I just finished reading a book on the history of Osteopathic Medicine in the United States, (see I don’t just watch sitcoms)
One thing that was consistent through the book was the fight of the Osteopaths to have states license them.
The regular medical establishment (referred to hereafter as MDs), didn’t want this. They argued Osteopathic Physicians (referred to hearafter as DOs) were just quacks and that having the state license them means that the state says that medical practice is an acceptable alternative.
Until the 1920s in America you had the DOs, the MDs, Homeopaths and Chiropractic roughly competing.
DOs after 1920 started become more like MDs and wanted to distance themselves from Chiropractors, while Homeopaths fell out of favour quickly.
So the DOs were arguing unless the states would license the DOs, anyone could claim to be a DO and this was hurting them. Worse anyone could claim to be a DO and a Chiropractor, which the DOs were mad at.
The MDs were calling them all quacks and wanted to governmental licensing.
Well today DOs and MDs and Chiropractors are licensed by states and they may or may not be considered quacks.
My question is does the need for governmental license for any profession, from doctors to barbers to whatever constitute an endorsement of that profession as legit?
[Note: In Canada and the USA, DOs are Osteopathic Physicians and are pretty much equal to MDs. In other areas of the world DOs are NOT physicans and are not equal to MDs. The difference is often indicated by Osteopathic Physician versus Osteopath. But this distinction doesn’t always apply]
Massachusetts licenses cosmetologists, landscape architects, massage therapists, barbers, and sheet metal workers. What do you think that says about those professions?
A state license doesn’t in any way imply efficacy. (Although, with a brothel, I suppose the intended effect is either very apparently working, or not… It isn’t as if there is a several day delayed reaction).
State licenses are also often given out just on the basis of cleanliness practices for food service or clinical sites.
One criteria that leaves the DOs out of my consideration for my needs, is that I want my doctor to A) have a good, working relationship with the local hospital, and B) Be able to admit me to said hospital. I’ve never known an ‘Alternative Medicine’ practitioner that was so recognized by they hospital.
Also, in my limited experiences with DOs, it seems that their major ‘solution’ to everything was a vitamin B injection / ‘prescription’. Well, if vitamin B cured everything, we wouldn’t need the DO in the first place.
Where are you that DOs don’t work with hospitals, and on what planet are DOs now considered “Alternative Medicine?”
I’ve had plenty of good experiences with DOs, and if anything distinguishes them from the MDs I’ve dealt with it’s that while the MDs have been generally good, the DOs are even better at getting to the root of certain problems (and treating them) quickly and effectively. And the treatment never included vitamin B.
For me, state licensure may equate to having met a minimum level of competency at the time the license was granted. If the license requires continuing education, you may expect some level of competency in the present.