Osteopaths in the USA

[jbailey]

In Montreal, I discovered the joy of visiting Osteopaths. An Osteopath managed to cure Leif's colic and let us sleep, and unlike a chiropractor, a treatment from Martine at Santenergie on the plateau of Montreal (shameless plug) would actually stay in effect for more than 20 minutes (Sometimes for weeks at a time).

Coming to the US, however, means learning a whole new variety of Osteo. Osteopathy was written into law early on, and has grown up as a full alternative to medical doctors - including the ability to prescribe medication. In practice what happens is that Osteopaths wind up in family practice as just another variant of MDs. The amount of "Osteopath" training that they've had compared to an MD turns out not to be that big anyway.

All hope isn't actually lost, though. There are two groups in the US, the American Academy of Osteopathy (Members recognised by the letters FAAO after their names), an the American Osteopathic Assocation (, AOA). Physicians can be fellowshipped into one or the other of these groups and they have different philosophies.

So there are three types of Osteopaths here:

1) Regular doctors (For all that it matters for the patients coming in)

2) Regular doctors who will practice some forms of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, but may not perform all techniques, and whom are more likely to be involved in "Integrative medicine" - helping find overall wholistic solutions to problems that might include manipulation, but might include other naturopathic solutions.

3) Osteopaths who specialise in manipulative medicine.

The downside to #3 is that these are people who've taken full medical degrees, and then had to further it with what an Osteopath would take at home. They're expensive, often don't accept any form of medical insurance, and are generally part of private practices.

With some back troubles I've been having recently, I managed to find a doctor in the #2 category who explained to me how this all works (followed by us figuring out that there's more to it than he can fix. But that's another story for later). He very kindly wrote it out for me on a napkin, so I'm copying it here before I blow my nose it in by accident. =)

Comments

why not...

[kevin mark (from livejournal.com)]

Why would someone choose this over a Chiropractor or an acupuncturist?

Re: why not...

[jbailey.livejournal.com]

Chiropractic is usually based on high-velocity techniques for restoring motion in joints and to resolve subluxations - So essentially putting bones back to where the Chiropractor believes they should be.

The problem with this technique in some cases is that you still have the muscles around the bones that often put them out in the first place. That's why a Chiropractic program often starts with three-times-a-week visits and the feeling that you're off again about 20 minutes after the first treatment. In the idea that your body wants to be aligned, the chiropractic visits slowly put things to where they should be until the body is willing to sustain that on its own.

Osteopaths are trained in the muscle structures as well as the bones. (Certainly in Canada, Osteopathy school is, I think, 3 years longer than Chiropractic school) They might determine that what's pulling that vertebra out is a muscle on the inside that has tension - bad posture doesn't just affect shoulders - and then will do a form of deep tissue massage to correct that. Osteopaths also have high-velocity techniques and often have exercise sets. Of course, that could be done by a good massage therapist. What I've found from my own visits to an Osteopath and from hearing stories from others is that going to an Osteopath means seeing a trained practicioner who has a huge repretoir of anatomical knowledge to draw from in solving the problems.

As for Acupuncture, I don't really know. I know that there are two varieties:

1) Eastern, which lined a body up to a star chart several thousand years ago. They poke needles into meridians, and somehow it makes people feel better. The fact that it does gives it some credit, but I prefer my sciences *currently* researched. =)

2) Western, which is supposed to be the modern variety that takes into account actual nerve pathways and such. I suppose with the right training, one could know exactly where to put a needle for a given result, etc. I think this style of acupuncture is a fairly new discipline, though. I read about it a few weeks ago on Wikipedia but haven't found myself needing to look to that for anything.

There is a reason...

[(Anonymous)]

...why American osteopaths use evidence based medicine more than osteopathic.


Because it actually works.

Re: There is a reason...

[jbailey.livejournal.com]

What a fascinating argument. I wish you had posted in a way that you'd see the reply.

What part of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine do you not consider to be evidence-based?

[shermanmccoon.livejournal.com]

The evidence for evidence-based medicine Complementary Therapies in Medicine 8 , . httpwww. Veterinarywatch.

Osteopaths US vs UK

[osteopathsguide.livejournal.com]

It is great to read such a positive and open minded article on Osteopathy. The profession has so much to offer and this extends way passed the musculo-skeletal prospective. It needs more exposure and education towards the public so they can fully appreciate the health care choices available to them - www.osteopathsguide.com goes a long way to provide the public with a better understanding of how osteopaths can help them. In the UK osteopaths aren't trained as doctors which personally is a good thing as they don't think in a drug dispensery fashion. Evidence Based Medicine is a misnomer in itself as all statistics are manipulated to show the relevant results. People need to start understanding that health isn't something that someone else "fixes" it is yourself that does it. Osteopaths recognise this and help the body to achieve it, rather than the "god-like" idea that a health care professional can "cure" you. Anyone can find disease, it's finding health that is the challenge!