Jump to content

Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merge with Osteopathic medicine

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

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

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

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

I'm impartial, but it's worth pointing out that "osteopathic" and "osteopathy" are two forms of the same word. Differentiating "osteopathic medicine" from "osteopathy" is therefore confusing. The phrase "osteopathic medicine" is grammatically equivalent to "medicine of osteopathy". Derwos (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The picture shown and the intro paragraph seem intentionally derogatory.

I am a medical anthropologist and find this entire article to be confusing and misleading. While the writer does suggest that there is a difference between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine, the differences are not well defined. In addition, the title that doctors of osteopathic medicine use, "D.O." , is found throughout the article even after the author's distinction between the two fields, and in association with derogatory practices. I recommend that this article be split into two completely separate articles, one for "osteopathy" and one for doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) to reduce the confusion between the two areas of practice.Kmenier (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further do you have any cited evidence to demonstrate this technique is used now or even taught in universities...again where is your evidence and citation? OA2020 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say this technique is "taught in universities" in 2020. It is identified as historical: something from the "1898 Osteopathy Complete manual". Mind you, a quick look into the twilight world of osteopathic journals shows us this kind of thing still goes on.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Claims

The introductory paragraph states: "Parts of osteopathy, such as craniosacral therapy, have no therapeutic value and have been labeled as pseudoscience.[10][11]"

1. The source for this statement is biased: quackwatch.com

2. This statment's claim about craniosacral therapy is true. However, craniosacral therapy is not a part of osteopathy and is not taught in osteopathic medical schools. The pseudoscientific craniosacral therapy was wrongly associated with osteopathic medicine because it was developed by an osteopathic physician in the 1980s; however craniosacral therapy is not accepted by the osteopathic community as a viable treatment. Craniosacral therapy is often confused with the concept of cranial osteopathy. Cranial osteopathy is taught in osteopathic medical schools and was developed by Andrew Taylor Still, founder of osteopathic medicine. Differences between cranial osteopathy and craniosacral therapy are outlined here.

Referring to osteopathic medicine as "pseudoscience" in the introductory paragraph does a disservice to the reader, as it paints a picture that osteopathic manipulative treatment has no basis in science. This is not the case. Countless studies have been done to show osteopathic manipulative medicine's effectiveness for various diagnoses such as irritable bowel syndrome, postpartum low back pain, tension headaches, etc. The criticism of craniosacral therapy is better deleted from this page entirely, as craniosacral therapy in not a part of osteopathic medicine. Pseudoscience claims should be placed in the "Criticism" section of the page.

