based on the idea that the original disease can be most effectively replaced by a second disease if they are similar. [Organon 4th ed. §24, 5th ed. §29] Before the second, medically induced, disease has replaced the first, an aggravation of the symptoms sets in. Therefore the dosage is chosen just large enough to enable the replacement, and is in practice often extremely small. In analogy to Galen's principle, he called the resulting principle for choosing medicine similia similibus.
This classification, including this definition of allopathy, was in general use among homeopaths during the heyday of homeopathy in America in the middle of the nineteenth century. [Various books from the era, see above. Whorton for "heyday" (not literal).]
Allopathy as the opposite of homeopathy
In his manuscript for the sixth edition of the Organon (published posthumously in 1921 [84]), Hahnemann distinguished only two methods:

• Homœopathic method: The medicine is chosen so that the effects on a healthy person are similar to the symptoms of the patient.
• Allopathic method: Every method that is not homeopathic, including the antipathic method as a special case.

This made it possible to refer to all methods for administering medicine which were not homeopathic as allopathic. Since, according to Hahnemann, the physicians of his time followed predominantly the allopathic method in the stricter original sense, the difference was not big.

Yes, well there is an added complication here. Hahnemann's view was a slight simplification because medicine of his day was not wholly based on Galenic contraries. It was really a modified form of Galenic medicine, so in a sense his analysis was over-simplified. On the other hand, he was correct in that the tools/methods and the ideas of medicine of his day, as it was practised by the majority of physicians, was indeed still largely grounded in an antipathic/Galenic approach. I think that is one reason why he oscillates in his defintion of allopathy and chops and changes over what he means. This could be one reason why the term is so woolly and always has been. It is an imprecise term because the 'thing' it aims to identify was already changing and evolving as he labelled it. It had been changing since the 1500s. He often identifies both allopathic and antipathic as being the same thing and so do most homeopaths after him. They mostly wish to identify as 'allopathic' anything that is NOT homeopathy and that is about all there is to it. Peter morrell 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the simplification bit is what I meant by "criticism of the classification" (which is yet to be added) above. And as far as I can tell, medicine in Hahnemann's days was in fact more allopathic=heteropathic in Hahnemann's terms (i.e. "heroic") than antipathic. Modern medicine is certainly not heteropathic, and more antipathic if anything. Therefore the term "allopathic" as referring to non-homeopathic medicine has shifted from heteropathic towards antipathic. It seems that all the reputable dictionaries still define "allopathic" as heteropathic ("different"), where many less reputable sources put antipathic ("opposite"). My guess is that homeopaths who wanted to continue bashing standard medicine, which has changed tremendously since Hahnemann's time, using essentially Hahnemann's words. So we have the following meanings for "allopathic":

1. (in homeopathy) heteropathic
2. not homeopathic
3. (in homeopathy) antipathic
4. standard medicine as opposed to alternative and complementary medicine [e.g. in the WHO study]
5. (US) not osteopathic

That's quite a mess. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you have done a remarkable job here cutting through the confusion. The question will probably be how to present both of your findings in a coherent way, given that the subject of this article itself is so convoluted. Antelan^talk 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fragment for use elsewhere

The following was supposed to become an alternative draft for possible use in this article, but I think it's too detailed for that. I will leave it here in case it can be used in a different article later.

Hahnemann invented homeopathy at a time when medicine was still in a protoscientific stage, and although he can be seen as a precursor of modern scientific medicine, his ideas were necessarily built on the medical theories, or rather speculations, of his time. Among his theoretical knowledge there was the principle attributed to the Greek physician Galenus: contraria contrariis, i.e. symptoms can be relieved by taking medicine which has the opposite effect. The problem with this approach is that if often only covers up the symptoms instead of attacking the core of a disease, and Hahnemann attacked it as mere "palliative" medicine.
But only a small part of contemporary medicine followed Galen's principle. Hahnemann's time was the age of "heroic medicine", a style of therapy that was later named so, presumably for the heroism required to undergo all the bloodletting and the medically induced vomiting, sweating etc. that often served only to weaken the patient instead of expelling the disease. Apart from the idea that whatever causes the disease needs to be diverted from the body, these techniques were also motivated by the observation that some diseases disappear when a certain other disease sets in, and once the second disease is healed the first does not come back. Hahnemann thought that this happens when the second disease is stronger than the first and takes "the same place", thus expelling the other.
The problem, then, in healing a patient, was to medically induce a second disease that can take the same place. It seems clear that two diseases are more likely to take the same place if they affect the same organs. The logical consequence of this line of thought was to observe the effects of different kinds of medicine on healthy subjects, and to relate them to the patient's symptoms. Hahnemann classified methods for administering medicine according to this relation.
[table]
Explanation of homeopathy.

--Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another draft

Another draft, not quoted because of the table: --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Hahnemann tried to classify all rational methods of choosing medicine for a patient, by looking at the relation between the symptoms of the patient's disease and the effects of the medicine on a healthy subject.

Hahnemann's classification of medical therapies

Name of method	Relation between effect of medicine and symptoms	Latin slogan
enantiopathic	opposite	contraria contrariis
allopathic	different (neither similar nor opposite)	—
homeopathic	similar	similia similibus

The enantiopathic method is based on the principle contraria contrariis, attributed to the Greek physician Galenus. Since medicine that has been chosen in this way tends to cover up the symptoms instead of healing a disease, Hahnemann also called it the palliative method.

Homeopathy tries to achieve the best possible match between the symptoms of a disease and those which a medicine causes in a healthy individual. Hahnemann's rationale was that a medically induced second disease that is similar to the first will take the place of the first and expel it.

Hahnemann considered the practice of his colleagues to be mainly allopathic. By physically or medically inducing symptoms such as loss of blood, vomiting or sweating, which were typically not related to the disease, they hoped to expel it from the body, although they often succeeded only in weakening their patients. This type of medicine is now referred to as heroic medicine.

A physician who practises the homeopathic method is a homeopath, but since even in Hahnemann's time physicians generally did not practise exclusively (or even knowingly) the allopathic or enantiopathic method, he simply called all his non-homeopathic colleagues allopaths. Physicians in those days had a reputation for killing their patients, and the Organon of Medicine contained harsh words about allopaths. The word "allopathic" therefore acquired pejorative undertones.

Hahnemann's trust in the principle similia similibus was so great that he even applied it in cases where a disease had a known obvious cause. With patients who suffered from tapeworms or pinworms, the physicians of the time did of course attack the cause, and the practice of prescribing calomel as a purgative was just one example of a therapy that did not fit well into his classification. Of course such inconsistencies were attacked by his opponents. It is no wonder then, that a few decades later a contemporary of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch wrote:

Homœopathists and other empirical sects are wont to talk loudly about allopathy. The term, when applied to the regular medical profession, is a misnomer, and is used by way of reproach and in order to place regular physicians before the public in the same category with charlatans and mountebanks. The legitimate profession repudiates the term, and scorns the proffered alliance. Every empirical sect takes the liberty to select the name by which its members choose to be known, and we find no fault with that, however inappropriate or false their chosen cognomen may be; but when they insist upon giving scientific medicine an empirical name, placing it astride a false hobby, and enrolling it in the regiment of pathies and isms, we positively refuse compliance. […] She does not attempt to cure one disease by creating another, as the term Allopathy implies, but to aid the inherent powers of the organism in removing and overcoming all disease, so far as that is possible, and in protecting the system against the injurious effects of morbid agents.

—Dan King, 1858

---

This is all wonderful stuff, Hans, for potential inclusion, BUT it will also need the support of good RS cites for it to ever be included. thanks Peter morrell 18:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. While writing this I keep this in mind, of course. There is lots of stuff on homeopathy on Google books from around 1850. Things like "reputation for killing their patients" are easily proved using literary sources, some of which also show that homeopaths' reputation was much better because they didn't do it. Homeopathy was immensely popular in the US at the time, according to Whorton (another useful source for the history of homeopathy).

I just hope that nobody is going to stonewall. ("A physician who practises the homeopathic method is referred to as a homeopath.") I write relatively fast, and adapting details to the exact wording of sources later shouldn't be a big problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm following this conversation from a distance as my knowledge of homeopathy is limited. I just wanted to say that I really like the table. Very explanatory. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will just dump a beautiful diatribe here that might come in handy when this article is rewritten, which it obviously needs to be. It's from Dan King, "Quackery unmasked", 1858 [85].

Homœopathists and other empirical sects are wont to talk loudly about allopathy. The term, when applied to the regular medical profession, is a misnomer, and is used by way of reproach and in order to place regular physicians before the public in the same category with charlatans and mountebanks. The legitimate profession repudiates the term, and scorns the proffered alliance. Every empirical sect takes the liberty to select the name by which its members choose to be known, and we find no fault with that, however inappropriate or false their chosen cognomen may be; but when they insist upon giving scientific medicine an empirical name, placing it astride a false hobby, and enrolling it in the regiment of pathies and isms, we positively refuse compliance. She has no alliance with that marauding army. She has never adopted any exclusive motto. Her methods of cure include all such rational means as science and experience have shown to be of value. She does not attempt to cure one disease by creating another, as the term Allopathy implies, but to aid the inherent powers of the organism in removing and overcoming all disease, so far as that is possible, and in protecting the system against the injurious effects of morbid agents. If empirics of all kinds, names and grades, should see fit to form one regiment, and tune their bass drums, tin kettles, French horns, and Yankee pumpkin vines, to one syren chorus, no honorable man will interfere with the arrangement. They may cousin and cozen each other to their hearts' content, for aught we care; but the standard of legitimate medicine will never be unfurled in that troop.

The term Regular is sometimes applied to physicians, in the room of Allopathic, and ignorant men often endeavor to persuade the public that all medical science is confined to old fashioned stationary dogmas. This is wholly untrue. The science of Medicine, like the science of Philosophy, Astronomy, Chemistry or Geology, embraces all the truths that have been gleaned from the past and all the knowledge of the present time, and is ever looking forward to the future. Medicine is studied, not like a dead language, but as a progressive art, in which continual improvements are made; and he who does not so study and so practise it, neglects his duty to himself, his profession, and the community to which he belongs. Strictly speaking, the word Regular might as well be applied to clergymen and lawyers, as physicians. When a man, who is otherwise qualified, has enjoyed and rightly improved the proper advantages of study and instruction in the science of law, he is admitted to the Bar and becomes a regular attorney. Sowhen an individual has enjoyed the opportunities necessary to qualify him to practise medicine, and is found upon examination to be so qualified, he is admitted and becomes a regular physician. In both instances, the regulations have been provided to protect the public against unworthy and incompetent men. Reason and experience show this to be a salutary regulation; and instead of striving to weaken and break it down, the public should endeavor to strengthen it and raise it still higher.

We do not pretend that there are no quacks or unworthy individuals who leap over those bounds, nor that all who are included within the pale of the legitimate profession are every way worthy of confidence, nor that physicians are free from the common intellectual and moral delinquencies incident to mankind. Indeed, none are infallible—the best may sometimes err. But the profession, notwithstanding its imperfections and short comings, is of immense importance to the public, and we invoke the assistance of all good citizens to aid in building up, improving and protecting an enlightened and reliable medical profession.

