In this month's “Letters” section of JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, both Tyler C. Cymet, DO, and Thomas Wesley Allen, DO, MPH, take us back in time to remind us of how important it is for osteopathic physicians to adhere to a common language in describing the unique care they provide.
Dr Cymet reminds us that before the
Glossary of Osteopathic Terminology was first published 29 years ago,
1 many osteopathic medical colleges used different terms to describe the same conditions and treatments. Dr Allen, in turn, reminds us that 21 years before the
Glossary premiered, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) established its first policy to use the term
osteopathic medicine in place of
osteopathy and the term
osteopathic physician and surgeon in place of
osteopath.
As the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine's staff liaison to the Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles (ECOP), Dr Cymet is appropriately exercising his duty as ECOP's steward when he questions why the
JAOA would adopt terminology that differs from what ECOP approved for the
Glossary's most current version.
2
Like ECOP, the JAOA has long supported standardized terminology in osteopathic medicine. In fact, on nearly every major issue related to terminology, the JAOA's style guidelines and the Glossary agree. Where they disagree on major issues are in the rare instances in which policy set by the AOA House of Delegates conflicts with the Glossary. Currently, that conflict centers on one term: osteopathy in the cranial field.
While the Glossary uses osteopathy in the cranial field, the JAOA prefers to use either osteopathic manipulative medicine in the cranial field or cranial osteopathic manipulative medicine. The JAOA's preference is grounded in the AOA's 50-year tradition that Dr. Allen described in his letter. The AOA House of Delegates reconfirmed that tradition in July when it passed as policy House Resolution 301 (A-2010), which is titled “Osteopath and Osteopathy—Use of the Terms.” While that 2010 policy allows for a few exceptions, it calls for the AOA to preferentially use osteopathic medicine in place of the word osteopathy and osteopathic physician in place of osteopath.
Despite the
JAOA's style preference, T
he J
ournal does allow authors to use
osteopathy in the cranial field if they insist on using that term in their articles. But in deference to the AOA's policy, the
JAOA includes with those articles an editor's note such as the following one from the
JAOA's April brief report titled “Effect of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field on Visual Function—A Pilot Study.”
3
Still, Dr Cymet makes a valid point in urging the JAOA to bring its style concerns to ECOP for its consideration. The JAOA plans to do just that in the hope that ECOP can offer a solution that the JAOA can bring back to the AOA House of Delegates.