Quackwatch is a fine source, thoroughly approved by the community for pointing out woo, and your countless studies, if those linked are typical of them, do not meet our standards for medical subject content, wp:medrs. Do please read that. thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
1. I read the article for reliable medical sources; what is your objection towards the articles I have provided? Is it that some of them aren't review articles? The first source is a review article, although the last two are not. I hope you aren't suggesting that the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, based in science and research, is less credible than Quackwatch.
2. Further, my main objection is simply that craniosacral therapy is not a part of osteopathic medicine. Craniosacral therapy must be distinguished from the concept it is often confused with, cranial osteopathy, as shown here. You have not responded to this main argument. Thank you for the quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The 1st source, PMID 24917634, is in an osteopathy journal and so not WP:FRIND – and in any case finds no good evidence of treatment worth. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
1. That's fine. Here is an independent source that show the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative medicine in treatment of migraine. Is this source OK?
2. My main objection with these pseudoscience claims, which is yet to be responded to, is simply that craniosacral therapy is not a part of osteopathic medicine. The pseudoscience of craniosacral therapy must be distinguished from the osteopathic concept it is often confused with, cranial osteopathy, as shown here. Craniosacral therapy is not taught in osteopathic medical schools. For these reasons, any pseudoscientific claims citing craniosacral therapy should be deleted, as they are irrelevant in the scope of osteopathic medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a primary source, so not reliable. Cranial osteopathy, like CST, is pseudoscience/quackery. Wikipedia is not going to lend credence to this obvious howling woo. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
"Cranial osteopathy, like CST, is pseudoscience/quackery." Where is your source for this? Cranial osteopathy is not pseudoscience and should not be characterized the same as craniosacral treatment. Anyone who states CST and cranial osteopathy are the same is factually incorrect. The founder of craniosacral treatment, John Upledger, has discussed the differences of CST with cranial osteopathy. While CST is generally regarded as pseudoscience by the osteopathic community, cranial osteopathy is useful for conditions such as plagiocephaly, in which children present at a young age with misshapen heads. The traditional treatment is to wear a helmet for months to years, however cranial osteopathy has proven to be more effective. Here is another source. Cranial osteopathy can also treat conditions of nerve entrapment, such as torticollis. Please review this information I have presented impartially and see the differences between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Earlier in this conversation, IP, I asked you to read WP:MEDRS. You clearly havn't understood, as those suggestions cannot be used as they dont comply with it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)the post above was edited substantially while I was responding to a previous version, hence I have struck it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have read the article but you are pointing to an entire wikipedia page, so I am still confused about your specific objection to the articles I have provided. Regardless of your objection to the sources I have provided, the fact remains that CST and cranial osteopathy are distinct, different concepts. Please tell me your specific objection so I can find sources that are acceptable to you and we can fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
All osteopathy is howling woo. Apart some "vanity of small differences" quibbles among practitioners, to the sane outside world, CST and cranial osteopathy are essentially the same, as our CST article explains. Alexbrn (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have linked half a dozen scientific studies above that proves that not "all osteopathy is howling woo". What additional sources do you require? Can I talk to an impartial editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any reliable independent sources. If you want wider input then WP:FT/N would be the correct venue to seek it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is one of the independent sources I previously linked that demonstrates OMT's effectiveness on chronic migraine. It is a randomized controlled trial, not published by the JAOA. What is your objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.48.77 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
A primary source (a RCT) fails WP:MEDRS, and as an altmed journal it's even worse. We're looking for secondary sources (e.g. systematic reviews) in mainstream scholarly journals, positions from major medical bodies &c. for health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. This article should fall within that category. Here is another. Conducting osteopathic research has its difficulties due to the nature of OMT and requiring a placebo "sham" treatment (instead of the sugar pill placebo in pharmacuetical studies, which is much easier to implement). However, there are systematic reviews that describe OMT's benefits such as these that I have linked. The evidence isn't overwhelming, mostly due to difficulties I citied above, however it is far from fair to call osteopathic treatment "pseudoscience" or "howling woo" especially when there is published research that proves its effectiveness in many conditions. I again request that you remove the introductory sentence describing osteopathic medicine as pseudoscience, as well as anything referring to craniosacral treatment (as it is not part of osteopathic medicine). 68.132.48.77 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
PloS One is not the best source, the the first source is okay and we already cite it. Like chiropractic (another form of howling woo), osteopathy seems to help back pain by virtue of its coincidence with the methods of plain physical manipulation (i.e. the practice without the pseudoscientific back story): it's like how homeopathy is "effective" in aiding hydration. Anyway the description of OMT as pseudoscience is sourced and per WP:PSCI policy we need to ensure that pseudoscientific things are prominently flagged as such. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
There are two references to the 'pseudoscience' claim. One is a dead link. The other calls the original theory of osteopathy to be pseudoscience, but then at the end in the section "Osteopathy Today" it talks about how osteopathy has "changed dramatically, coming to resemble traditional modern medical training and practice in nearly every respect". The intro sentence to the article makes no effort to describe this considerable context change supported in its own reference. Put another way: the intro sentence is not supported by its references 2001:8003:798A:6300:6432:B364:313D:6B13 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is fair to use Quackwatch as a source to call an entire accredited medical paradigm as pseudoscience, since Dr. Bartlett is essentially just writing an opinion piece--the cited article even uses the words "I believe" to back up his claims. It's essentially the same as citing a NYT opinion section as a "fact". It is more fair to say that OMT etc are claimed to be pseudoscience by XYZ source, rather than stating that as a fact. Switfoot (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't confuse osteopathy with Osteopathic medicine in the United States. In America, there is a medical branch called "osteopathic medicine", which is accredited by their medical association. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Osteopathy → Osteopathy (nonmedical practice) – Practitioners of osteopathy and practitioners of osteopathic medicine are differently categorized by the ILO; their schooling, training, and professions are separate. This difference must be clearly noted. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are two different things regardless of countries. The first is alternative medicine; the second is the wholistic practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. When a layperson tries to find out who a DO is, they almost immediately search for osteopathy. The Wiki page on osteopathy says _ Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones._ Yes, I agree. But the problem is osteopathy is **not** osteopathic medicine. There truly isn’t any DO who gets a degree saying “Doctor of Osteopathy;” the degree is called “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” Degrees of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different, and this will be held true even if you are in Romania or Latvia. By saying that Osteopathic medicine is different from country to country basis is completely false. Osteopaths are osteopaths. DOs are DOs. First kind learns osteopathy, while second one learns osteopathic medicine. "The International Labor Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, has issued a letter affirming that U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians are fully licensed physicians who prescribe medication and perform surgery. The acknowledgment draws a clear separation between American DOs and osteopaths. Within the international standards that classify jobs to promote international comparability across occupations, U.S.-trained DOs are now categorized with all other physicians as medical doctors" (AOA, 2018). Osteopathic medical degree and osteopathic degrees are not the same; their education is not the same; their training is not the same: why would their practice of philosophy be named the same? There has to be a clear distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2021 (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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Osteopathic care is a recognized health profession with official state university level training in the UK, Switzerland and Australia. In all these countries, osteopathy is considered as an allied health integrated in the public health system.