--Hans Adler (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the term

I would just like to chime in my 2c. Although I can appreciate, historically, why certain physicians would object to the term allopathic, has it not "lost it's bite" nowadays? For example, there are naturopathic, osteopathic, chiropractic and allopathic "doctors", wherein allopathic simply is a synonym for "conventional" or "regular". I'd like to see this article also focus less on the history (i.e. Hahnemann and Homeopathy") and explain better how this term is being used in modern day clinical practices amongst various health care professionals. I personally do not imply any negative connotation or perjorative context when refering to allopathic physicians, but just as a matter of differentiation from osteopathic in the mainstream end of things. The term allopathic is used quite a bit in CAM literature/professions and from my understanding, that at least, nowadays, it's not used in a bad way. EBDCM (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic and chiropractic "doctors" are not physicians. OD and MD's are simply physicians. Allopathic is absolutely not used in common language to describe a physician that utilizes medicine. CAM literature does not carry any weight in this discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about naturopaths, but the US Gov't Department of Labor disagrees with OrangeMarlin in terms of what a chiropractor is. From the Occupational Outlook Handbook: Chiropractors, also known as doctors of chiropractic or chiropractic physicians, diagnose and treat patients with health problems of the musculoskeletal system and treat the effects of those problems on the nervous system and on general health.. Ooops. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops my ass. The occupational handbook made by the US government hardly qualifies as a resource to describe chiropracters and other non-scientific so-called physicians as physicians. Give me a break. I'd more agree that a Veterinarian is a physician (in fact, if I were on deserted island with a broken leg, I'd trust the vet to a quack any day). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The U.S. Gov't does qualify a reliable source; especially in terms of Occupational Handbook by the BLS. I understand you personal feelings about chiropractic physicians, but unfortunately at Wikipedia, your opinions don't qualify as a resource. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is in selecting sources. Sure, you can find a handful of sources that use the term "allopathic". However, out of the tens of millions of times that the terms "medicine" or "doctor" are used, only a few thousand say "allopathic". You never hear someone saying, "I need to go to my allopathic physician for this bellyache," or "I have severe chest pain and I need to call an allopathic ambulance." You don't see "Harvard School of Allopathic Medicine" or "The Johns Hopkins Allopathic Hospital". So sure, the term "allopathic" exists. But is it fair to say that it's in even minimal use? I don't think so. Its use is exceedingly rare among the general public. Worth mentioning, of course, is its use by homeopaths and other integrative/alternative medical fields. I think this is already in the article to a good degree, but we can certainly expand if necessary. Antelan^talk 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what we know isn't a reliable source. But hear me out. I am not a doctor. I am not a practitioner of any kind of medicine (allopathic, mainstream, complimentary, alternative, integrative). I don't work in the healthcare industry at all. Yet I am very familiar with the term "allopathic" insomuch as I have heard conventional doctors use it to describe themselves, CAM practitioners use to describe the mainstream, and just regular joes like me using it. I get that you don't hear things called "Harvard School of Allopathic Medicine" but then again, it isn't call "Harvard School of Conventional Medicine" or "Harvard School of Mainstream Medicine" either. Right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can see where you're coming from regarding naming, but how about this scenario: when organic food became popular, we didn't rename the rest of the stuff we eat "inorganic food" (equivalent of allopathic medicine) or "mainstream food" (equivalent of mainstream medicine). Likewise, Harvard didn't rename its medical school to "allopathic" or "mainstream". However, I'd be willing to bet that there are a small group of people well-versed in the organic food culture who call regular food "inorganic food". Likewise, there is a small (relative to the hundreds of millions who don't use the term) group of people, well-versed in alternative medicine, who use the esoteric term allopathic. But, just as TC MITS doesn't say "Cedars-Sinai Allopathic Hospital", he also doesn't say "inorganic food." One reason I think you'll agree that the group of people who actually use the term "allopathic" is small (even if you belong to it) is the result Google Trends links below demonstrating how rarely the term "allopathic" is ever used worldwide. Antelan^talk 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the comparison. Regardless, I think what is important in terms of Wikipedia is verifiability and quality of the sources. For instance, do you consider U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics - Occupational Outlook Handbook a reliable source in terms of crediting that chiropractors are also know as doctors of chiropractic and chiropractic physicians? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(?) You could bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. This isn't the chiro talkpage, though. Antelan^talk 06:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have brought it up at RSN previously (about a year or two ago, I believe) and it passed as a reliable source to verify job description. Why it is relevant here is that this same source, on its listing of Physicians and Surgeons, states: M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians.. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, you could either go with the few thousand sources that use the term "allopathic", or accept the few million sources that don't. Antelan^talk 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The term has "lost its bite" only insofar as nobody ever uses it. Otherwise, the bite is still there. Antelan^talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar lists 12 000 sources right off the bat, so it seems like the term is being used enough in the literature and amongst policy makers. It's also commonly used amongst CAM health professionals, but not in a slight; just to differentiate between osteopathic and allopathic (regular). So, just so I'm clear, MDs find the term perjorative or find it has negative connotations? CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. My point is that most people haven't heard the term, since it is so rarely used. Among my professors, the ones who have mentioned it have done so only to furiously reject the label. I used Google trends (demonstrating the search volume for the term) instead of Scholar (demonstrating the number of articles written since ~1950 containing the term), because I think trends is far more instructive than Scholar for demonstrating actual usage.

To better explain my point, here is a comparison: all physicians trained in the US are either MD or DO. MDs outnumber DOs by about 6:1. This relative ratio is more or less visually supported by M.D. vs D.O. on Google trends. M.D. is more commonly used by far (presumably due to the predominance of MDs in this country). Now, look at osteopathic vs allopathic. All of a sudden, the MD-equivalent (allopathic) falls off of the chart entirely, and the DO-equivalent (osteopathic) skyrockets, illustrating my point: the term "allopathic" is not in common usage. It is a rarely-used quasi-synonym for "MD" (if the speaker is an osteopath) or "mainstream medicine" (including MDs and DOs, if the speaker is involved in alternative medicine) that some find offensive. Antelan^talk 23:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As peers, I just call a DO a doctor or physician, in the same way that I do an MD. I remember when nurses would wear a pin on their uniforms that indicated what school they attended. An RN with a BSN from a big university with a medical school somehow got a higher level of respect than an RN with an associate's degree from the local hospital/community college. That went away I think 15 years ago in the USA. In the same vein (get it), a DO or MD does not wear a special tag on their lab coat or scrubs that says they're a DO or MD. I do not, nor does anyone I know, call a DO an osteopath. Therefore, allopath has little or no meaning. Allopathy is a term used pejoratively by CAMmers to identify individuals who choose to use scientific reasoning in their medical care, not magical molecules in 30X dilutions of homeopathic potions. The term would be pejorative if anyone in the real world used it. I never knew I was an "allopathic physician" until one day I saw a certain editor changing articles left and right, trying to enforce the "MD's are allopaths" POV. I did see the term when used by "naturopaths" or others who use magical methods in their so-called medicine, which indicated to me that it was a pretty useless term, right up there with being a "skeptic" or using "evidence based medicine." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal, there's literally no point in having a conversation with these two. They are lying. They will continue to lie, no matter what you say. Bryan Hopping ^T 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know when a point has been made when the other party has to resort to a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal, if you'd like to continue with our discussion of this term in the abstract (i.e., in a non-article-oriented way), I'd be happy to talk with you about it on one of our talk pages and learn about how you see things while telling you more about how I see them. Otherwise, if there's an encyclopedic aspect of the term that we haven't covered in the article, let's keep the discussion here. (If you're interested in continuing.) Antelan^talk 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What this discussion proves

This discussion proves that some physicians find the term offensive. Wikipedia is not a US encyclopedia, and even if it was absolutely clear that the term is no longer offensive in the US, which it is not as this discussion shows, it would be sufficient to show that it is still offensive in much of the rest of the world. Since osteopathic medicine with its specific US meaning is virtually unknown in the rest of the world (certainly more so than homeopathy and the term "allopathy"), not mentioning the possible pejorative character of this word in the lede doesn't seem to be an option. If people in Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand were misled by this article into saying something like "you as an allopath" to their GP then something would be terribly wrong with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that part of what makes osteopathic medicine and chiropractic medicine unique, for example, is their philosophy which helps serve as a method of differentiation and even ensuring legal protection. So, does allopathic medicine (mainstream/conventional) have an underlying philosophy and if no, this is one of the things that makes it unique. Perhaps we could get a POV from our resident physicians? CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most statements of philosophy by professional groups are meaningless. Some groups claim that they care for the "whole patient", but everyone actually does that. Chiropractors care for the whole patient even though their work is essentially limited to bones and joints. MDs care for the whole patient even though most individual doctors focus on one aspect of care. So on and so forth. I bet that many physicians would agree with my discarding of this "philosophy" business. Now, if we're talking specifically about evidence-based medicine, there is a philosophy at work there, but that is not MD-specific. Antelan^talk 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I ask is that many CAM disciplines are rooted in holism, naturalism, vitalism and materialism. I think osteopathy was founded on the "rule of the blood" and chiropractic was the "rule of the nerve". I was curious if "allopathic" medicine had a specific doctrine that it was founded on or that differentiated it from other forms of medicine. I definitely agree about the EBM trend (and support it 100%) but that's really not what I was trying to get at. Lately I've been reading more and more about 'natural medicine' (not naturopathic) but a return to the 'roots' of medicine of non-synthetic/surgical options favouring holistic, conservative and manual means of improving health/function. Regardless, the lines are becoming increasingly blurred nowadays as many health professionals are drawing from a common literature base. CorticoSpinal (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think medicine is basically rooted in "trying to do whatever works" (so, perhaps "pragmatism"). A less tongue-in-cheek answer is that I don't think that you can really reach back historically to pinpoint the "founding of medicine" (except EBM) like you can with chiropractic, etc., so I don't think you can find a founding philosophy like you can with the CAM groups. Antelan^talk 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the aforementioned notable, i.e. there is no significant philosophy attached to medicine and this differentiates it from osteopathic, chiropractic etc? What about the Hippocratic Oath or stuff from Galen and that jazz back in the day? Anything that helps differentiate? What is the main concern of the community here, weight, notability, POV pushing? CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[EC] A closely related term is "eclectic" - just use whatever works. That's why Hahnemann's use of the term "allopathic" has always been misleading. It implies a guiding philosophy which medicine (at his time and later) has never claimed. -- Fyslee / talk 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4,350 references for the term "allopathic" since 2003 seems dispositive to me. Bryan Hopping ^T 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your really need to stop this behavior. You've tried to make your point, other than one or two CAMers, no one agrees. Thanks. Oh by the way, what percentage of those 4350 references come from anti-science CAMers? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-science CAMers? You are acting like this is some war between science and anti-science. It is not. It's just a word. It's used all the time. Just look it up. 12,100 references Plus, even you acknowledged the word is legitimate, here. that Bryan Hopping ^T 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About 70% are at least in the context of magical thinking. Excluding "complementary", "alternative", "CAM" and "hom(o)eopath(y/ic)" [86] returns about 1300 GScholar hits since 2003. PubMed gives 184 hits in the last five years, 112 of which are not cited by other PMC articles. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What I really don't understand is why there is such an advocacy here for the usage of this particular word. The backlash should be seen as a sign to find a better alternative, not to dig in harder. And there have been dozens of better alternatives offered, making this forceful advocacy particularly tiresome. Antelan^talk 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional references

The following is a list of examples of the current usage the term of "allopathic" in the United States Bryan Hopping ^T 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC):

• United States Dept of Labor - "There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians."
• American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Research Funding Favors Allopathic Medications: "The enormous disparity between research funding for studies on conventional pharmacological therapies and nonconventional modalities reflects entrenched biases that promote Western allopathic medicine at the expense of promising treatments from non-Western systems of medicine."
• Journal of General Internal Medicine (Harvard Med School Faculty) "Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical schools' support for primary care." PMID 10632817
• Journal of Vet Med Education "Part I: twenty-year literature overview of veterinary and allopathic medicine." PMID 18339961
• John Gever. Med Page Today. Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. "Nearly 13,000 graduates (84.6%) of allopathic medical schools in the U.S. landed one of their top three choices for a first-year residency slot, according to the National Resident Matching Program."
• Journal of the American Medical Association. PMID 18270355 "National survey of deans of all 125 accredited allopathic medical schools in the United States."
• Journal of American Geriatrics. "Attitudes, experiences, and interest in geriatrics of first-year allopathic and osteopathic medical students." PMID 18086123
• National Residency Matching Program "The NRMP classifies SMS applicants into 6 applicant types: [Type 1] Graduates of U.S. allopathic medical schools. A graduate of a Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited U.S. allopathic school of medicine."
• Illinois State Legislature. Osteopathic and Allopathic Healthcare Discrimination Act.
• Michigan State Legislature "A health care corporation certificate shall provide benefits in each group and nongroup certificate for the following equipment, supplies, and educational training for the treatment of diabetes, if determined to be medically necessary and prescribed by an allopathic or osteopathic physician:"
• Florida State Legislature "The bill requires each Florida-licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician, in conjunction with the renewal of his or her license under procedures adopted by the DOH."
• American Medical Student Association. "AMSA RECOGNIZES the equality of osteopathic and allopathic medical degrees within the organization and the healthcare community as a whole."
• American Medical Association "Allopathic med school enrollment rises 2.2%"
• Annals of Family Medicine 4:182-184 (2006) "Aligning the Interests of Osteopathic and Allopathic Teachers of Family Medicine."
• American College of Physicians "But that growth is causing something of a schism between osteopaths and their allopathic counterparts. . . "
• Dept Health and Human Services, National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program "Allopathic Medicine: For students of schools of allopathic medicine pursuing the MD degree - MD"
• University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey "The National Resident Matching Program matches applicants with allopathic residency programs."
• Journal of the American Medical Association. "In this article we report the specialty choices of 2 groups of entrants to US allopathic residency programs: graduates of osteopathic schools of medicine and those of non-US medical schools."
• Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) "How much does ERAS cost? Allopathic programs: ERAS fees are included in your annual membership dues to the AAMC."
• New York Times. "Nationwide, there are 125 allopathic (traditional medicine) medical schools and 23 osteopathic medical schools."
• Yale University Undergrad Career Services. "Allopathic (M.D.) Medical School: The following information is in regards to Schools of Allopathic Medicine . . . "
• National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions
• Student Doctor Network "Some students feel that they need to take the USMLE in order to get accepted into an ACGME* (allopathic) residency."
• allopathic medicine:A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called conventional medicine, Western medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and biomedicine. National Cancer Institute. U.S. National Institute of Health. [87]

