The Journal of Medical Humanities, 1993/12, 14(4):203-222. doi: 10.1007/bf01137235, type of study: ,art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Full text    (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01137235)

Keywords:

article [2635]
distinction [5]
OMT [3924]
osteopathic manipulative treatment [3945]
osteopathic principles [98]
touch [85]

Abstract:

Since osteopathic medicine's inception its distinction has been proclaimed steadfastly in the osteopathic literature. The uniqueness has been claimed to reside in: (1) rigid adherence to A.T. Still's tenets; (2) osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT); (3) claims of “holism“; (4) “osteopathic principles“, (5) esoteric definitions; and (6) other suggested differences. None of these claims can be successfully defended. An aspect of the osteopathic distinction may lie in the didactic of OMT per se. Certain experiences in medical school contribute to the “reconstruction“ of the student's view of the patient. Touch, through OMT, may be a quality that affects this change and helps make the osteopathic physician different. When blended with traditional medical modalities this may result in a unique medical perspective. The ideal approach for the osteopathic profession would be an honest evaluation of its function in society and its uniqueness in medicine. The profession may discover a uniqueness with touch as an integral part.