How pure should osteopathy be?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clement Rhein on February 15, 2008 at 11:09pm

Nice one Madmoiselle Storey!

Everyone is different - some like to master one activity to the best they can, whereas some rather do as many activities as they can.

Some enjoy playing loads of different instruments, other prefer playing just to one. Some like doing loads of different sports, others rather do just the one. Some like to do only osteopathy, others like to do different disciplines.

If one osteopath is happy using osteopathy only, good. If another decides to include acupuncture and hoemeopathy in their practice, good. In the end, they will both get patients better (i hope :-)).

Should it be an insult to "pure" osteos for not being respectfull enough of osteopathy? Well, should pure osteos be an insult to polyosteos for not being open enough? I think as long as the practionner is open to learn and improve his/her skill - getting people better, then its okay. It just depends on what will make that practionner happier, more content, satisfied (open or pure).

Learning another discipline will surely deprive some time from ossteopathic practise. So it will not help become a better osteopath, it will probably help become a better practionner.

In my veiw, more knowledge - more understanding - therefore, more ability to help.

Personnaly, I much rather see the acupuncturist/homeopath/osteopath, than an osteoapth. I have gained quite a bit from other discipline; Things that have helped me understand osteopathy better, and things that helped me to understand the body better.

I'm a polivalant person, so I guess I'm bound to be in favor of the polyosteopath.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pierre de lasteyrie on February 17, 2008 at 9:51am

Hi Lauren !

Interesting indeed !

How pure was the osteopathy that A.T. Still was practicing ? I have met an osteopath who apparenty read a lot about him and he was sure and convinced that Still was giving herbal remedies to his patient as well as intergrating shamanic rituals bringing Osteopathy much further than a manual therapy.

What is a pure Osteopathy ?
Interesting again to see that even at the 3rd generation of osteopaths some approach were radically different.
John Wernham was a student of Littlejohn and Dr Becker a student of Sutherland.
Wernham was working with a full body adjustment approach while Becker was working even deeper than the cranial approach by dealing with the Involuntary of the patient. While one was shaking the whole body around the other one was letting the patient lying still and was diving within the structures to enhance the self-healing mechanism of the patient. What is even funnier is that both of them claimed that they were the true followers of A.T.Still Osteopathy !!!

Personnally I think that Osteopathy is a manual therapy. Therefore any techniques or protocoles which use machines/needles is not part of Osteopathy.

Just Mastering Manual diagnosis and techniques
(musculo-skelettal, visceral, and cranial field), Anatomy takes at least 10 years maybe more. If straight at the beginning of your practice you start involving other type of approaches it may undermine your logic as their would be too many unknown parameters to deal with.

About the purity of Osteopathy, I would say that as long as you use only manual techniques and have a holistic approach of the body you could be considered as a purist. There is not one Osteopathy as Osteopathy is an art. And this s a good thing because as we can't be a perfect practitioner if we were all practicing the same way we would certainly mistreat some complaints, but as we are not practicing the same way there is a great chance that a complaint that we cannot treat, another practitioner might be able to treat it differently.

see ya,

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ross on February 17, 2008 at 2:36pm

Good comments all round I say,
Its a lesser well known fact that AT Still abhorred thrust techiniques, A modality that some would consider is the sine qua non of modern osteopathy. He predominantly used myofascial release type techniques and lymphatic drainage therefore how pure was Still's osteopathy compared to what is taught in colleges today? I think osteopathic medicine is a philosophical approach to healthcare that is changing and developing like all science and art forms do and must do to survive. If we dont incorporate other approaches whilst still retaining our central tenets (v important) then we become dogmatic and that means that we are tacitly asking patients to "believe as we believe" in order to get better. Is me putting a needle in someones trigger point less osteopathic than me doing soft tissue work if in that instance needling is the best thing to do for that particular patient? im not sure. The thing to remember i think is that osteopathy is not a cult and as such doesnt need to adhere to rigid ways of practice. If the medics adopted a purist view from the start we would still be putting leeches on people (funny how thats coming back now!)
I similar to Clement am an osteopathic polypath

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yan-Chee Yu on March 3, 2008 at 12:48pm

Interesting question. From my perspective, it appears that the central issue is whether it is "Osteopathy" that does the healing, or whether it is merely a tool which someone uses to perform treatment.

In the first case, the question is almost impossible to answer without an extremely rigorous definition of what Osteopathy is and is not, and I'm not sure how helpful this would be in any case.

In the second case, it is YOU, the practitioner who performs the treatment, with "Osteopathy" acting as a guiding paradigm for the part of you (or more specifically your mind) which is directing the treatment. As a result, it is meaningless to ask how "pure" an osteopath should be, because, by definition, it is not the thing from which the ability to heal/treat originates. Accordingly it is our ability to be totally aware of that from which our healing/treating intent arises which makes us "pure" and the choice of using "osteopathy" as our arbitrarily chosen (invented!) paradigm which makes us "Osteopaths".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by lauren storey on March 3, 2008 at 8:14pm

I agree that the way Still performed osteopathy and the way in which its taught are probably hugely different, a result of the growing need for osteopathy to be accepted in the medical world no doubt. However to rule out his use of thrusting techniques may be over looing a lot. In his works he constantly refers to adjustments of the spine and whilst they are no doubt different to the adjustment that are taught today, its a possible basis from where they originated. His use of herbal remidies are surely sign of his naturopathic side, naturopathy being a large influence on the principles of osteopathy that Still treated by, and something that is so often over looked even in osteopaths educated in the ways of naturopathic medicine.
However, i believe that it is the body that heals it self, osteopathy is merely philosophy applied physically to resore balance to the body to allow it heal at a more efficient rate. The body, being far more intelligent than the mind, is far better at healing than any of the worlds best osteopaths, and especially better than more orthodox treatments which surely cause more of a hinderence than help to the bodies natural healing.

▶ Reply to This