More references

• Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. [88] American Medical Assoc
• Allopathic Physician (MD) [89] 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. [90] National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
• Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine [91] Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
• To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada [92] State of Nevada, Board of Medical Examiners.
• A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine [93] University of New Hampshire
• Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative [94] 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). [95] Xavier University, Louisiana
• How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? [96] Wittenburg University
• M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. [97] Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
• University of Missouri, St. Louis [98]
• Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc[99]
• 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. [100] North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
• Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc [101] PMID 16717364

Even more references

• American Medical Student Association:

[102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

• American Medical Association:

[108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]

• New England Journal of Medicine:

[114] [115] [116] [117] [118]

• US Department of Health and Human Services:

[119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

• Center for Disease Control (CDC):

[124] [125] [126]

• Johns Hopkins:

[127] [128]

• Harvard Medical School:

[129]

• UCSF:

[130] [131]

• Cleveland Clinic:

[132]

• Columbia Med:

[133] [134]

• Yale Med:

[135]

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

[136] [137] [138]

• Others:

[139] [140]

• American Medical Association

[141]

Objections

Yes, we know very well by now that some Americans use "allopathic" to mean "medicine practiced by people without a DO degree", and you have demonstrated this ad nauseam. You have separated "osteopathy" from "osteopathic medicine in the USA" and the latter appears to be the same as "medicine," both in the USA and everywhere else. "Osteopathy" has morphed in the US into "osteopathic medicine," and osteopaths have become "osteopathic physicians" and even "osteopathic medical physicians." If there really is that much convergence, what is the point of calling medics with any other qualification "allopathic"? There are no allopaths nowadays, and there probably never have been any: the term describes an imaginary philosophy of medicine, a simple doctrine attributed by the inventor of another great simplification to his opponents, i.e. all the other practitioners of his time. This term was taken up later by rival "only one cause of disease" groups, including osteopaths: but it would make more sense to say American DOs are not osteopathic nowadays than to call the MDs allopathic. Yet the usual suspects are still hard at work shoving "allopathic" into medical articles all over Wikipedia. What's the point of all this - or do obsessions not need to have a point? NRPanikker (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! I totally agree with your analysis. Clearly U.S. "osteopaths" have become completely "allopathic." In terms of their original meanings, there's nothing "osteopathic" (meaning disease of the bone) about osteopathic medicine in the United States today. There's likewise nothing "allopathic" (meaning "other than the disease") about allopathic medicine. Everyone using the term in the United States knows this.

We use the words "allopathic" and "osteopathic" to refer to two pathways to becoming a physician in the United States. They don't say (hardly) anything about the type of medicine being practiced or the "philosophy" of the practitioner. Rather, they serve as a means to distinguish the two types of political bodies, accredidation agencies, and licensing pathways. In certain articles about U.S. physician licensure and training, we need these words [142] [143]. Even though they are obviously polysemes.

One other question, you say "You have separated "osteopathy" from 'osteopathic medicine in the USA'" . . . is that really fair? You think that I have done this?Bryan Hopping ^T 09:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the history of those two articles, but there is good justification for their existence since European osteopathy and American osteopathy are very different. Here they are mainstream, scientific doctors, while in Europe they are alternative therapists who are not doctors and who still cling to Still's original metaphysical belief system received from "the other world". -- Fyslee / talk 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is really, do you think it productive, for you and the community, if you to continue with behavior that is fairly labeled "shoving 'allopathic' into medical articles all over Wikipedia"? There have been many requests for input on this, and you continue pushing allopathic, even in the face of input to the contrary. The only mainspace edit you made yesterday was to reinsert "allopathic" into Doctor of Medicine. How is that productive? How does that respect consensus? Antelan^talk 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting this tendentious editing. Here and there an article or two might mention allopathy (and I need to read the context), it's just not commonly used. Moreover, nearly every usage listed is US (although I am not spending the 10 hours to figure it out). Again, when you show me a notable hospital, medical school and/or medical research institution that utilizes Allopathy, I might be convinced. Political organizations that must bend itself to the will of political expendiency to make a point. We don't have to do that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that user Hopping has provided such sources just above. Yale Med School, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, NEJM, etc. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yale Allopathic Med School. Harvard Allopathic Med School. Johns Hopkins Allopathic Hospital. None of these ring a bell. For instance where "allopathic medicine" is used, there are a little over 1,000 instances where it is not used. Nobody is denying an occasional usage, but there is a strong sentiment that Hopping's determined usage and refusal to compromise on language across Wikipedia is problematic. Antelan^talk 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get invited to the opening of Jim Yale's Allopathic Medical School and Garage. I missed it I guess. Back to non-sarcasm. Again, I ask for one notable medical school, hospital, research institution, etc. that uses "allopathic" in its title. I'd take a non-notable one, just to play fair. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point here because I am afraid that I am missing it? What point is everyone trying to make here in terms of this article and the use of the term "allopathic medicine"? Basically, what are the various agendas behind this discussion in terms of article content? Are we discussing adding something? Deleting something? Rewriting something? Sourcing something?

(BTW, here we have Yale referring to their "Schools of Allopathic Medicine".) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading that, it's not referring to "Yale's schools of allopathic medicine" by any means. Thousands of sources say "allopathic"; however, hundreds of millions (not hyperbolic speech) do not. If you want to understand the core of this controversy, let me say this: (1) It doesn't really surround the usage of the term in this article - the term is manifestly necessary here, since this is an article on the subject; (2) Hopping's contributions log demonstrates repeated insertion of the term "allopathic" into article across mainspace as a synonym for medicine or MD, despite community feedback that this is not appropriate; (3) there is plenty of discussion of this in the recent archive from Wikiproject:Medicine. Antelan^talk 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest two things then. 1) This discussion about the use of "Allopathic" on multiple articles is perhaps out of place here. 2) Yale referring to its medical schools as the "Schools of Allopathic Medicine" certainly lends credence to the idea that "Allopathic" isn't necessarily still a pejorative term but rather a synonymous term to "Mainstream" or "MD" which is use with some significance; however, perhaps not as much as the terms "Mainstream", "Conventional" or "MD". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Yes, that is certainly true; this is a behavioral problem that is best addressed via an RfC. (2) Yale does not refer to its medical school (singular) as allopathic, not even in the link provided. Antelan^talk 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1) RfC might be a good idea if other WP:DR processes have been exhausted. 2) The point is not that Yale refers to its own school as "Allopathic", but that throughout this site they refer to medical schools and the medical practice in general as "allopathic". There doesn't appear to be any pejorative connotation here or in the plethora of references Hopping has provided. So, in terms of the lead of this inaccurate when it states: The label has never been accepted by conventional medicine, and may still be considered pejorative. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite reasonable, but that is not the website of the Yale School of Medicine. It is the website of Yale's undergraduate Career Services. Antelan^talk 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not saying it is. But the links which Hopping has provided shows that Harvard Med, Yale, Columbia, the AMA, the World Health Organization and many more all use the term without any pejorative inference. This seems to contradict the lead of this article where it states that the "allopathic" label is not accepted by conventional medicine or is still considered a pejorative. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly fine synthesis, but we can't publish synthesis on the mainspace. When evaluating those sources, it's important to look at who is making the statements, and what they are saying. For example, it's one thing for one person or group at Harvard to use the term "allopathic", and another thing entirely for the institution itself to use it in official capacity (i.e., to name a department or a chair). In Hopping's links, we don't see "Harvard" using the term - we see a person using the term on the Harvard website. Substantial difference. And to address your concern, the statement comes, in part, from the source to which the statement is attributed (the source is a PhD, not an MD): Although medicine never accepted the label of allopathy, nonmedical practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths regularly misrepresent physicians as "allopaths." Antelan^talk 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why are we giving the source - a PhD on a self-published, non-reviewed (arguably biased) site written over 12 years ago - such weight that the summary of this source's opinion is not just stated in this article as an uncontested fact but in the lead to boot? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have in mind a better source for the statement, or a source that disagrees? Antelan^talk 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have shown the statement to be factually inaccurate and that should be enough to remove the statement. Finding a source which actually represents the current mainstream view of the use of "allopathic" would be the next step but the lack of such a source should not be an excuse to keep a factually inaccurate statement referenced to a weak, partisan source in the lead of this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which source has addressed this issue and asserted that the term has been accepted by the medical establishment? Antelan^talk 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sum of all of the sources presented here show us that to say "the label has never been accepted by conventional medicine" is factually untrue. We see a lot of acceptence of the term and in uses that are far from pejorative. I am not saying to use these sources to cite anything, but rather for us to know that the old source has been refuted completely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is synthesis, which is not an acceptable justification for making mainspace changes. Hence my question regarding a source. If you find a source that attests otherwise, let me know. Antelan^talk 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's three sources explicitly speak to the exact question at hand, "how accepted is the term allopathic in the United States, and by whom, and in what context?" Bryan Hopping ^T 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• ""Allopathic medicine" has been revived and come into common use in recent years as a synonym for mainstream medicine, and many MDs today accept the designation uncomplainingly." (Whorton, James. Counterculture Healing: A Brief History of Alternative Medicine in America. 4 Nov 2003. WGBH Educational Foundation)
• "Despite its ongoing use in unconventional medical circles, the term allopathy did not enter the general lexicon of modern American medical schools until recently. . . . there is a clear trend of increased use of the term among mainstream physicians. . . . The increasing popularity of allopathy today is likely related to the surge of interest in complementary and alternative medical therapies. . . . The term has even caught on with our physicians in training." (Gundling, KE. When Did I Become an "Allopath"? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2185-2186).
• "Although policy makers, social scientists, and others often refer to the MD profession as allopathic . . . (Gevitz, Norman PhD. Center or Periphery? The Future of Osteopathic Principles and Practices J Am Osteopathic Assoc. Vol 106 No 3 March 2006. p 121)

