Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of MD and DO in the United States/Terminology

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

Terminology

Re this move and revert: Adam Cuerden's edit summary needs taking seriously. As mentioned in the Allopathic medicine article, the term "allopathic" is controversial and even pejorative to many, and its use without bearing this in mind is not serving WP:NPOV. Same goes for History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, etc. There are a number of possibilities - see Allopathic medicine#Usage controversy, critiques of modern medicine that could convey the meaning in a way that would appear neutral to all readers. Gordonofcartoon 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. The main issue is that all of the sources for this article use the term "allopathic" and "osteopathic" in their comparisons, see Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine#References. Though there are many problems with both terms, these are the terms the sources use. The allopathic usage controversy is discussed on the allopathic and allopathic medicine pages. Here are some sources that show the non-pejorative usage of allopathic is common. Though significant, the view that the term is pejorative is a minority view, and this is appropriately discussed on the the allopathic and allopathic medicine page.User:Hopping T 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For reference, here are some references listed above

American Medical Student Association: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

American Medical Association: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

New England Journal of Medicine: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [23] [24] [25]

Johns Hopkins: [26] [27]

Harvard Medical School: [28]

UCSF: [29] [30]

Cleveland Clinic: [31]

Columbia Med: [32] [33]

Yale Med: [34]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [35] [36] [37]

Others: [38] [39]Donaldal 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples:

  • M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians.[40] U.S Department of Labor
  • Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. [41] American Medical Assoc
  • Allopathic Physician (MD) [42] 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. [43] National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
  • Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine [44] Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
  • To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada [45] State of Nevada, Board of Medical Examiners.
  • A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine [46] University of New Hampshire
  • Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative [47] 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). [48] Xavier University, Louisiana
  • How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? [49] Wittenburg University
  • M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. [50] Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
  • University of Missouri, St. Louis [51]
  • Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc[52]
  • 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. [53] North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
  • Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc [54] PMID 16717364

User:Hopping T 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is a modern pejorative use with long historical roots (originally it was only pejorative....;-), and there is a modern usage which is not pejorative. The difference lies in whether the user is aware of or a participant in the conflicts between allopathic and non-allopathic forms of medicine. Those who are involved in alternative medicine are often aware of the difference and are actively involved in competition, and their use is often pejorative, as is evidenced in probably a majority of usages on alternative medicine websites. Here they are competitively and pejoratively making sure they are perceived as better than those terrible allopaths.
Non-pejorative usage is seen in sources that are not aware of, or do not participate in, this competition. If they are aware, then they are taking a non-committal approach, IOW giving equal time to both sides. Since much of my reading is of alternative literature and websites, I'm very conscious of this constant and not very subtle pejorative use as a competitive tool. For them their very existence is one big turf war. Those who seek cooperation and reconciliation know that such use is very counterproductive and they avoid it. They seek to build bridges, they admit past mistakes, and they are quick to agree with the legitimate criticisms of errors and quackeries in their own ranks. They are then accepted as allies and are successful in building bridges and making future cooperation possible. Those who continue to use the pejorative form and who - when confronted with charges of unscientific practices in their midst - circle their wagons and adopt a defensive position, are perceived as competitive, unscientific, and non-cooperative. Their actions counteract all the work of their colleagues who are seeking cooperation. -- Fyslee / talk 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Although your analysis is compelling, I am uncertain how it informs the process here. Where in this paradigm of turf wars fall the neutral sources which the article heavily cites?
My concern is that without the term, it would be difficult to discuss this article's topic: a technical comparison of the two branches of the "mainstream", "orthodox" American medical profession.User:Hopping T 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They are just some of my thoughts for this talk page. I understand what you mean and I'm not trying to block coverage or use of the term. I would consider the sources you mention above as sources that are either ignorant of the history of the term, or that consider the issue to be archaic, or that are ignorant of the very common and current pejorative usage in alterntive medical circles, or that are being politically correct (IOW non-committal), or "all of the above." Besides, when speaking to ordinary people it isn't always necessary or wise to make an issue of something that for the common person is a non-issue. Sometimes persistent usage of a negative term in a neutral manner can with time defuse it, but as long as so many prominent persons in alternative medicine continue to use it in their attacks, that isn't likely to happen soon. What that does show is that many official medical and government sources are refusing to engage in the controversy, while so-called "alternative" medical sources are actively engaged in a dirty turf war. This trend will not change, but will likely get worse in proportion to the degree of resistance medical science manifests in response to preposterous claims, and also medical science's persistent demands for evidence which is not forthcoming from the types of alternative medicine that cannot create a good evidence base. Those forms of CAM (95%?) will continue to actively continue the turf war using name calling and pejoratives, and medical science will continue to label such practices with legitimate pejorative terms like "quackery" and "health fraud", IMHO...;-) End of rant. Let's move on. -- Fyslee / talk 06:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Got it. I think I see where you are coming from.User:Hopping T 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic

As discussed on other pages, this page vastly overuses the term allopathic. It uses the term in a fashion only understood by a minority, even within the US medical community. The term is understood by C/AM practitioners (such as homoeopaths) to include American osteopathic DOs! It is also insulting and incorrect terminology. I think this term should be used where appropriate, but nearly every use in this page can be replaced by a more accurate term that will avoid any confusion and ambiguity. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify where those appropriate usages are? I think the issue is that people disagree on where its usage is appropriate. Some feel it can be used freely, some feel it should only be used in pages about homeopathy, some feel it should only be used when quoting a reliable source, and some feel it should never be used. If we establish some sort of guideline regarding its usage, we might be able to improve the situation. Bryan Hopping T 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just a comment, I'm not taking any position. "Allo-" means "other", "alternate", but in the context of Allopathic it means "opposing" "disease". So an allopathic doctor fights the symptoms of the disease--and this is considered the wrong thing to do by homeopaths. I'm not comfortable with any of the other possible names, but maybe use "M.D." in more places in the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are exactly right about what an "allopathic doctor" would do - however, today's physicians are not "allopathic doctors", as they do not aim to fight the symptoms of a disease. To alleviate a septic patient'sfever, you need not cool the patient - you need to kill the bacteria in their bloodstream with antibiotics. This is an example of how modern evidence-based medicine is not based on the allopathic principle, making the term particularly inapt to describe physicians of the 21st Century. Antelantalk 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Allopath" considered pejorative

There are many sources for this, from the coining of the term by Hahnemann, right to the modern day. The fact that this term is considered pejorative by many is not in question, and is included on the entries for "allopathic medicine" and "homeopathy and allopathy", and in the "wiktionary" entry for allopath too. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The appeal to authority is faulty. It is clearly historically a pejorative, there is no debate about that. While some, in the US, use it in this new way it is by no means all and current sources still show that it is considered pejorative now. If the term allopath appears in the lead stating that it is used to distinguish MDs from DOs, then we need to note that this usage is in the minority (CAM users, intending the pejorative meaning, vastly outnumber DOs) and that it can be considered insulting - otherwise people might accidentally insult their MDs. It is this new use of the term allopath that fails UNDUE and WEIGHT. My view is either we remove the term allopath from the lead (and the explanation), or the usage notes have to stay due to the possibility of incorrect use and so that the tone is neutral and correct. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an MD or DO, so humor me; why is the term allopathic insulting? What is a CAM user? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A CAM user is someone who uses complementary/alternative medicine. - The term "allopath" is considered insulting by many physicians, presumably because they learn the attitude from their professors at university. It goes back to Hahnemann who accused "allopaths" of killing their patients (which wasn't too wrong at the time), and who, with his ideological approach to medicine, managed to be surprisingly effective. (Much of this was probably due to not weakening patients, perfectioning the placebo effect, and hyiene.) Being ridiculed by a successful obvious quack isn't so nice. Etymologically, "allopathy" is supposed to mean treating a patient with medicine that has nothing to do with the disease; that's something physicians in Hahnemann's time actually did (although not exclusively and not because there was no obvious connection). By bleeding people or making them vomit, e.g., they tried to treat diseases that are in no obvious relation to these operations. Therefore calling a modern physician an "allopath" is etymologically about as wrong as calling a modern postman a horse flayer. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then why does the AMA regularly use the term to describe themselves? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I described the etymology. It's normal for words to shift in meaning, and pejorative words can of course become neutral. But that's a gradual process, and while it's happening (sometimes a very long period of time) exactly the kind of friction that we are seeing here occurs. Some ("conservative") people insist on the "correct", "universally accepted" meaning, while other ("progressive") people insist on the "correct", "universally accepted" meaning. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: The point is that it's a perfectly good, harmless, word for many, and it's also clearly pejorative for many. People in one of the two groups often don't accept the position of the other group as reasonable (or even just sincere). --Hans Adler (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)So it depends on who is saying it, rather like the N-word, as to whether or not it is perjorative? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The N-word is a good example for the general principle that these things move, but I think in this case it doesn't depend on who is saying it but much more on the context. (Actually that could be true for the N-word as well.) If you use the word in a clear M.D. vs. D.O. context, then people know you can't possibly mean the original pejorative sense. Therefore the "conservatives", rather than feeling insulted, will complain about abuse of language. It gets problematic in contexts where the word isn't (yet) often used in this sense. The battle between "conservatives" and "progressives" happens in the boundary area. This article is somewhat special: Normally I suppose the word should be safe here due to the topic, but we are actually influencing the way people use this word! --Hans Adler (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How are we influencing them here? Has this article been cited? It looks like pageviews are up, but still it is not that many. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Recall that the pageview tool doesn't show you "outside hits", but just total hits. Since "allopathic medicine" is now wikilinked from so many articles on Wikipedia, and since the term is so uncommon that few lay readers will be familiar with it, it is not surprising that more people are now clicking through to this page. Antelantalk 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

