IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v25y1987i10p1111-1120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dilemma of osteopathic physicians and the rationalization of medical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Eckberg, Douglas Lee

Abstract

Years ago, Peter New observed that osteopathic medical students faced a dilemma concerning their identity. On the one hand, they wished to be considered complete medical practitioners. On the other hand, they wished to be seen as different from MDs. There is evidence that osteopathic physicians continue to face that dilemma. I hypothesize that in part this stems from a conflict between classical 'lifestyle commitments' of the osteopathic community (e.g. toward general practice, osteopathic manipulative therapy, holism) and the rationalized model of medicine practiced by MDs (characterized by specialization and scientific elitism). Results of a survey of a local population of osteopathic physicians generally confirm this. Specific findings are that (1) classical elements of osteopathic commitment are not tied to commitment to the profession in general, (2) there appears to be a waning of commitment to general practice, (3) an increasing number of osteopathic physicians used the DO degree as a 'back door' into medicine and are less likely to identify with classical osteopathic norms, and (4) DOs from socially conservative backgrounds are more likely than others to maintain commitment to the classical elements of osteopathic practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Eckberg, Douglas Lee, 1987. "The dilemma of osteopathic physicians and the rationalization of medical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 25(10), pages 1111-1120, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:25:y:1987:i:10:p:1111-1120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(87)90352-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:25:y:1987:i:10:p:1111-1120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.