Bryan Hopping ^T 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There you go. All of these sources are much more recent and reliable than the current source which supports the incorrect sentence: The label has never been accepted by conventional medicine, and may still be considered pejorative. Clearly, according to the three sources Hopping has provided, this statement is no longer true. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There would be quite a different meaning coming across, had you not truncated the quotations. For example, Gevitz says, "Although policy makers, social scientists, and others often refer to the MD profession as allopathic, this term is actually a historical artifact that does not reflect any body of beliefs shared by the members of this profession." That is meaningfully different. So now we have two facets: (1) Some hold this term to be pejorative and rarely used; (2) Some hold this term to be in use among policy makers and social scientists, but find the term to be grossly inaccurate. I'm not sure that's much "better". Antelan^talk 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote is given, in its entirety, in the article. How you get "find the term to be grossly inaccurate" out of that passage? I read the words "does not reflect any body of beliefs shared by the members of this profession." In the United States, allopathic is not describing the philosophy or belief system of the practitioners. It's just a word use to designate some technical, professional designations. Likewise, osteopathic does not describe a body of beliefs or a philosophy. At this point, it's just a technical, professional designation. Historically, both terms mean something entirely different. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well the quote only supports your position when you truncate it. I didn't find that helpful. Grossly inaccurate comes from "historical artifact that does not reflect any body of beliefs shared by members of the profession". I don't know how much more grossly inaccurate it gets than not reflecting any body of beliefs by members of the profession in question. So yes, that was minimal interpretation on my part. If you really want to maintain that it's a label that is devoid of meaning, then your insistence in using this label as opposed to any other makes even less sense. Antelan^talk 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider the PBS quote in context too: "Allopathic medicine" has been revived and come into common use in recent years as a synonym for mainstream medicine, and many MDs today accept the designation uncomplainingly; in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, regular practitioners bitterly resented the name, as it implied their medicine was just one more "pathy," no more valid than homeopathy or naturopathy). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that as something useful to add to the article, not something that would prompt me to remove the other statement. Keep in mind that the quote I pulled out was just a completion of a quote from Hopping - not even from a source that I selected. Antelan^talk 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not its meaning. The issue is that here on Wikipedia, the statement "In the United States, sometimes MDs are called allopathic physicians" is immediately labeled as some kind of POV-pushing QuackAttack. When its clearly a well-sourced factual statement. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not conflate the behavioral issue with the content issue, as you are doing now. Regarding content - this page is the right place to mention that. Regarding behavior - It's inappropriate to force it into dozens of articles across wikispace, especially after receiving feedback from the relevant editors (WP:Medicine) that opposed the behavior, and still worse to add the word back over 10 times to an article after being reverted by several editors who expressed that your edit was inappropriate. This is not the place to discuss behavior. Antelan^talk 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopping et al. make a good case for inclusion, Antelan et al. feel that it may be a weight issue; I personally think it's notable and meets inclusion criteria. Nevertheless, contentious subjects need careful wording and usually some kind of qualifiers. Why not focusing on making the necessary qualifying statements first; if none can be agreed upon it looks like it will have to be resolved elsewhere. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it being mentioned here with appropriate wording - this is the right article for it. Antelan^talk 04:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So the main objection then is it's inclusion on the "mainstream" side of things, i.e. medicine, doctor of medicine, etc? Where is it included now and is it done tastefully (i.e. neutral)? Perhaps the term, as a synonym for mainstream, is appropriate in some WikiProject Medicine articles but maybe not in others. I also have no idea of the weight in those articles; that would obviously need to be dealt with as well. It might be useful in drafting a "clause" or a common statement that could be used throughout the articles for consistency. This principle could also be applied elsewhere at Wikipedia where the same subject shows up and would improve some consistency issues around here. If we can pull it off for allopathic physician then the rest would be a piece of cake! CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here was initiated regarding a phrase stating that 'the medical establishment never accepted the label allopathic.' Initially, there were arguments to remove the statement. I argued that the sources didn't support a removal of that statement, but instead an insertion of another statement indicating that the term was sometimes used. To wit, I'm not sure what the objections are at the moment. The discussion of the term "allopathic" on other articles has already been conducted on WP:Medicine, and is available in the archives. Antelan^talk 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"the use of the term allopathic medicine has increased lately amongst academics and some clinicians as a synonym for conventional medicine, although this seems to be confined primarily to the United States and is used unevenly amongst medical and osteopathic physicians" ? CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this kind of heated discussion about the meaning of a word isn't specific to fringe-related words, even in the widest possible sense. A "city" is a big settlement, right? It turns out that in the UK there are big settlements that no longer form a legal entity because their city status has been transferred to a much larger area that includes many small villages. E.g. the big town Leeds does not formally exist; legally it's just some contiguous set of districts within the City of Leeds, which is clearly not a settlement in the geographical sense. Last month there was a fight about whether or not it was allowed to call Leeds (the large settlement) a city. Some people felt very strongly that formulations like "Leeds is a city in Yorkshire, although formally the city status has been transferred to the wider county borough." were unacceptable because they were inexact. I felt very strongly that even in an encyclopedia the word "city" should be used in its normal, everyday sense (which some English editors claimed didn't even exist in the UK, although they were contradicted by others and by dictionaries).

People feel strongly about language, and they get into absurd fights about "singular they", "split infinitives" etc. For me it helps to be aware that we are exactly in this kind of situation, and that it has nothing to do with "agendas". Perhaps with this knowledge we can all cool down even more. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what we have here other than a statement in the lead which may have been true a dozen years ago when its reference was written, but is no longer true. To say that "The label has never been accepted by conventional medicine" based on an old source is negligent encyclopedia writing in the face of us having a more current (and reliable) source stating that "'Allopathic medicine' has been revived and come into common use in recent years as a synonym for mainstream medicine, and many MDs today accept the designation uncomplainingly". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, we have no reliable lexicographic sources that state that the term has become more common or that it "has been accepted by conventional medicine". What we have is a lot of original research/unpublished synthesis that has no place in an encyclopedia. When a lexicographer or dictionary weighs in with usage notes, then and only then will there be something to add. - Nunh-huh 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First, we do have Dictionary references above which state a definition with no reference to it being used as a pejorative. Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines it as: relating to or being a system of medicine that aims to combat disease by using remedies (as drugs or surgery) which produce effects that are different from or incompatible with those of the disease being treated. Second, why would we need a lexicographic source to negate an old, non-reliable, non-lexicographic source? Third, the PBS source states: "'Allopathic medicine' has been revived and come into common use in recent years as a synonym for mainstream medicine, and many MDs today accept the designation uncomplainingly". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would we need a lexicographic source to make a lexicographic claim? That should be self-evident. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Yet, we are currently making a lexicographic claim in the lead of this article without lexicogrpahic source. You just proved my point! Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine we have different ideas of what claims are lexicographic, then. - Nunh-huh 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2c and I declare my conflict of interest as a chiropractor. First, most wikipedians would probably agree that Hopping has provided a plethora of references that suggests that allopathic=conventional medicine and it is notable and worthy of inclusion. Next, it seems that term (allopathic) still has some serious stigma attached to it from a historical perspective. In my field, a similar thing is playing with the term "vertebral subluxation" where it's meaning has changed (or is changing) from the past; but there is such much stigma attached to it I'd prefer to see the term go. Lastly, it seems like there are some good arguments being raised by the medical doctors here; but I kinda feel that at times, the medical community (not the editors here per se) here are wikipedia tries to impose their culture on non-conventional medical culture. In philosophy there is a term called cultural relativism which suggests that it wrong to see one culture as better/superior than another because of the inherent bias involved in that judgment. An example would be the western tradition of cremation which is perfectly normal and acceptable for our culture but would be perceived as heresy amongst Native populations and certain Eastern cultures. So, back to the debate at hand; is there appropriate literature which meets inclusion criteria that validates the argument being made? Yes. Should this material be readily applicable to every medical out there? No, it should be done on a case by case basis and needs to have a passing degree of contextual validity. Where we go from here, I leave that decision up to you (Neo) CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is this "PBS" that is quoted in support of "allopathic" having been revived in recent years and come into common use as a synonym for mainstream medicine? It seems to be an American television station that publishes essays on its website, presumably in connection with its programmes.

We still have the problem that the usual suspects are forcing "allopathic" into articles everywhere to distinguish American MDs (and non-American MBChBs, etc) from from American DOs, when they are also at pains to explain that there is next to no difference between an MD and a recent DO in the USA. In which case, "allopathic" is not being used as a synonym for conventional as opposed to alternative medicine, let alone mainstream versus homoeopathic: it seems to mean little more than "not having a DO," since American DOs are uniquely exempted from being labelled "allopathic." The term is not just being used to distinguish two historically distinct but currently converged types of American medical school, since it is also applied here to other countries with different histories. It would be a lot simpler just to call the mainstream non-osteopathic, except that the DOs too seem not to be osteopaths any longer. The contradiction seems to lie in the American DOs' idea of themselves and their position in relation to the rest. I have suggested before that there are elements of self-hatred and cultural cringe involved. This can not be resolved by resurrecting an old term of abuse. NRPanikker (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. These terms in no way reflect the denotative meanings of "allopathic" and "osteopathic". Their usage in the U.S. has nothing to do with the historical meanings of these words. However, what are we to do? These are (unfortunately) the terms we are stuck with, but only in the very limited number of articles where this distinction even needs to be made. That is, only articles that need to discuss this unusual dualism in American physician training in the U.S. and no where else. Thoughts? Bryan Hopping ^T 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First reference doesn't work

Can someone please fix it? -- Fyslee / talk 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Antelan^talk 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet Another Source

• Grassroots Activism and the Pursuit of an Expanded Physician Supply New England Journal of Medicine.

Published this week. This article is a perfect example of the types of contexts in which the term "allopathic" is used in the United States. 11 instances of the term with this ´´peer-reviewed´´ article. Still think US physicans are offended by the term? Still think this term has only been accepted by "one source" or physicians who "practice alternative medicine" ? Still think I have some kind of crazy POV-pushing agenda? Bryan Hopping ^T 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NEJM is a very good source, indeed. I'm still a bit lost what the main disagreement is about, i.e. notability or the fact that it historically carried a perjorative meaning that still rubs certain MDs the wrong way. Maybe the "new" generation of MDs will accept the term moreso than the current/previous gen. There is a similar generational shift occuring in my profession as well. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The American cancer society refers to MDs as "conventional medical doctors", and does not use the term "allopathic" even when comparing with osteopaths. There are several million more references, but I don't have much interest in gathering all of them, and I'm sure nobody here wants to read them. "Conventional," though unnecessary, is far preferable to "allopathic", which as you have admitted, has pejorative connotations and has met with resistance. Conventional is a balanced alternative, and can be used when needed for distinction from osteopathic doctors. Antelan^talk 08:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How about splitting the article?

I would like to replace the article allopathy by a disambiguation page like the following:

---

The word allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) was coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. The term, intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, was rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative undertones. The word is increasingly used in a neutral way and in contexts not related to homeopathy, but some physicians still consider it offensive.

Allopathy or allopathic medicine may refer to:

• The opposite of homeopathy, see homeopathy and allopathy.
• In the United States, the opposite of the branch of medicine which is not osteopathic medicine. See comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.
• More generally, complementary and alternative medicine.

---

The article allopathic medicine should be a redirect either to allopathy or to comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.

Homeopathy and allopathy would describe the relation between homeopathy and mainstream science, and the history of this relation.

Any thoughts? --Hans Adler (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (Edited 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Support. Bryan Hopping ^T 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly, we had two or three articles about this topic before, and similar ongoing discussions on all of the talk pages. Secondly, allopathy is not the opposite of osteopathy in the US at the present day. The osteopathic articles take pains to establish that, in the USA alone, osteopaths and physicians practice the same profession in exactly the same way, and that the difference is that, for reasons of heritage, one group qualify as DOs rather than MDs. It makes as much sense to use allopathic and osteopathic to mark this distinction as it would to call the Drexel University MDs homeopathic. NRPanikker (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. I know nothing about the situation in the US, so I have to go after what I am told. Are you saying that the term "allopathy" is not used at all, or that it has a different meaning? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: The article comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine already exists. Your argument sounds more like something you might say in a deletion discussion for that article, or am I getting this wrong? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• The title of this article is "allopathic medicine" not "allopathy." The later is almost never used in the US.
• Osteopathic and allopathic are not antonyms. They are two independent branches of the same thing: mainstream physician education and training.

201.216.183.167 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. I have made two changes to take that into account. Does this make it OK? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Better. But osteopathic and allopathic are not two types of ´´medicine.´´ They are simply two types of physician education and training. Allopathic and osteopathic physicians practice the same type of ´´medicine´´. Confusing certainly, but important to clarify. I think we also need to mention the India usage, with distiguishe mainstream "allopathic" medicine from aruvedic medicine. 201.216.183.167 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think now I understand a bit better why the body of comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine starts with the "disagreement on the differences between osteopathic and allopathic medicine." I will try a different approach.

The main objection to calling mainstream physicians "allopathic" is that it suggests that they employ an "allopathic" principle. The term and the accompanying principle were devised early in the 19th century by Hahnemann, the proponent of another great simplification, homoeopathy, and employed by him as a term of abuse. Later, the term was appropriated by other groups with a different single cause of all diseases and unique way of treating everything: the "osteopathic lesion" in osteopathy or the "vertebral subluxation" of chiropractic. Other groups such as naturopaths also use the term, so you will find it used often in the context of alternative medicine.