←One of the reasons that MD's consider the term pejorative is that it is destructive to medicine. There is an implication in the word that MD's do not utilize everything to treat a patient, or that MD's have an inherent bias against medicine that is not sold to them by Big Pharma. My problem with using "allopathic medicine" is that there is medicine and there is...nothing. Medicine implies that it has been scientifically tested and rigorously analyzed for safety and efficacy. Non-medicine means it hasn't. Maybe sitting under a crystal pyramid will cure you of erectile dysfunction, but there's no science to prove that. Medicine is just medicine. Everything else is unproven. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but I'm not sure that that meaning has swamped the others. The AMA and its JAMA uses the word regularly without apparent concern. Long ago, I was told that the "allo" means "opposed", in the sense that MDs would, for example, try to lower a fever rather than leave it elevated. Has any MD organization put out a white paper on the use of the term? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't want to get me started on the AMA and JAMA. Political correctness sucks. But I agree on your train of thought. Maybe we should find articles that discuss the conflict in using the term in the US (which seems to be the only place where this matters?). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I just don't know where to look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, those organizations rarely/never use the term "allopathic". They do not prevent authors from using the term in letters, news updates, original research, etc. At the same time, they (being "the organizations") rarely ever use the term in official documents. No big deal, but I just wanted to disentangle the research that the organizations publish from their official documents. Antelantalk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Whew. I was hoping I didn't have to cancel my JAMA subscription.  :) It comes down to a few medical schools use the term in literature, but not on the official name of it, and the federal government, run by bureaucrats who have political expediency at the top of their brain. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The AMA does use the term in some policies, usually while talking about osteopathic training. [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. They use it in a number of resolutions e.g. [68], again in the context of medical students and medical training. A very official-looking guidebook for Graduate Medical Education uses the term to describe the discipline. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of the thousands of AMA resolutions in existence, you have literally listed all 5 using the term "allopathic" (search allopathic to see).Antelantalk 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but those are the ones that must distinguish between MDs and DOs. I'm attempting to find the position of the 266,325 members of the AMA. For example, policy D-615.996, AMA-MSS Membership Qualifications, says, "Our AMA bylaws be updated to reflect that active membership in the AMA-MSS is contingent upon enrollment at either a Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited allopathic or American Osteopathic Association accredited osteopathic medical school in the United States or its protectorates. (Res. 8, I-98)". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 34 references to "osteopathic" if you search for that term alone. Thus, 6/7 of the time, the AMA distinguishes between MD and DO without the term "allopathic". Antelantalk 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but there are 135 uses of allopathic on the AMA site. Anyway, the AMA uses "students in Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited medical schools" to mean MD students, and "graduates of Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited medical schools" to mean MDs, a lot. They also say "MD-granting schools". I'm sure these terms will be useful replacements for allopathic. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading between the lines