What does the term “alternative” refer to when we add it to the term “medicine”? Medicine offers alternative treatments based on evidence, patient preferences and clinical experience. Medication, psychotherapy, surgery are just as much alternatives in musculoskeletal health as is physical therapy.

As such, all treatment are alternatives to other forms of treatment. Here, the term “alternative medicine” refers to an entire system of thought as if health could be seen in alternative ways. This is not how osteopathic care is taught in countries that have integrated the profession in their health system. Osteopathy should therefore be described as an allied health profession rather than an alternative medicine. 2A02:1210:7A75:7C00:B9B3:E8EA:1299:73F3 (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I second this. DrJacobFischer (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Critique section

The sources in the criticism section are extremely old, you have references from the 1920’s as apart of a critical analysis of the literature. If you claim to be evidence based and science based the least you could do is find some actual sources that critique Osteopathy instead of quotes from the 1920’s 202.7.239.156 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent evidence for effectiveness

Editors: will you review current evidence to consider implementation into the article

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/4/e053468

I assume it has to be a systematic review at minimum to be considered 2402:B801:284B:AB00:90BE:D5D4:8C49:1369 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would evidence supporting exercise, patient education, stretching and cognitive behavioural therapy be considered as these are aspects of a typical Osteopathy appointment in Australia and which some have very strong evidence to support there use in a variety of musculoskeletal injuries. OMT is only a small part of the management plan so it would be more balanced to evaluate the other aspects of a consultation rather than one aspect when deciding on a professions effectiveness 2402:B801:284B:AB00:90BE:D5D4:8C49:1369 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for use of spinal manipulation in lower back pain

Kuczynski JJ, Schwieterman B, Columber K, Knupp D, Shaub L, Cook CE (December 2012). "Effectiveness of physical therapist administered spinal manipulation for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature". International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 7 (6): 647–62. PMC 3537457. PMID 23316428.

This was used by wiki to support effectiveness of Physical therapy spinal manipulation in the Physiotherapy wiki page: If it meets guidelines for wiki would it not be suitable in the effectiveness section for Osteopathy considering spinal manipulation is employed by Osteos the exact same as it was used in the study. 202.7.238.198 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The source would need to say that. Bon courage (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This whole subject is confusing to me and the article makes it more confusing

Maybe the whole subject of osteopathy is confused as it is fundamentally quackery trying to gain recognition for its own ends and this is reflected in the article, but as an alternative medicine with no cited efficacy, how can there be recognised medical degrees and such titles as osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions?

The opening paragraph describes Osteopathy as being an alternative medicine. An alternative medicine (from the Wikipedia article) is any non proven practice attempting to provide medical outcomes. The article goes on to describe Osteopathy as originating from assumptions (my précis) rather than medical facts. In the efficacy section, no significant examples are provided of provable efficacy.