In the USA both homeopathic and "eclectic" medicine have died out and the former homeopathic colleges have become mainstream: e.g. Hahnemann Medical College merged with the Women's Medical College in Pennsylvania and is now part of Drexel University. The American osteopaths have gone most of the way towards re-unification, and their college at Irvine, California, went all the way, but they are still taught what they now call "osteopathic manipulative medicine" as well and retain the DO degree, but a few years ago it changed from "Doctor of Osteopathy" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine."

In India, possibly the greatest producer of homeopaths at the present day, there are distinct sets of colleges producing graduates in medicine, homeopathy, ayurveda and a few other local traditions like Unani and Siddha. The non-medical people also study mainstream diagnosis and treatment to a some extent. The Indian homeopaths call their mainstream competitors "allopaths."

The main objection to talk of "allopathy" is that it does not exist as a school of thought, except in the eyes of those who attribute it to their opponents. Calling the majority of physicians "allopathic" resembles labelling those of other faiths "heretic" or "infidel." Using religious terminology is apt, as the history of American medicine has resembled the splitting and merging of Protestant churches.

The American use of "allopathic" is particularly absurd, since it no longer means even "non-osteopathic" but rather "done by someone without a DO degree." The practice of modern DO holders would be regarded as allopathic by the homeopaths, and even the original osteopaths. It is this usage that certain editors have been inserting into articles on medical topics throughout Wikipedia, so that medicine and medical practitioners outside the United States are labelled "allopathic" if they do not involve American DOs.

Nevertheless, the word exists and is in use, so Wikipedia must take notice of it, but we should be aware that it is promoted here by those of a particular viewpoint (schismatic rather than ecumenical) and being inserted irrelevantly into articles all over the place. Examples are "Doctor," where we are told that MB ChB and MB BS holders are allopathic, and "Doctor of Medicine," where we are repeatedly informed that MD is an allopathic qualification and that it is equivalent to DO. NRPanikker (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose I would vote to retain the article as it is. Peter morrell 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)::Peter, can you also comment on my new proposal below? I hope that it already takes your concerns into account, because it entails creation of an article homeopathy and allopathy. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support thanks for clarifying, I now support this idea! Peter morrell 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying again

I will try another proposal. If I see this correctly, the situation is as follows.

• In most contexts "allopathy" is the more usual word, and "allopathic medicine" is used as a synonym. In the osteopathy context in the US, the situation is reversed: "allopathic medicine" is the more usual word, and "allopathy" is sometimes used as a synonym.
• The main contexts in which the words are used are: homeopathy, osteopathy, ayurveda, or generally traditional and/or alternative/complementary medicine.
• The words "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine" basically mean mainstream medicine. The exact definitions vary depending on the context. In particular, in the US osteopathy context the distinction made with the word is much finer than in other contexts, because for most purposes osteopathy has become part of the mainstream.
• The WHO study "Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review" defines "allopathic medicine" as "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine." They make it clear, however, that they only use the term for convenience, and they do not use the term "allopathy" at all.
• This article is called allopathic medicine. But allopathy redirects to this article.
• Because of the homeopathy context, this article is part of the homeopathy article probation. At least one editor with no interest in homeopathy already got bitten by this.

Initially I thought we could reduce complexity for our users by treating "allopathic medicine" and "allopathy" in separate articles. But the results of my Google tests on word usage were inconclusive, to say the least. No doubt we have visitors to this article coming from all the main contexts listed above. Since allopathic medicine is the first Google hit for "allopathic", the only thing that we can say with some confidence is that after a split, the article allopathy would be considerably less likely to be found by Americans coming from the osteopathy context. That's probably not worth the additional complications from replacing the "allopathy" redirect by something else.

Nevertheless, this is currently an outpost of at least two unrelated battlegrounds, and I think everyone who looks at the current state of the article will agree that this has led to serious problems. Let's forget about the material that has accumulated on this article. Part of it is not worth preserving (e.g. the literal quotes from other encyclopedias), and part of it can be merged elsewhere. This may take some time, but I don't see time as a problem. What I want to know is: Can we transform this article into a disambiguation page? Something that looks vaguely like the following?

---

Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative undertones. The term "allopathic medicine" is increasingly used in a neutral way and in contexts not related to homeopathy, but some physicians still consider it offensive.

In the United States, allopathic medicine mainly refers to the medical training that leads to the degree Doctor of Medicine rather than the degree Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. See comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.

Outside the United States, allopathic medicine generally refers to "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine." See medicine.

Allopathic medicine or allopathy may also refer to:

• The opposite of homeopathy, see homeopathy and allopathy.
• The opposite of complementary and alternative medicine.
• The opposite of traditional medicine, especially of Ayurveda.

---

I am not asking whether this proposal is perfect. I am asking whether we can agree to gradually cut the article back to something vaguely like this, and to leave it at that. No pictures, no extended discussions of contentious topics. Just a short etymology and pointers in various directions. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a truncated article would be as informative as the current one and nor do I think splitting the article up in the way proposed, into daughter articles, is any advance on the current article. If it ain't broke why fix it? thanks Peter morrell 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Disambig proposal of Hans Adler is reasonable. The WHO quote is reasonable. Bryan Hopping ^T 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more precise explanation of the plan. The first half of this article, consisting of Allopathy#Origin and Allopathy#History would form the new article homeopathy and allopathy. I am confident that with the material from my draft, and without the added complications of the various non-homeopathical contexts, we could soon extend this to an article of the same size as this one. The second half, consisting of Allopathic medicine#Current usage of term and Allopathic medicine#Regional usage of term would for the most part be merged into comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine.

The thing that is broken, and that I would like to fix, is that in the current situation it's very hard to do anything at all with this article because there are so many people here who are using the word "allopathic" in distinct ways. This causes unnecessary friction. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, splitting the article to "uncomplicate it" makes the presentation in each of the daughter articles misleading - precisely because the reader of any one of them can get the mistaken idea that the term is "uncomplicated". There's no need to spread this dispute out over a slew of articles: let it be dealt with here as best we can, rather than mislead anyone who chances across only one of the pages in the "allopathy" corpus of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the article comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine already exists and is unlikely to go away. Imagine a language in which there is only one word that can mean mammal, milk-producing domestic animal, cow or goat, depending on context. Trying to cover all meanings of such a word in a single article only leads to problems, and it's not necessary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And of course every page that uses "allopathic" in its title or in a redirect must start with a disambiguation notice. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we already have too many articles on the same subject is no reason to start multiplying them! In accordance with the usual practice here, there should be one, comprehensive article. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support for disambiguation page with short explanations and links to relevant articles. -- Fyslee / talk 16:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support in part. The short-article idea is excellent. However, I have seen no evidence (just claims by people affiliated with osteopathic medicine) that the use of the term "allopathic" is increasing, at least not in mainstream medicine. The AAMC even removed the term recently from its website. Also, I don't think that it is quite right to present "mainstream medicine" as "Not homeopathy, not osteopathy, not alternative medicine." But yes, the core idea of this reworked page is wise. Antelan^talk 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have resolved your first point. To your second point, I think I see what you mean. The problem seems to be that because of its overwhelming dominance, mainstream medicine is usually just called medicine. Similarly from the POV of various non-mainstream traditions, it's natural to distinguish only between "our tradition" and "everything else", equating the latter with the mainstream. Some will add other non-mainstream traditions into the picture, but all will make the incorrect equation. The formulations with "the opposite of" are intentionally vague, and I hoped that everybody would find a personal interpretation of opposite that makes it acceptable. But perhaps there is a way of being even more ambivalent; or more precise in a way that everybody agrees with. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this statement that the AAMC "removed" the term from its website. A simple search gives over 500 instances of the word on the AAMC website, none that I can find mention anything about the term being "rejected." Bryan Hopping ^T 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise: the AAMC has removed the term "allopathic" from the official page that had been previously used to support the use of the term "allopathic". And when I say "rejected", I mean by consensus two months ago on WikiProject:Medicine. Antelan^talk 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikiproject medicine was clearly that the term could be used on Wikipedia. Bryan Hopping ^T 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

here is that archive. Please, show me where you see such a consensus. As was clearly noted, "There are a range of opinions, with only Bryan Hopping really supporting the use of allopathic, and many people, including all non-Americans, strongly or weakly opposed.". Antelan^talk 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With some encouragement from Fyslee I have been bold and implemented the changes. It seemed easier than I expected to move the US bits to comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians in the United States, so I have done that at once. The editors there can decide what exactly to do with them, but at least they don't look completely out of place there. The new article homeopathy and allopathy needs a bit of work so it reflects the title more closely, but I think it doesn't look dramatically wrong as it is. Nunh-huh, I hope you don't mind too much. I'm open to reverting this if there is some unexpected new (and strong) opposition or if this article isn't pacified as a result of the changes. But please give it a chance. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note, in case someone who disagrees with the change might wonder. I did not encourage so radical a change, only a replacement of the redirect with a disambiguation page. In fact the redirect is still in place. That's where this should have happened. I'm not sure what the consequences of so radical a change as has occurred might be, but if it works, great. -- Fyslee / talk 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I discovered this comment only now. I think I see now what you meant: Change only the allopathy redirect, but leave allopathic medicine as it was? I am not sure what I would have done if I had understood your proposal, but at the time I simply misread it. Sorry for erroneously claiming your support. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good changes... One quibble: "The term "allopathic medicine" is now often used in a neutral way and in contexts not related to homeopathy,[1][2]" - sources 1 and 2 don't say anything about this word being "neutral" whatsoever. It's a mis-sourcing (which I know you did not introduce) that should either be corrected, if there is a source that states the term is neutral, or removed, if there is none. Antelan^talk 07:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mis-sourcing, which I did introduce, after all. These things came from the external links section, and I thought that would be the best place for them. But you are right, as sources for that statement they are a bit misleading. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope the problem is fixed now. I have also tweaked the language a bit more. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your diligence. Antelan^talk 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed out on this - wasn't paying attention - however, I think the way things moved forward was a good choice. Nice work! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for the positive feedback! I discovered it just as I was getting a bit unhappy about the edit war. I really hope we can sort this out, too. There must be a consensus version, we only have to find it. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Allopathic and the law, in the US

OKLAHOMA ALLOPATHIC MEDICAL AND SURGICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION ACT

"Allopathy is a method of treatment practiced by recipients of the degree of Doctor of Medicine, but specifically excluding homeopathy. The terms medicine, physician and drug(s) used herein are limited to allopathic practice."

BRANDWEIN v CALIFORNIA BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS; The California Board of Medical Quality Assurance; The California Department of Consumer Affairs United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

"Allopathy, as originally understood, was a system of treating disease based on inducing an opposite reaction in the body. Steadman, Medical Dictionary 45 (1976). It has gradually become associated with the type of medicine taught in medical schools awarding a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree. Osteopathy is a school of medicine founded by Dr. Andrew Taylor Still in the late 19th century. It is based on the principal that the body contains its own defense mechanisms against disease and that, through the process of physical manipulation of skeletal and muscular tissues, it may be brought back to health. Steadman, supra, at 1004. While in its early development osteopathy was primarily a drugless, non-surgical form of medical treatment, it has since moved much closer to the allopathic school of medical practice. Oliver v. Morton, 361 F.Supp. 1262, 1264 (N.D.Ga.1973). At the present time the differences between the schools of osteopathy and allopathy are minor; often the same basic curricula and texts are used. Id. Osteopaths are admitted to internships and residencies approved by the American Medical Association (A.M.A.), and local medical associations are allowed to accept osteopaths as members and such osteopaths are then eligible for membership in the A.M.A. Id. California law now provides that "holders of M.D. degrees and D.O. degrees shall be accorded equal professional status and privileges as licensed physicians and surgeons." Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Sec. 2453 (West 1974 & Supp.1983) (hereinafter "Medical Practice Act")."

EATOUGH v New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Licensing of persons to practice medicine in New Jersey is governed by the New Jersey Medical Practices Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. §§ 45:9-1 to 9-27.9. (West 1978). Statutory licensing requirements, Sections 9-6 to 9-14, are the same for all current applicants (regardless of medical school attended) and do not distinguish between graduates of allopathic and osteopathic schools for licensing purposes. New Jersey legislative policy has been to recognize graduates of osteopathic medical schools as fully competent in every respect to practice medicine and surgery

Bowen v. Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986)

""There is no basis to justify the segregation of allopathic family physicians from all other types of physicians. Such segregation is not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of the Medicare statute."