What I'm gathering is the the AMA and AOA are moving towards an eventual complete merger. The AMA uses the term "allopathic" sparingly, usually when distiguishing between their medical schools and osteopathic medical schools and the students therein. Importantly, once graduates of either system has been licenced, they are all "physicians", and equal in the eyes of the AMA. Then the AMA can avoid using either term in all subsequent policies. The AOA, which should be inclined to avoid antagonizing their MD friends, uses "allopathic" freely (although not willy-nilly) on their "what is a DO?" webpage, and here, Choosing a Physician, and elsewhere. Anyway, the Wikipedia article Homeopathy and allopathy, which I swear I did not know existed until just now, has got it well spelled out; living MDs pretty much don't care. The two sources that have been provided on that page don't say MDs dislike the term; one says they say that they used to dislike it, and the other represents the opinion of one person, Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD, about the term. He says, "There is no such thing as "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 [the naturopathic] Bastyr University." It strikes me that this statement, in the context of a dispute with naturopaths, should not be given too much weight. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought that you've put into this. A very quick way to get caught up on this discussion (which happened almost identically with Hopping earlier this year) is to take a look at the WP Project Medicine talk page archives. All of these points, and even these sources, have been discussed already. That said, I don't mind offering a reply to your thoughtful post. You say that living MDs don't care, but it seems pretty clear to me that living MDs do care about being labeled "allopathic" based on the displeased responses of the MDs who edit these articles. Clearly, none are bothered with the label "MD" or simply "physician", either of which could always be used instead of "allopathic" without engendering any ill will. This is of course original research, so let me move on to points that I can address directly. You alluded to two or possibly three sources discussing MDs' opinions regarding the term "allopathic": one source opposes the term allopathic, and the other 1 or 2 do not appear to oppose it. Each is written by just one person. Atwood (opposed to the term "allopathic") takes ownership of his opinions and states clearly that he dislikes the term allopathic. Norma Cuellar states that the term has been brought back into use by CAM without significant protest by mainstream physicians; nowhere is it stated that MDs don't oppose the term, just that they don't protest it (and it could simply mean that they don't know or don't care what CAM practitioners say). The final author, James Whorton, likewise writes "the opinion of one person" (himself), and asserts (without any evidence) that "many MDs today accept the designation [allopathic] uncomplainingly". However, he also refers to MDs as "regulars" and other practitioners as "irregulars". Surely, some osteopaths would take offense if we started referring to them as "irregulars", just as some MDs take offense at being referred to as "allopathic". Antelantalk 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
So, rather like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the entry will be changed from 'harmless' to 'mostly harmless'? As I said above, the article should use MD wherever possible, (and here I'll add; say allopathic once). Could we put the first use of the term allopathic lower than the lead, and pipe it to the Homeopathy and allopathy article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That strikes me as a good compromise, but what do you think of piping to allopathic medicine for the following reason: I recognize that this is a disambiguation page, but it is a disambiguation page that gives a very succinct explanation of this very uncommon term for the (probably confused) reader, and then offers links to articles such as Homeopathy and allopathy below. What do you think of that? Antelantalk 07:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, that page says allopathy is the "opposite" of those other kinds of "medicine". That's like saying a cow is the opposite of a horsefly. My idea is to remove all the festering negativity between homeo/naturo/alternopathy and MDs (and DOs too) from this article, which should be confined to its topic; a comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Users of this page are most likely undergrads who want to know about the difference between the two paths. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, but that's why I don't exactly think that a link to Homeopathy and allopathy is best here, since the target audience probably isn't interested in that. Not sure though. Antelantalk 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I kind of imagined the piping would be "historically pejorative" or similar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but it's not just historically pejorative. DOs don't intend it pejoratively, but other groups still do. Antelantalk 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a fringe view, so should not be given weight even in the piping. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't follow - what is a fringe view? Antelantalk 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
These folks who sell the notion that crystals heal disease, or that diluting a chemical down to one molecule per trillion, they try to set themselves up as opposed to scientific medicine, in order to emphasize themselves, to make themselves the equals of real doctors. This false equality is the fringe view that should not be given undue weight. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I wasn't sure which view you were saying was fringe - that which you described, or the view that "allopathic" is pejorative. Antelantalk 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Use of the term Allopathic?

Should we establish a set of criteria for the use of the term "allopathic"? It's a very difficult term to avoid using on this page, and everyone seems to have different ideas about how it ought to be used. Thus far, it seems that the prior discussions have failed to arrive at any solution or consensus. There's seems to be enough controversy and ambiguity with the term to justify limiting its use in the article. Where possible, I think we should use "M.D.," "M.D. physicians" or "physicians holding the M.D. degree." Allopathic is a term with a lot of baggage; just look at the lengthy discussions we've had already about it, on this page and others. I'm not convinced that it is an offensive term anymore, but its historical roots bear little meaning on the current practice of mainstream medicine. Does it matter whether we use the term?Rytyho usa (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents here, but I think you made a lot of good points here. Considering that it appears that significant part of the M.D. community still views the word as offensive, I think that the term should not be used unless necessary. I do think that the M.D. community needs to make up its mind on the issue, it's true that I have seen many organizations that aim to speak on behalf of that community use it and it is still prevalent in its use, but I think that an encyclopedia should strive for the most objective, neutral tone possible. It is understandable (at least to me) why some of the MD community finds the word offensive since it was originally used in that manner and no longer has an important place (again, in my opinion) in our discussion of DO and MD physicians. I've never bought the argument of needing it to distinguish MDs from DOs and I think the word itself is just an unnecessary term that is offensive to some. I see no compelling reason to use it with the exception perhaps of quotes making important points or that discuss its use culturally and its offensive nature, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Allopathic revisited