As there is no proven efficacy of osteopathy using conventional medical and scientific methods, like double blind trials etc. how can there be medical degrees in osteopathy and osteopathic physicians in various jurisdictions? The article also states that osteopathy has evolved into 2 branches. The differences between the 2 branches are poorly described.

The terms medical degree and a physician would imply recognition by the governing bodies in the various national jurisdictions and this is stated in various places.

Some jurisdictions, like Germany, recognise many alternative medical practices. If this is the case, where osteopathy (or a particular branch of it) is recognised in particular jurisdictions, the fact that these particular jurisdictions also recognise other alternative medicines should be stated.

The only other range of subjects, which I can think of that degrees are awarded for at university level, which are based on belief without facts are religions.

Since there is no proven efficacy, but osteopathy or parts of it appears to be accepted by many medical bodies, can it actually be classed a religion?

Alternatively, maybe there are other reputable studies which do prove efficacy, and / or they only apply to particular areas of osteopathy, but if such studies exist, they should be described in the efficacy section.

Can someone make the article clearer, particularly wrt my points above? It has probably grown untidy and confusing over the years. Lkingscott (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The NHS in the UK now recognises osteopathy as an Allied Healthcare Profession, and NICE clinical guidelines support the use of osteopathy for a number of conditions.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Osteopathy is a recognised by the NHS as an Allied Health Profession in the UK

To allow this article to remain, with the first statement describing osteopathy as a 'pseudoscience', is unjustified and damaging to a recognised and valuable profession, and to the patients we support. Please see the following links https://www.england.nhs.uk/ahp/role/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteopathy/ 88.202.147.91 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Osteopathy/Archive 4#Merge with Osteopathic medicine. Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Osteopathy is regulated in the UK (where there is no DO). NICE recommend it for manual therapy, but all the other more woo-y stuff is unsupported. Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias article ignoring current osteopathic practice