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE U.S. Legal Code collection.

In determining the adjustment with respect to a hospital for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 1997, the total number of full-time equivalent interns and residents in the fields of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in either a hospital or nonhospital setting may not exceed the number (or, 130 percent of such number in the case of a hospital located in a rural area) of such full-time equivalent interns and residents in the hospital with respect to the hospital’s most recent cost reporting period ending on or before December 31, 1996.

Interdisciplinary training and education on domestic violence and other types of violence and abuse. TITLE 42. U.S. Code.

"Eligibility: To be eligible to receive a grant under this section an entity shall—(1) be an accredited school of allopathic or osteopathic medicine;

(225 ILCS 62/) Osteopathic and Allopathic Healthcare Discrimination Act.

"(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any hospital licensed under the Hospital Licensing Act, whether allopathic or osteopathic in identity, shall be deemed equal under the law. No health care service plan, managed health care plan, health maintenance organization plan, preferred provider plan, or managed competition plan, no policy of disability insurance, no self‑insured employer welfare benefit plan, no health insurance purchasing cooperative, no other insurance policy, plan, or arrangement for the purchase, payment, or reimbursement of health care, and no agency of the State or of any municipality, county, district, or other political subdivision of the State shall discriminate with respect to the provision of, or contracts for, health care or related services against a licensed hospital on the basis of its identity as either an allopathic or osteopathic hospital. "

Thought these may be interesting reading, possible sources for a "legal" section to the article. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

These would be good sources if anyone still doubts that the word "is now often used in a neutral way and in contexts not related to homeopathy". But I would really prefer not to make this article longer again after we have cut it back. After all, the only thing we have said to the contrary is "but many physicians still reject it". This is intentionally ambiguous: like the preceding statement about neutral use, it doesn't say that it talks specifically about the US situation. And worldwide there can be no doubt that "allopathic" is still seen as related to "homeopathic", and that therefore a lot of physicians reject the term.

Even in the US I doubt that it's such a clear thing as you think. Many physicians, like Orangemarlin, studied many years before you, and they learned a very negative attitude to the word from their teachers. The large majority of those who are open-minded and have enough contact to DOs will have changed their mind by now. But I think I remember Orangemarlin mentioning his employer a while back. If I remember correctly, it was one where I wouldn't expect any DOs at all, and one that is still teaching the apothecaries' system of weights. When people say they are offended by a word it is vastly more likely that they are describing their own state of mind adequately than that they are trying to manipulate.

If I started pushing the "N word" in Wikipedia as a supposedly neutral term, based on the fact that it's increasingly used that way (see the article), that would be structurally similar to what you are doing, although admittedly much worse. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As an MD-in-training, I will say that the general attitudes of my colleagues are well reflected by the opinions that OrangeMarlin has voiced on the topic. At least with the "N word" that you reference, it is a term appropriated by those on the "inside". I still wouldn't use it. "Allopathic," in contrast, is a term imposed from the outside. Antelan^talk 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• John Jesitus M.D.,D.O. disparity, Differences blurring for state licensing bodies, medical societies, patients. Dermatology Times. 1 Dec 2007.

"Although the training of osteopathic (D.O.) dermatologists and their allopathic (M.D.) counterparts differs somewhat, these paths are converging — to the point that both are equally rigorous, many sources say.And, while pockets of resistance remain, acceptance of D.O. dermatologists in the M.D. community is increasing, some say. "D.O. dermatology training is much better now than it's been in the past," says David M. Pariser, M.D., American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) president-elect. "Some allopathic dermatologists may not realize the improvements that have been made in D.O. dermatology programs, though there's still more work to do for some programs.""

Another source. Bryan Hopping ^T 02:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you getting at here? Antelan^talk 03:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Budetti PP (2008). "Market justice and US health care" (PDF). Journal of the American Medical Association. 299 (1): 92–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2007.27. PMID 18167411. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"Market justice runs deeply in health care in the United States. Well into the 20th century, both buyers and sellers participated in a fully functioning market. Patients predominantly used personal funds to purchase health care until the rise of employment-linked health insurance. Allopathic physicians competed openly with other healing arts practitioners before state licensure laws erected barriers to market entry and limited the scope of practice of nonphysician practitioners beginning in the late 19th century. What dominated health care from the late 20th century to the present was not some sudden introduction of market principles and forces but tension among the differing perspectives of key medical care stakeholders on the appropriate role and strength of market forces."

• Cassel CK, Brennan TE (2007). "Managing medical resources: return to the commons?" (PDF). Journal of the American Medical Association. 297 (22): 2518–21. doi:10.1001/jama.297.22.2518. PMID 17565087. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"In the United States, this disconnect between responsibility over the management of resources and responsibility to the individual patient is made even greater by the historical disconnect between the public health sectors and the world of medical practice. This is no accident: as Starr pointed out more than 20 years ago, the allopathic profession worked hard to assert its control over medicine and eschewed public health models while championing fee-for-service payment."

• Center for Disease Control (2007). "Deaths from intravenous colchicine resulting from a compounding pharmacy error--Oregon and Washington, 2007". MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 56 (40): 1050–2. PMID 17932481. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"These deaths highlight the potential risk from use of IV colchicine for back pain and the possibly fatal consequences of measuring errors in compounding pharmacy products. . . . On March 30, 2006, a woman aged 56 years with a history of fibromyalgia and neck pain arrived at an ED with nausea, vomiting, profuse diarrhea, and chest pain. She had been receiving weekly IV colchicine for back pain from naturopathic and allopathic physicians at the same Oregon clinic as patient A."

• Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG (2008). "Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest" (PDF). Journal of the American Medical Association. 299 (6): 665–71. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.665. PMID 18270355. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Responses were received from 86 (69%) of 125 accredited US allopathic medical schools surveyed.TABLE 1 shows the extent of adoption of ICOI policies applicable to medical schools, by coverage of the institution and of institutional officials. Thirty (38%) survey respondents have adopted an ICOI policy covering financial interests held by the institution, 29 (37%) are working on adopting an ICOI policy covering financial interests held by the institution, and 20 (25%) are not working on adopting such a policy or do not know."

• Weinstein DF (2002). "Duty hours for resident physicians--tough choices for teaching hospitals" (PDF). New England Journal Medicine. 347 (16): 1275–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb022065. PMID 12393829. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"For many years, the Medicare reimbursement structure provided teaching hospitals with a financial incentive to expand the size of their graduate medical education programs. Between 1991 and 1996, the number of residents in allopathic medicine in the United States increased by 14 percent, from 86,171 to 98,076.2 Even now, after the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 abolished that particular financial incentive, hiring additional residents is often a less costly alternative to hiring other types of caregivers. Thus, the missions of physician education and patient care have been synergistic, and a profound reliance on residents has become commonplace in academic medical centers."

Some more sources for legal/economic forces. Bryan Hopping ^T 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• United States Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. February 12, 2008.

"Allopathic medicine is the most common form of medical practice. Graduates of allopathic medical schools receive doctor of medicine (MD) degrees. Osteopathic medicine is a form of medical practice similar to allopathic medicine that also incorporates manual manipulation of the body as a therapy. Graduates of osteopathic medical schools receive doctor of osteopathic (DO) medicine degrees. The number of primary care physicians includes both MDs and DOs."

• JUNE GIBBS BROWN Inspector General, US Dept of Health and Human Services. ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE HEALTH -PROFESSIONS STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. Sept 1998.

"With the exception of uncollectible loan write-offs, the Allopathic Medicine HPSL Program at the University of Washington was generally in compliance with program regulations. The University is currently crediting the HPSL loan pool for interest income earned on HPSL invested funds and is not retaining excess cash from the HPSL program. The primary care loan amounts were appropriate, and the recipients were complying with their primary care service obligations. Loans retired under Public Law loo-607 were eligible for write-off, However, the University was carrying uncollectible loans in their accounting records that were not submitted to HRSA for write-off approval."

• Sulmasy DP, Bloche MG, Mitchell JM, Hadley J. Physicians' Ethical Beliefs About Cost-Control Arrangements. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Mar 13;160(5):649-57. PMID 10724050

"The Young Physicians Survey (YPS) of 1991 was designed to elicit opinions regarding the medical practice environment and to assess the career satisfaction of physicians who had recently entered practice. This survey was designed to represent all allopathic physicians (and all osteopathic physicians completing allopathic residencies) who were younger than 45 years and had from 2 to 9 years of practice experience in 1991. This survey was based on a complex sampling design, including weights that adjust for sampling design and correct estimates to reflect the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile distribution of young physicians by age, sex, and country of medical education (United States or other). The survey design, including pretesting and weight construction, is described in detail elsewhere.42 In 1997, we resurveyed a subsample of the physicians who had participated in the YPS in 1991."

A few more sources. Bryan Hopping ^T 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We see above, once again, the use of the bludgeon rather than the rapier in debate: or, to use the language of manipulative medicine, the "long lever" employed in place of a "high velocity thrust." It is always worth checking references, and it seems that in general there is nothing here that has not been put forward by Bryan Hopping before, and repeatedly, at intervals of weeks or months, in many of the articles where "allopathic" has been inserted.

Some of the quotations are incomplete, and give a different sense if read in full: for example the "Oklahoma Allopathic Medical and Surgical Licensure and Supervision Act" seems to restrict the use of "physician" and "surgeon" to this kind of practitioner, and extends the coverage of this Act to those offering all forms of medical treatment other than "manual manipulation."

In Brandwein (1983), where a DO sought unsuccessfully to be allowed to continue calling himself an MD, a US Federal Appeal Court followed Hahnemann when it stated that "Allopathy, as originally understood, was a system of treating disease based on inducing an opposite reaction in the body." It goes on describe the convergence of MD and DO teaching and training, which rather goes against using the antique insult to distinguish the former group.

In Eatough (1982), another DO was not allowed to call himself an MD. The New Jersey Medical Practices Act appears to declare that the descriptions Dr, Doctor, Professor, MD and MB all imply the practice of medicine. It is also notable that here a different Federal Appeal Court repeated the errors made in Brandwein in describing the medical qualifications awarded outside the US, e.g. stating that in Ireland medical graduates receive MB BS degrees, which suggests that they relied on the same mistaken source.

In Bowen (1986), the issue before the US Supreme Court was whether the courts were entitled to review certain administrative actions in the Medicare system. The reference to "allopathy" was in a District or Appeal Court judgement: and we have been given only half of the extract in the SC judgement. They said, "To lump MDs who are family physicians but who have chosen not to become board certified family physicians, for whatever motive, with chiropractors, dentists and podiatrists for the purpose of determining Medicare reimbursement defies all reason," before going on to add, "There is no basis to justify the segregation of allopathic family physicians from all other types of physicians.Such segregation is not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of the Medicare statute." The full context is not given: it looks as if MDs without Board Certification are being treated less favourably, but it is not clear that they are being distinguished from DOs.

The remaining references illustrate again that, when referring to the two types of medical school in the USA, some writers and regulators call the MD schools "allopathic." It does not prove that non-DOs are normally called "allopathic" by Americans.

That seems to be the point of the whole Wikipedia Allopathy project: not to describe a system of medicine that nobody ever practiced, which might still be worthwhile for an encyclopaedia to do, but to apply the term "allopathic" to all physicians who do not have a DO, which is going beyond normal usage. NRPanikker (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopping fails to understand WP:WEIGHT, since he wishes to provide undue weight to an extreme minority point of view that uses allopathy. Once again, there are no major hospitals or any US based medical school that calls itself "allopathic." This tendentious editing is getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What tendentious editing? Seriously, I haven't even edited the article, except to restore it to the consensus version and rearrange the quote from a source so that it came after the reference, I believe this is the convention. If I'm in error, I am sorry.

"Extreme minority view?" Don't you think that's a bit of a mis-characterization?

• What's the Difference Between Allopathic and Osteopathic Medicine? About.com
• Allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. American Women's Medical Association.
• Osteopathic medicine is more than just an alternative to allopathic medical school. The Princeton Review.
• Family Medicine (Allopathic/Osteopathic) Residency, Bethlehem St Luke's Hospital Residency Program.
• Medicine- Allopathic and Osteopathic. The Career Center of the University of Illinois.
• Google Answers: Osteopathic vs. Allopathic Medicine Google Answers.
• Medical school loans for allopathic or osteopathic professions Sallie Mae.

