Prior to 1962, the AMA Thought Osteopaths Were Quacks. Why?
Prior to 1962, it was unethical for an MD to consult with a DO. Why? What happened to change the AMA's mind on the subject?
I agree with Andy C. As explained to me by a chiropractor, about that time, the AMA offered the osteopaths and the chiropractors a deal. They could each keep their odd customs, but if they went to medical school, they would be recognized. According to the chiropractor, the osteopaths "caved in" but the chiropractors "stood firm."
- Andy CLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
Evidence of the contrary and acknowledgement of equal medical education coupled with the recognition of the value of OMT.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Actually, it hasn't changed that much and DOs are still considered the bastąrd step-children of medicine. They're grudgingly accepted out of financial necessity, much like nurse practitioners have become "acceptable" replacements for MDs. No one likes it or will acknowledge it's an equivalent substitution, but needs muster as the devil drives.