It is interesting that you frame osteopathy in such a derogatory light whereas the Wikipedia on Physiotherapy praises it as an evidence based form of complementary medicine. Are you aware that Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree and treat/manage patients using education, exercise rehabilitation and manual therapy techniques based on the most current biopsychosocial model. Almost identically to how physios treat and manage patients however you will claim that Osteopathy is Pseudoscience. If you are worried about citations there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that education in combination with exercise helps manage conditions 202.7.239.156 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. You're at a different article than where you should be. We split up the subject of osteopathy into two main articles, and this article is for the alternative medicine/quackery practice originally started by Still, with no modernization or updating in accordance with modern scientific and medical knowledge.
You need to follow the links at the top of the article. Here they are: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine#International practice rights and Osteopathic medicine in the United States. There you will see we document how modern osteopaths with real scientific training and degrees are classified as full-fledged, evidence-based, physicians. You mention that "Osteopaths in Australia complete a 5 year double degree". Do we mention that in any of our articles? If not, that should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I see your point however, Australian Osteopaths aren’t physicians, they are classified as Osteopathic practitioners who are regulated under the same board as MD’s but did not complete med school. They either have a double degree bachelor of health science/applied science (osteopathy) or a bachelor of health science with a masters in Osteopathy. Hence it doesn’t fit under the title DO as we aren’t technically Doctors in Australia so don’t come under the other wiki page that you alluded to. However we are given the title Dr as an honory title which is rarely used by practitioners in Australia and can cause confusion. Non physician Osteopaths within NZ and Aus are regulated under a strict board and throughout the uni curriculum are only taught the highest level of available evidence and the skills in which to critically analyse the current medical evidence to proves patients with evidence based care. The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack and doesn’t acknowledge the science/health background of the course and how we have completely changed from the older irrelevant teachings of A still to the most current available evidence pertaining to musculoskeletal injuries 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
That's very interesting. That should be described in an article here, with proper sourcing. As far as "The article above alludes to the profession as an absolute quack...", that won't change, and this article is not about Australian and New Zealand osteopaths, although, without an article on their educational and licensing status, people could get confused. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Well that’s my point, the article is misleading as readers will assume that Australian Osteopaths practice Pseudo-science based on this article. It’s quite disappointing considering Osteopaths spend a large portion of there education doing rigours training on pain science, neuroscience, exercise rehab, biomechanics, physiology and anatomy to be told that their profession is pseudo-science. It would be less misleading if that article was split into ‘Historic Osteopathy’ and then an article reflecting modern Osteopathy. I guarantee if I search Doctor or Surgery on Wiki it doesn’t talk about all the dodgy outdated procedures they did 200 yrs ago in the intro 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, in the article you focus solely on OMT as our core technique. That is incorrect, it is only one technique that is sometimes used depending on clinical reasoning. You’ve mislead readers into thinking that Osteoapaths only do OMT similar to Chiro which is a fallacy. I’m happy to provide you with references supporting the other techniques we use such as Isometric contractions, exercise rehabilitation, joint articulation, assisted stretching, myofascial release, patient education, general nutritional and lifestyle advice and ergonomic evaluation 202.7.239.156 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
In summary this article is extremely outdated and misleading. This does not reflect the professions views in any way and seems like an attempt to spread misinformation about a profession. It’s very unfortunate that you would look down on a profession as pseudo science even though it is covered under private health insurance and even government funded public health as an allied health profession that works closely with MD doctors in collaborative management of patients. If you search Osteoapthy Australia or AHPRA and look at Osteopathy and it’s role you’ll see a clear idea that it is inline with modern medicine and rejects the outdated notions of Still 202.7.239.156 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of arguing with you, I think it would be more constructive if you turn your energies toward improving the section about Australia. Use good sources and document the stuff that isn't mentioned. Maybe after that's done it will be easier to figure out a better approach. I'd like to see a list of the modalities you use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see an Australian section within the article. I can list the modalities in order and then cite them with for and against evidence. Once that’s done hopefully you’ll consider reframing the tone in the intro. I also noticed myotherapy is considered allied health on wiki, but Osteoapthy isn’t even though we are classified by the governing body and government health department as. Is there a reason for this ? 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The Australian section is quite informative. It is more the introduction and image used that doesn’t make sense. The image is outdated and not a technique used by our profession. As for being classified pseudo-science that is a reach. Is there evidence to prove that exercise, education and manual therapy has no therapeutic benefit, I highly doubt. You’ve mainly just spoken about OMT which is one small aspect. Same as if I wrote an article about clinical psychiatry and only talked about labotomies in the intro and used a photo of one in the intro. I will post the current research supporting Osteoapthy as complementary medicine and hopefully then you will reconsider its current classification as ‘pseudo science’ which isn’t supported by any health governing body 220.253.143.109 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree that the entry is inaccurate and misleading. Osteopaths in the U.K. are trained, insured and statutorily regulated. The Osteopaths Act 1993 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate the practice of osteopathy. It received royal assent on 1 July 1993 and thus created the General Osteopathic Council. The Title of osteopath is protected in the U.K. and all osteopaths must be registered with The General Osteopathic Council, completing 30 hours of CPD per year in order to retain registration. Each student of osteopathy must complete an undergraduate training of a minimum of 4 years full time training to obtain a bachelor degree in osteopathy.
To claim that it is a pseudo science is misleading and does not reflect the rigorous training that osteopaths undergo.
In the article it is suggested that Dr AT Still was some sort of idiot for suggesting that the body can heal itself or that the body had connections that ran throughout the body. We now have, amongst others, the dissections of Tom Myers’s Anatomy Trains [isbn 9780702078132] which illustrate the fascial connections, and anyone who has ever scratched themselves know that the body does in fact heal itself.
Frankly I am beyond irritated with this article and the way that any editing is reversed by editors who clearly either do not have any osteopathic insight or who feel threatened by the efficacy with which osteopaths work. Saltpie (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
It's a pseudoscience alright, per the sources. Because something's available "on the NHS" doesn't negate that (there are still some pockets of the NHS were homeopathy is available, I believe). The osteopathic lesion may have had its uses as a concept back in the day, but anybody holding Still's beliefs to be scientific today is truly rocking the woo. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathy/Archive_4&oldid=1253703744"