Do you think I'm just making all this up? Bryan Hopping ^T 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not making it up: it was Hahnemann who invented the allopathic doctrine. However, you do seem exceptionally keen to shovel the word "allopathic" into articles that can manage perfectly well without it. NRPanikker (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that I'm placing the term only where it is appropriately sourced with reliable references? I have always supported a proper discussion of the the controversy surrounding this term on Wikipedia, following the NPOV guidelines:

• "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

Let's source the controversy with reliable sources. Where reliable sources use the term, let's present that point view as well.

I think I understand concerns of editors like Antelan, who've stated that part of the concern is that Wikipedia is driving the usage of this term, not just reporting it. I share that concern and I would like to work to generate guidelines for its appropriate usage, but also think it is important that we neither endorse, nor discourage its usage. The current effort underway to eliminate all mention of this term on Wikipedia, I think goes too far in the direction of discouraging its usage. I'm aware that others disagree with this, yet I still have this concern. Bryan Hopping ^T 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bryan, you are (again) reversing what is happening all over Wikipedia. It is YOU who have been pushing the term and not the other way around (others deleting it). They are just counteracting your improper pushing of the term. Your "perseveration" on this matter seems quite pathological: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Einstein. Please stop it. -- Fyslee / talk 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How the American Association of Medical Colleges handles this problem

From their glossary of terms website: Glossary

Accepted Applicant or Acceptee - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools AND who has been offered admission, i.e., been accepted, by one or more of those schools.

AMCAS - the American Medical College Application Service, a centralized service thru which a person can apply to almost all of the US Allopathic Medical Schools.

Applicant - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools.

Matriculant - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools AND who has been offered admission, i.e., been accepted, by one or more of those schools AND has indicated to one and only one of those schools that they plan to attend in the year to which they applied.

Also, here's a search showing all the documents published by the AAMC in which the allopathic appears: [144] Bryan Hopping ^T 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Chirayath HT, Wentworth AL. Constraints to caring: service to medically indigent patients by allopathic and osteopathic physicians. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008 May;19(2):500-11. PMID 18469421

Main usage in US

I've removed the "mainly" from the claim that allopathic means MD in the US, as this really needs a source. My understanding and experiance is that it "mainly" means not-CAM, in the pejorative sense, in the US, while a minority (mostly DOs, but by no means all) are trying to push it as a term to differentiate them from MDs, as their profession is likely to be subsumed in short time. That's just my understanding - let's see some sources to back this being the "main" usage. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for once we agree on something. I'd love nothing more than the DO profession to be subsumed. However, whether I agree or not everything you're saying it WP:OR, unless you can source it. Also, the "coming from the DO" side is a bit off, since so many of the sources are not DO or MD. Bryan Hopping ^T 16:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the "mainly"? If not it should be removed. Edit warring is tiresome, so I would remind people not to do it. I would also advise users to brush up on wikipedia policies - not every edit needs consensus, such as the removal of an unsourced claim. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

True, not every edit needs a source. But the consensus version (not written by me) was the product of a very long discussion. Of course, "Be Bold" applies here, but if you want your edits to stick, engaging in a consensus building process here is the best route. A look at this article's recent edit history shows that lots of edits have been undone, in favor of maintaining the consensus version by Hans Alder. You also might want to check out some WP policies like WP:EQ: "Argue facts, not personalities." or WP:AGF: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Bryan Hopping ^T 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SesquipedalianVerbiage to the extent that the word "mainly" needs some kind of citation. I think it was fine so long as nobody from the US doubted it, but in retrospect it's not surprising that someone does doubt it. I agree with Bryan that it's probably best to discuss this first. I predict that the outcome will be either (1) we find a source and the word stays in, or (2) we don't and the language is moderated to reflect this. One thing is clear: It's definitely not a problem to find sources showing that even nowadays some Americans (especially homeopaths, of course) use "allopathic" for the distinction with homeopathy. [145] [146] [147] But I don't see any need to edit war about this (from either side), rather than wait for the outcome of the discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the distinction with homoeopathy is the main usage, even in the US, and includes the pejorative use. Allopathic in this original sense would include DOs too! The second major use would seem to be other C/AM practitioners lumping evidence based medicine together in the same way, also covering both MDs and DOs. Perhaps there is a reference that it is the third main usage in the US? Anyway, until a good reference is found, the "mainly" contention should be significantly weakened. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From the United States Dept. of Labor ("Physicians and Surgeons". Occupational Outlook Handbook. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 2008-03-22. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)):

“ There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians. ”

Bryan Hopping ^T 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already seen this and the other cherry-picked articles in the multiple other places that you've posted them. None of the ones I've seen support the usage in the article. DOs are also known as allopathic physicians (by homoeopaths, amongst others, for example). You need a source that supports the "mainly" - some sort of meta-analysis of the term perhaps. I doubt one will be found as the assertion is false. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware if that you'd already seen it. I'm sorry you feel their are cherry picked. I'm just using the sources that I am familiar with. I have no expertise with homeopathy, and I not familiar with what's considered a reliable source in that field. I use the sources I know, like JAMA, NEJM, AAMC, AMA, etc, because those are the one I use on a day-to-day basis. As you point out, the sources mostly just define the term, they don't analyze that usage. I.E. National Resident Matching Program "A U.S. senior is a fourth-year medical student in an LCME-accredited U.S. allopathic school of medicine."] Or the National Institute of Health " A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called conventional medicine, Western medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and biomedicine."

In the previous discussions regarding this topic, there seems to be at least 3 different usages. In the UK & Europe, to distinguish from "homeopathic", in India to distinguish from "Aruvedic" and in the US to distinguish from "osteopathic." Bryan Hopping ^T 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have time at present to discuss this yet again, but I feel compelled to briefly jump in here. First, Hopping is grossly overstating the term's use in the USA, making it seem as though it were in common use. It is certainly not, except, perhaps, at osteopathic medical schools. Second, his sources are rather cherry-picked. Consider, for example, all of the NEJM/JAMA/etc articles talking about "allopathic medicine" that don't actually use the term. If you think about "observed use of 'allopathic'" vs "expected use of 'allopathic'", you can see for yourself that the term is extraordinarily uncommon. Add in its pejorative nature, and the extensive prior discussion at WP:MED about this very subject, and this strikes me as a wasteful perseveration by one individual who is unwilling to refer to MDs as, simply, physicians. Antelan^talk 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not common in Europe or UK, but in the US, particularly in certain regions, it is very commonly used by MD physicians. The sources make this pretty clear, as does a simple google search for Allopathic and Osteopathic. No cherry picking, just a simple google search. Also, look at how many hits this wikipedia article gets per day, pretty sure this is important. Bryan Hopping ^T 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In which regions, and how common? I see no evidence of this; your sources that claim that the term "allopathic" is on the rise either (1) have DO affiliations, or (2) decry the use of the term due to its pejorative nature. Your link to the number of hits per day for allopathic medicine is highly interpretable. For example, I could argue that (1) most of those hits come from India, and (2) the Americans reading the article come from within Wikipedia, clicking on the links because they have no idea what "allopathic medicine" is and have to read the article to find out. So, one could conclude that your overuse of this term across Wikipedia has in fact generated the majority of these hits. Antelan^talk 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Serendipitous example, sourced from the USMLE application: I am officially enrolled in or a graduate of a US or Canadian medical school program leading to the MD degree that is accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), or a US medical school program leading to the DO degree that is accredited by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA);) It appears that it is possible to mention DO and MD in the same breath without saying "allopathic". Anyway, I won't contribute further to the "look how many sources I can find that say X" war here, but I was reading over this material and it struck me. Regards, Antelan^talk 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can both sides please look for a consensus here rather than fight a battle?

There seem to be no sources saying that the term "allopathic" is in wide use, in the US or elsewhere. Only many examples of its use. There seem to be no sources saying that mainstream physicians object to the term even in a DO context. Only some examples of single people complaining. There seem to be no sources saying that it's a contentious issue. Only clear evidence in some of our sources, and certainly on Wikipedia.

In this situation we need to avoid the issue as much as possible. We need to be as vague as possible without misleading our readers. I don't understand why both sides continuously write stronger statements into the article to see if they stick. They are not going to stick without strong supporting sources. If the intent of these edits is to keep this article in an unstable state, and to keep everybody's blood pressure high, then that's rational behaviour. Otherwise it's not. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the consensus "Hans Adler" version we agreed to in April/Early May. The reason there no sources citing how objectionable this term is to US physicians is because it isn't really objectionable, hence the widespread usage of the term in scientific papers, in mainstream association's policy documents, etc. Even the sources that the few sources criticize this word note how common it has become. Do you really think the president of the American Association of Medical Colleges (who is an MD) would use a pejorative that is "widely rejected" to describe the medical colleges that he is responsible for? Bryan Hopping ^T 14:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: I too feel like this has spiraled out of control. The tone of the debate has become personal is a violation of every Wikipedia is about. I acknowledge that I have contributed to this madness and I apologize. We are going to disagree, but we don't have to fight. I am interested in consensus building, if that is still possible. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A brief exploration of self-identification

I found it informative to glance at the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. No group of physicians in America refers to itself as "allopathic". There is no "Allopathic Medical Association" nor any "Allopathic Medical School". Collectively and as individuals, MDs in the United States have chosen "MD", "doctor", or "physician" as their terms of self-reference. DOs have chosen "DO", "osteopathic physician", "doctor", or "physician" as their terms of self-reference. To me, this illustrates why there is resistance to Hopping's "allopathic" push. Even if you don't consider the term pejorative; even if you appeal to the authority of the AAMC's director who has used the term; all of that notwithstanding, people with the "MD" postnominal title in the United States do not refer to themselves as allopathic. It's not our place to force that upon them. Antelan^talk 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But Atelan, with the most sincere respect, MDs most certainly do call their residency training programs, their medical schools, and their medical students, and occasionally even themselves, "allopathic." Not all the time, surely not all the time, but they do in fact use these terms to describe their own organizations, their own schools, indeed themselves. Aside from 1 or 2 angry letters to the editor, no one bats an eye at this. By quoting reliable sources, we're not forcing anything upon anyone. We're just reporting accurately from the sources. This insistence that US physicians have rejected this term is really out there in the extreme minority. I mean this objection with real respect towards you, but still I must object. Bryan Hopping ^T 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking about self-identification. The schools don't self-identify as allopathic. The doctors don't. The organizations don't. Antelan^talk 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an not the anonymous poster of the below, however, I have to agree. Do you not agree that many of these examples are written by MDs? I agree with you that "allopathic" is not the first term they use to self-identify. However, in many cases, they would apply this term to themselves, without any hesitation. This seem to really weaken the argument that the term has been "rejected." Again, I am sincerely asking here with respect for you. I am not being rhetorical. Do you not agree that in these certain cases, these are American MD-physicians referring to their own schools/associations/etc as "allopathic"? Bryan Hopping ^T 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are, you put it back after they deleted it.

Yes, they do. Here are numerous examples. How can you make such unfounded assertions in the face of these references?

Repeated content tangential to discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
American Medical Association: [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] New England Journal of Medicine: [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] US Department of Health and Human Services: [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] Center for Disease Control (CDC): [164] [165] [166] Johns Hopkins: [167] [168] Harvard Medical School: [169] UCSF: [170] [171] Cleveland Clinic: [172] Columbia Med: [173] [174] Yale Med: [175] World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [176] [177] [178] Others: [179] [180] American Medical Association [181]

Never mind. I'm not getting sucked back into this silly argument.

