Lower back pain, muscle spasms, joint stiffness… let’s go to the osteopath? And why not the etiopath, then? Both (following the example of the chiropractor, who only manipulates almost exclusively at the level of the spinal column) are distant descendants of the bonesetters, these healers in our villages who intervened on bone or joint lesions with the help of a supposedly innate gift. If their descendants have got rid of this mystique - the two practices are learned during training delivering their diploma after many hours of teaching - they are still considered by a large part of the medical profession as pseudo-doctors, when these are exclusive practitioners who do not otherwise hold a medical title, both having the status of non-conventional medicine.
The truth is that for most of us, the distinction between the two disciplines is blurred to say the least. But then, what are the differences between these two practices a priori not so far apart? And in which situation to turn to one or the other?
First, let's start with a little historical background. If they have common roots, osteopathy is much older than etiopathy. The first was in fact designed in the 19th century by an itinerant American doctor, Andrew Taylor Still. He himself was largely self-taught, which confirms this affiliation with the practice of bonesetters. Osteopathy was also widely contested in its infancy and at the origin of heated conflicts - one of its first supporters was none other than Mark Twain - and it was only later, around the middle of the 20th century. , that the practice is also spreading in Europe.
This is where its little sister was born, etiopathy, and even in France more precisely, under the impetus of Christian Trédaniel. He also named his discipline in reaction to osteopathy. It takes its name from the term osteon (meaning "bones"), while etiopathy considers this name to be erroneous or at least abusive (an osteopath manipulating not only bones, but also tissues, ligaments, etc., and therefore not really offering a "bone therapy"), and itself claims to be interested in the causes (from the Greek aitia , thus literally claiming to reach a "therapy of causes").
Etiopathy, which was therefore designed as a reaction to osteopathy, claims to have a more systemic approach to its patient — that is to say, to be interested in him as a system of organs and tissues, and to identify the causes of the disorders felt by the latter in the dysfunctions within this system. Etiopathy is therefore intended to be more "scientific", and will seek to identify a specific cause using the patient's story and the symptoms experienced.
Osteopathy, by contrast, would be rather holistic, not seeking to differentiate the different systems that make up the body but to consider it as a whole, and based on an approach that is rather described as "postural" - it that is to say, it seeks to restore balance within the body by counterbalancing subsystems, so to speak (tensions at the muscular level, problems with the circulation of fluids, even energy issues in some practitioners, etc). Some will say that osteopathy is only interested in symptoms, whereas etiopathy attacks the root of the problem, and therefore intervenes rather upstream.
If the distinction is often blurred between the two disciplines for neophytes, it is because despite these theoretical considerations at the origin of the diagnosis, the treatment is carried out in a similar way in one as in the other:it involves manipulating the patient manually, and the two professions then use the same techniques. What varies are therefore the identified causes. The etiopath will devote more time to identifying the causes of the dysfunction, and will only make manual manipulation his finality. He will also be content only to do mechanics, such manipulation having the objective of responding to such dysfunction. For his part, an osteopath will approach it in a more subjective way by taking the patient as a whole, and will therefore be able to use a range of more varied techniques:we thus speak of visceral osteopathy (between the different organs), cranial , structural (between the joints), tissue (between the tissues)…
You should also know that there are many more training courses for osteopaths in France (about 70) than for etiopaths (only 4), and that the latter are much more homogeneous, based on a single doctrine, while the training courses for osteopaths will produce practitioners who are very different from each other, because of their holistic approaches which can be based on various and varied principles. Thus, some osteopaths will have a practice that is ultimately quite similar to that of an etiopath, while within the profession of osteopath itself, approaches can vary considerably. Paradoxically, if the training courses of etiopaths are standardized from one to the other, and seem rather rigorous with their six years of study, it is the discipline which is the least recognized of the two, since it is not not framed by law or governed by the Public Health Code, although there is also a National Register of etiopathic practitioners. It is also better to look for your practitioner on a site listing the holders of a diploma. This is not the case with osteopathy, which is much more regulated, and therefore practiced by osteopaths who are both trained and recognized. The training courses, on the other hand, are much more heterogeneous, even if they last an average of three years.
As you will have understood, the choice of one or the other of these two disciplines will depend on your personal sensitivity. If you are more of a Cartesian, for you science must be "hard", then you will undoubtedly be more sensitive to the approach of etiopaths, who respond to a rigorous causality-effect mechanism, homogeneous from one practitioner to the other. Conversely, if you want a less mechanical and more holistic approach, you will have to turn to an osteopath, even if it means that he manipulates you in your entirety, rather than focusing on the precise problem that has affected you. brought home. And in this case, the choice of the practitioner will be as important as that of the discipline itself, since there are ultimately almost as many types of osteopathy as there are osteopaths themselves. You can therefore perfectly have affinities with one, and absolutely none with the other.
But of course, we also do not go to one or the other for quite the same reasons. Because of its holistic approach, osteopathy lends itself, for example, to preventive treatment. It may be wise to go several times a year to avoid the onset of pain. As for more specific interventions, the two disciplines claim to treat the orthopedic system as well as the cardiovascular, neurological, digestive, and even neurovegetative systems (i.e. psychological disorders such as depression, etc.), and to be able to intervene on urinary, respiratory, ENT, circulatory, gynecological or pregnancy disorders… In short, the range of disorders treated is almost as wide as that of medicine itself. An etiopath is nevertheless supposed to recommend another colleague to you if he considers that your disorder escapes the field of action of the discipline, just like an honest osteopath who, in view of the differences between practitioners, can specialize in certain disorders more than others. 'others. Again, this will therefore depend on your sensitivity to one or the other of the two disciplines. On the other hand, forget them for medical emergencies requiring surgical operations or drug treatment. Neither osteopathy nor etiopathy should replace advanced medical interventions.
Finally, to speak from a pragmatic point of view, that is to say… money. Well, there are not so many differences between the two practices in this regard. The prices are for both free, and therefore fluctuate around 50 to 70 € per session, depending on the practitioners and the region where they practice. As for reimbursement, neither of the two disciplines is covered by health insurance. Only certain mutuals cover them, fully or partially, and it is etiopathy that draws the short straw in this game, no doubt because of its still relatively more marginal status.
