Talk:Osteopathy

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Osteopathy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

Osteopathy was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

OA2020 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/975007365)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Evidence-based medicine#Levels of evidence|moderate-quality evidence]] The anchor (#Levels of evidence) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Nomenclature

The sentence in the lead, "People practicing osteopathy are referred to as osteopathic practitioners" is inaccurate and contradicts two of the cited sources (the link to the third source appears to be dead). Non-physician, manipulation-only practitioners of osteopathy are referred to as osteopaths. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine are referred to as osteopathic physicians. This is stated in the sources as well as the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's website (http://www.aacom.org/become-a-doctor/about-om/US-vs-abroad). Both call themselves "DO's". In the United States, osteopaths are prohibited from referring to themselves as "DO's" to avoid being confused with osteopathic physicians.SympatheticResonance (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has way too paragraphs without citations and too many maintenance tags, so I have to quickfail it. Medical articles have higher standards than other articles. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested change to the opening paragraph of this article

Please could you change the opening paragraph:

Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.

To remove the word 'pseudoscientific' so that it reads:

Osteopathy (from Ancient Greek ὀστέον (ostéon) 'bone', and πάθος (páthos) 'pain, suffering') is a system of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones.

The reasons the word should he removed are as follows:

- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage. - There are no other reputable online references which define Osteopathy using this word. - Non-American Osteopaths qualify with a 4 year university degree which includes many identical subjects to those learned by the medical profession including anatomy, physiology, pathology and pharmacy. So using the word 'psuedoscientific' as the opening description is misleading and inaccurate. - The opening paragraph also states that Osteopathy is an alternative medicine, which is sufficient in itself to allow the reader to understand that it sits apart from the central body of standard medical practice. Jonathan Boxall (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It's pseudoscience according to the article, and per WP:PSCI that needs to be flagged up prominently. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"- There are no other significant recognised healthcare professions listed on wikipedia which are described in this way. So it appears that Osteopathy has been unfairly singled out for a description which could be construed as making it equivalent to less reputable pseudoscientific medicine. Equivalent professions to Osteopathy include Chiropractic, Physiotherapy and Massage."

Chiropractic is described as pseudoscientific in it's summary and twice in the introduction. Physiotherapy isn't pseudoscientific. Massage isn't necessarily pseudoscience. MaligneRange (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Center Osteopathic Pneumonia Study in the Elderly - MOPSE

Study showed: Decreased length of stay in the hospital of approximately 1 day Decreased duration of IV ABx Decreased tachypneic resp rate Decreased incidence of respiratory failure Decreased incidence of death

Please include this in the efficacy area. 66.252.200.62 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like primary research, so not WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

it says it's not government regulated, then it says you need to register in private schools. If it's not regulated, you don't need any education, and could just teach yourself or make it up as you go... 64.110.254.75 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Training requirements

Died of breast cancer, recently. And I learned she spent her time seeing an Osteopath, and the Article doesn't have prominently displayed something like REQUIRED EDUCATION. How much education does it take for some random quack to call himself "doctor"? A two-year degree? A course by mail from a matchbook cover? A certificate from some university in Belize? What's the difference in education between a medical doctor and this form of quack?2603:8081:3A00:30DF:FD49:B5B5:CF6D:BC59 (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTAFORUM, I changed the section header, from "Quack Medicine and a Dead Friend". The issue of more content on education requirements is a reasonable one, so I wanted to leave that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong article. Here are the proper articles: Osteopathic medicine in the United States and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I wonder whether it would be useful here to have anything more about the lack of training requirements? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "criticism" section deals with some of the problems. The issue is when certain methods are used for conditions where modern medicine is more appropriate. For example, OMT / HVLA manipulation is not an appropriate treatment for allergies and asthma. It may have some limited legitimacy for certain musculoskeletal complaints of a purely mechanical nature. Note that "limited"!! Modern DOs recognize this, and that's why very few of them continue to use OMT at all. They have learned of its limitations and the superior results from modern medicine. Some osteopaths still "over" depend on OMT, and we rightly call them quacks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False information on osteopathy

Please update with current information about American Osteopathic Medicine which is becoming quite widespread and mainstream in modern medicine. Most American osteopaths practice in primary care positions such as family and internal medicine directly alongside and in practices with allopaths equally. One in 4 medical school graduates are osteopathic physicians. Here is more information from the American osteopathic association. https://osteopathic.org/what-is-osteopathic-medicine/ Mjreillydo (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation and legal status

Current article: New Zealand In New Zealand a course is offered at the Unitec Institute of Technology (Unitec). Australasian courses consist of a bachelor's degree in clinical science (osteopathy) followed by a master's degree. The Unitec double degree programme is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Correction: In New Zealand a course is offered at Ara Institute of Canterbury. The Bachelor of Musculoskeletal Health [1]https://www.ara.ac.nz/products/programme/ch4063-stru-bachelor-of-musculoskeletal-health/) and the Postgraduate Diploma in Osteopathy ([2]https://www.ara.ac.nz/products/programme/ch4064-stru-postgraduate-diploma-in-osteopathy/) programmes is the OCNZ prescribed qualification for registration in the scope of practice: Australian qualifications accredited by the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council are also prescribed qualifications.

Osteopaths are health practitioners working under the Ministry of Health ([3]https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/health-practitioners/responsible-authorities). Osteopaths are Accident Compensation Corporation providers ([4]https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/what-we-cover/treatment-we-pay-for). Osteopaths New Zealand (ONZ) [5]https://osteopathsnz.co.nz/ represents osteopaths in New Zealand. ONZ is a member of Allied Health Aotearoa New Zealand ([6]https://www.alliedhealth.org.nz/). JustineGu (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does your proposed change really belong on this page, or at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I would think the latter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When will the article be corrected please? JustineGu (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to respond to the comments above. Have you looked at the other article? We have TWO very different articles on the topic of osteopathy. Are you in the right place? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely inaccurate and is misleading.

This page states that Osteopathy is a pseudoscience and is an alternative medicine, implying that there is not scientific credibility or validity in OMM as a treatment model. The citation that is used is the 4th citation from Quackwatch that when clicking on the link brings the user to a page that defines "quackery" and does not provide any scientific information proving that Osteopathy is a pseudoscience. This article then goes on to state, "An osteopathic physician in the United States is a physician trained in the full scope of medical practice, with a degree of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO)." It seems dubious to claim that OMM is a pseudoscience but then to acknowledge that Doctors of Osteopathic medicine have been conferred all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities to that of a Doctor of Allopathy, MD. It defies all science and reason to believe that the manipulation of ones joints and muscles does not aid in the restoration of their normal function. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143587/ 2601:80:C87E:A1C0:F4EB:8A77:8DFC:7A78 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of osteopathic medicine is a different topic. They are pretty much normal doctors but with a bit of embarrassing quackery (i.e. osteopathy) mixed in with their training, largely for historical reasons. Meanwhile in many countries "osteopaths" (who anyone can be on their own say-so) are quintessential quacks at large. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]