The issue seems to me to be not so much "self-identification" as identification of "the other:" it is not "AllopathicFreak" who has been manically pasting "allopathic" into everything medical on Wikipedia. This is being done at the same time as denying that there is any real difference in medical practice between American DOs and American MDs, and changing references to DOs from "osteopath" to "osteopathic physician" and even "osteopathic medical physician." Thus the meaning of this archaic insult is being evacuated while its use is being revived and extended. Why not go all the way and say any physician without a DO is a quack? NRPanikker (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very confusing to me. I'm not sure why I am being attacked. I have worked hard to find sources of the highest quality, including ones that criticize the osteopathic profession. I have insisted that all "promotional" content be removed from the "Osteopathic medicine in the United States" article, and that the article not rubber stamp the ridiculous claims of the American Osteopathic Association that "Osteopathic medicine" is some special kind of medicine. In 2008, it's just one of two branches of the US-medical profession, not a type of medicine or even a unique medical philosophy. I'm truly sorry that you feel I'm trying to promote osteopathic schools & training programs over MD or allopathic schools/training programs. That idea is 180 degrees counter to my intention. Bryan Hopping ^T 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Inferiority complex

I thought this letter was interesting, as it reflects points of view expressed here. Perhaps it can be used a source for this article, or the Comparison of DO/MD article?

“ Similarly, if we as osteopathic physicians continue to promote separation from our allopathic counterparts due to our exclusive distinctiveness and uniqueness, we forever will be considered inherently unequal. Would not patient care improve if we shared our knowledge of manipulation with MDs or allowed them access to osteopathic residency positions? Acrimony between allopathic and osteopathic physicians is virtually nonexistent in the recent generations of physicians.

The self-aggrandizing behavior of continually pointing out how different and better DOs are compared to allopathic physicians exposes an inferiority complex within the profession. For example, Mr Crosby states, “it signals a more fundamental problem when the most completely trained physicians in the world seek to identify themselves with MDs rather than their own professional colleagues.” This statement reeks of a haughty air of superiority designed to be divisive and promote disunity between physicians, the larger classification to which all DOs and MDs belong. My allopathic counterparts are, in fact, my professional colleagues. I treat my patients with the same acumen and prowess as my coworkers do, and I don’t feel the need to inject the word osteopathic into every sentence I speak. I have yet to hear anyone claim to be an “allopathic anesthesiologist.” We are similar in almost every way and are treated as such. - Capt Daron E. Olmsted, DO, MC, USAF

”

Bryan Hopping ^T 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another quote, with a slightly different take on a similar theme. Probably more useful as a source in the Comparison article, but possibly useful here as well.

“ The emergence and acceptance of osteopathic medicine as a "mainstream" or "conventional" medical system appears to afford unparalleled opportunities for the next generation of osteopathic physicians. Upon closer inspection, however, the triumphs of osteopathic medicine and its position on the American medical landscape may also herald a new challenge – that for its long-term survival. Increasingly, osteopathic physicians (DOs) are asked what makes them distinctive (i.e., different than allopathic physicians, or MDs). ”

• Licciardone, John C. (2007). "Osteopathic research: elephants, enigmas, and evidence" (PDF). Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care 2007, 1:7.

Bryan Hopping ^T 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep going over this. You pull up articles that hardly qualify as reliable sources. A letter from a DO calling medical doctors "allopathic" is hardly useful. So few MD's use "allopathic" in any way, mentioning more than once or twice is a an undue weight issue. You are pulling out 10 or 20 instances where allopathy is used, which is a tiny percentage of all the instances of "medical school" "medical doctor" or whatever, where it isn't used. Really, it's time to end this battle. If you know medicine and science, why not spend time building articles. Alzheimer's disease is undergoing FAC, and what if you helped make that an FA. Do you have to be an osteopathic neurologist to edit it? No. But you could contribute much more to this article than your one-man POV regarding Allopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily mean for the quote to be a source in this article. I only thought it was an interesting discussion, one that is critical of osteopathic physicians insisting that there is some different between MDs and DOs. Several people had raised similar issues about a feeling that DOs had a kind of "cultural cringe" or inferiority complex. I found that idea I found interesting and relevant to the discussion here. I've been wondering if and where such an idea could be incorporated in an article. I'm sorry that you feel I'm such a bad editor. I actually do want to make this article better. I am interested in the social/political/historical aspects of medicine. I really feel personally attacked here. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a messageboard. This talk page is for discussing this article and its contents. At issue is your continued belaboring of a very tired point that you are trying to make about allopathic. Please, move on to another word now. You are not being attacked; you are being rebuked, and rather gently. Antelan^talk 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to establish consensus for this article, and make it better. I see no reason why I or you or anyone should give up on that. I thought we were doing pretty well a while back with the HAns Alder version. What point to you feel I am trying to make that is so tired? Bryan Hopping ^T 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Feigning ignorance with that question, and your habit of adding entire block-quotes and moving them back to discussion topics where they do not belong, are not appropriate here. Antelan^talk 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am asking sincerely. For real. I'd like to have a productive conversation. Bryan Hopping ^T 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

BH, you are getting advice from a lot of people. You appear to be knowledgeable about medicine. Why don't you edit one of the multitude of medical articles, getting them to FA status. You aren't getting anywhere with this constant push of "allopathy" to articles. You have been blocked twice for it, and I'd rather not see you go for more. Again, help build this encyclopedia, and you will go much further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! I appreciate it. I'm really interested in this article in particular. The social/political aspects of medicine and medical associations are of particular interest to me, and this article is an important part of that history. I hope we can make it better, together. I want to work with you to improve it! The osteopathic medicine article almost made it to FA (exciting!), I hope this article can get there too. I really think we can do it. Bryan Hopping ^T 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Please stop moving your long block-quote back to the previous section. If you don't like the title of this section, please feel welcome to rename it. That will be a good first step. Also, please use edit summaries. Antelan^talk 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside the US...

I was just about to remove the NPOV tag, when I noticed this statement, which I know isn't true: Outside the United States, allopathic medicine generally refers to "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine."[6] I know for a fact that in 4 EU countries this isn't the case, and probably more. I then downloaded the reference, to see if it supported this statement. It doesn't. What the reference says is:

Allopathic medicine, in this document, refers to the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine. This term has been used solely for convenience and does not refer to the treatment principles of any form of medicine described in this document.

And it then uses the term for all territories, including the US. Therefore this statement should be either removed or changed to actually name countries where this is the case (such as India, I believe) - with an appropriate source. Then, I think, the NPOV tag should be removed. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point is. Could you be more specific? What are the four European countries you are talking about, and what do people there mean when they use the term? I could try to make suggestions, but it does make a difference whether in your opinion people in Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Iceland use the term to refer to money laundering, or whether people in the UK, France, Germany and Italy use it according to Hahnemann's original definition (which, arguably, he himself didn't actually follow). Or whatever.

I feel very strongly that we shouldn't mention any more countries and go into any more detail unless absolutely necessary. But knowing all the details is essentials to come to a compromise in a reasonable timeframe. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the "outside the US" claim isn't supported by the source, and also isn't true. The quote also seems barely relevant as it makes clear that this is simply a working definition for this document - it is not WHO policy or a comment on the prevalence or meaning of the term outside of this document. Therefore the statement is factually incorrect, and not supported by the source. However, it is true that Allopathic medicine refers "that broad category" of medicine in some places, such as India. Although India is outside the US, this fact and this source do not support such a sweeping generalisation. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made a concrete proposal how to improve the wording (other than suggesting to specifically say in the article that the term is used for mainstream medicine in India – something I object to because in my opinion that's a near-universal use of the word "allopathic", and it would be absurd to single out India just because there happens to be a source for that country). And you haven't replied to my specific questions: Which EU countries, and which meaning of "allopathic [medicine]" do you think is common there? I am not trying to defend the current wording. Of course the word is used in this sense also in the US, and I never intended to suggest otherwise. But without the information that you are keeping to yourself (and which seems essential for a constructive discussion) I am not going to make any proposals for improving the article. Feel free to make your own proposals, though. When doing so, keep in mind that this is a complex situation because various people feel very strongly about various usages of the term, and you can easily tread on their toes. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My "concrete proposal" is to remove the unsourced and untrue "Outside the US". It is far to sweeping. I would propose perhaps something along the lines of "Outside the traditional sphere of influence of 'Western medicine', such as the Indian subcontinent, ..." however that would still need to be sourced. I'm not trying to ruin the page or anything, it's just that this statement is an unsupported and untrue generalisation. Ly statement referred to the Anglophone countries of the EU, ie Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, and also to France. However, as France isn't English speaking I feel now this isn't as relevant. As a comment, I really think this situation isn't as controversial as has recently been made out. In fact part of the drama here was whether there was actually a controversy about this term in the real-life US - and that page ended up being deleted.

So, to clarify, the entire statement needs to be removed. It could be replaced by something less sweeping and more true (V and RS) in future, and if people have any opinions they should be discussed here. I don't think my rewording above should be included as there is no source for it. If someone finds a source for it, I wouldn't object to it or a variation being added. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me one half of what I asked for. Now what do people in the four anglophone EU countries. (Nice way of counting, though: I wonder if there are only 45 German-speaking EU countries, or whether I should count Valais and Luxembourg as well …) I found the answer to the (more important) other half, more or less, by reading your first edit. The problem with the "correct" definition of "allopathic" is that even in a homeopathy context besides the two competing restrictive definitions (Hahnemann's and a widespread one that would make it a synonym of antipathic/enantiopathic) there is extremely widespread use of the word, starting with Hahnemann, as a way to refer to any type of medicine that is not homeopathic, and more specifically to mainstream medicine. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There weren't 4 anglophone countries, Wales is a principality :) I included France, but I'm no so sure of other countries (though I think it holds true for Spain, Malta, Italy, etc. Non EU countries, Australia, NZ, Canada,...). I think I gave you several proposals as well. The statement is still incorrectly sourced and too sweeping. If you have a source for the "a way to refer to any type of medicine that is not homeopathic" then that could be added, with a source and some note about whether it's common. I suppose the main problem is the "outside of US" statement implies it is in common use, whereas this isn't the case in many places. While when used it may have this meaning, with or without a derogatory overtone, the fact still is that in many case it isn't common. Apologies if I'm not being clear. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the "outside the US" is also wrong as it also, in some contexts, has that meaning in the US too (where it is also an uncommon except when used in the DO way, maybe, and by CAM advocates). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been general practice ever since Hahnemann coined the term to define "allopathic" narrowly and use it much more broadly. This certainly seems obvious to me, but I am not sure that we can find sources discussing this. So when you call something allopathic, what do you mean? Do you really mean treating a disease by intentionally inducing other, unrelated symptoms? --Hans Adler (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've just made a small change, of which I hope you will approve, which fixes my concerns (removing Outside US, adding qualification) and removed the POV tag. I hope you agree this is a good change, but please feel free to revert if you think I have missed the point. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (November 2008)

It has been suggested that homeopathy and allopathy be merged into this article. Please discuss this here. Verbal chat 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The merger was proposed by Shoemaker's Holiday without any explanation. Since it seems he wasn't involved here when the current solution to a long-lasting dispute was invented, I would like to ask Shoemaker to read the above discussions, starting from #How about splitting the article?. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be something to be gained from revisiting this, but I'm going to review also. There does seem to be some scope for improvements to both articles, and there are benefits and disadvantages to a merger. Verbal chat 10:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My favourite solution would be to have a single article discussing the words "allopathic"/"allopathy"; their inception, the evolution of their use, disputes surrounding them, etc. I don't remember why that wasn't possible. Perhaps because it would not give much space to the osteopathy related issues. But the last thing I want is another huge fight. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If I might explain: Homeopathy and allopathy provides much of the historical background, discusses many of the alternative definitions as well, and I don't think that combining them would prove any great difficulty - it'd be mainly using this one as a lead, then revising Homeopathy and allopathy just a tiny bit. I don't think there's any particular reason to have two articles on what is primarily the same subject. If you wanted, I could combine the two, then we could discuss and say "Yeah, that works, let's leave it" or "Nah, let's put it back". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that no merger should be made, simply because almost all Complementary and Alternative medicine practitioners use the term allopathy now and putting all the matter under Homeopathy and allopathy would be unjust. We should provide a link to each other, at the top, though.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Report on need for allopathic and osteopathic med school expansion in US

Revisiting the Medical School Educational Mission at a Time of Great Expansion

"For two and a half days, 35 participants, experts in both allopathic and osteopathic medical education, discussed the challenges and opportunities presented by the current efforts to address the need for more physicians. Their consensus conclusions and recommendations are included at the end of this brief summary. Discussion and deliberations were assisted by five commissioned papers that reviewed the recent growth in both allopathic and osteopathic medical school enrollments, identified shortcomings in the current system, gleaned lessons to be learned from past expansion efforts, and offered a framework for considering new models of medical education." Full Report

Bryan Hopping ^T 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)