The term allopathic is NOT pejorative and the "site" for that is simply a comment made in a journal, not a true article, you CANNOT site an opinion as FACT. You must allow the removal of this statement. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.190.59 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States#.22Allopath.22_considered_pejorative and please comment there to keep the conversation together, thanks. Verbal chat 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is calling the use of allopathic as pejorative. Which it is not. And it is caling it that, on the OPINION of one source. You cannot use opinion, only facts. And the fact remains that the ACGME, AMA, and JACHO all use Allopathic. If the professional organizations use the term, then you MUST let the term stand. You can no longer keep that aspect in these articles. End of Story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.185.8 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many more RS for this. See the article allopathic. Verbal chat 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The level of acceptance also varies from place to place. Just because it's accepted in the anon's personal experience doesn't mean that the term is accepted everywhere in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is accepted by the MD professional organizations! It is used by the AMA and ACGME. It was not my personal experience or opinion, it is a statement of fact. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.185.8 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The American Medical Association does not actually determine what every person on the planet uses this word for. This, too, is a fact. Please read Homeopathy and allopathy to see one use for this word that is dominant in some parts of the world and that has nothing to do with medicine as practiced by the typical MD. See also PMID 9818797. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The AMA refers to themselves in their own policy handbook - See http://search0.ama-assn.org/search/pfonline/?chkALL=ALL&query=allopathic/

D-295.326 Recognition of Osteopathic Education and Training: Our AMA will explore the feasibility of collaborating with other stakeholder organizations and funding agencies to convene leaders in allopathic and osteopathic medicine responsible for undergraduate and graduate medical education, accreditation and certification, to explore opportunities to align educational policies and practices. (CME Rep. 12, A-09)[1]

It is NOT a perjorative. DrATStill (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Allopathic Physician is a derogatory term and not one that Medical Doctors (M.D.s) use to describe themselves or their colleagues

The article repeatedly refers to physicians with the M.D. degree as "allopathic physicians" The article does correctly point out that this was originally coined as a derogatory term for physicians on the part of quack practitioners (homeopaths). It still has derogatory connotations and the term is nonsensical. The root allo means other. Since MDs represent mainstream scientific medicine ascribing the term allo to them is insulting and incorrect. As an MD, I certainly do not refer to myself as an allopathic physician. I am a physician. The allos (others) are those outside the world of science based medicine i.e. chiropractors, homeopaths, and, yes, osteopaths.Cmdr DCM (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You may find it derogatory, but it's in common usage. I don't know of another term that wouldn't be insulting to DOs, who want to be seen as just as much of a doctor as MDs. Regular physicians? Real doctors? Medical doctors? Scientific medicine? DOs would be upset by all of those. Natureium (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Nature, just to be clear, a DO is as much of a doctor as an MD. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that they are just as much of a doctor, I just don't know what Cmdr is going for, and I don't know of another way to refer to MDs without insinuating that DOs/MBBSs are not also "Medical Doctor"s. Natureium (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it appropriate, however, to use derogatory terminology for one group as a means to prevent upsetting another? Asking not to be referred to by an insulting or inaccurate or misleading term - at best - is not an act of aggression or disrespect. To answer your question, it may be worth simply referring to MDs as MDs. Berkeleyanabroad (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Berkeleyanabroad
MD schools is clear and non-controversial, and should be used where possible. Osteopathic physicians are medical doctors, so we should avoid contrasting osteopathic schools with "medical schools," as this terminology is confusing. Rytyho usa (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rytyho. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Briefly, "allopathic" remains in common usage. It is not only the Florida medical school that uses the term, although it may be the only MD school with "allopathic" incorporated into the name of the school. There are several examples of MD schools using the term allopathic to describe MD curricula, including: UCLA, Indiana University, Chicago Medical School & Columbia University. While the term was certainly once used in a derogatory fashion, it is now only used to distinguish MD from DO. However, again I suggest we use the term "MD school" to avoid controversy. Rytyho usa (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, notably, the data released by the NRMP uses the word "allopathic."Tjr128 (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fDIR%2fD-295.326.HTM
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States/Terminology&oldid=1088454117"