Re-evaluating ‘osteopathic principles’

From its inception, ‘Principles of Osteopathy’ have been key statements defining the distinctive features of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. In this paper a brief historical review shows some of the ways these statements have been modified over a century in order to keep them relevant and meaningful. Despite these attempts, it is claimed that such statements merely provide a rallying cry for practitioners trying to remain faithful to a particular historic tradition and heritage. Although it can be argued that a core thread runs through the various interpretations of osteopathic principles—viz., that the body is a unified, self-sufficient entity that has the potential for resisting disease and maintaining health but that this is dependent on structural integrity—the various ways this has been presented as ‘osteopathic principles’ lacks academic credibility. In particular: 1. they are not distinctive enough to differentiate osteopathy from other healthcare practices; 2. they are ambiguous and imprecise and therefore open to a range of interpretations; and 3. they fail to mention manual assessment and treatment, or issues around movement and palpation, which are core elements of osteopathic practice. It is further argued that a thorough evaluation of osteopathic professional values would provide a more relevant and meaningful account of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine.