Philosophy deals with information that enables people to make more accurate perceptions. Those perceptions may well be in the area of science. For this reason philosophy and science are not antithetical.
* * *
Chiropractic is not what you do. It is what you think. Most actions will follow the lines of our thinking. The greatest amount of mixing is done with the hands - adjusting to treat symptoms.
* * *
AN HISTORICAL THOUGHT
There are those within and outside of the profession who for one reason or another want to maintain that chiropractic grew out of, descended from or evolved from ancient practice of manipulation, bonesetting, etc. Invariably it can be shown, however, that these practices only included what we now call an adjustment as part of their healing method. Chiropractic by its very nature adds nothing nor is it compatible with any other healing method. Its objective is unique. Therefore, the adjustment plus something was not chiropractic. Shortly after 1895 when D.D. and later B.J. realized what they had discovered, they kept it separate and distinct because the nature of its philosophy was and is yet exclusive.
* * *
Graduates of straight chiropractic colleges who choose to utilize modalities when they go into practice often claim that it is not because they have rejected the straight chiropractic philosophy. Many of them maintain that they need the money which the insurance company gives them in order to get out of debt and pay bills. Many also claim the modality helps to facilitate the adjustment. It is comforting to know that these graduates, while morally bankrupt and technically inadequate are still philosophically sound.
* * *
Increased "Chiropractic" Education
Straights are not against increased chiropractic education as long as it is chiropractic and not medical. There is, however, a caveat in increased education, even chiropractic, particularly in the area of technique, but generally in all areas of "chiropractic" education. Here is the problem: education breeds a form of arrogance (ironically, ignorance also breeds a form of arrogance.) The more education, the more arrogant you become (preoccupied with self, your abilities, your knowledge and your skill.) The uniqueness of the chiropractic profession is its reliance on the innate intelligence of the body and its ability to run the body far better than an educated brain. Chiropractic does not belittle the educated, merely recognizes its limitations. Unfortunately, the more educated one becomes, the less they are able to perceive those limitations because education is relative. "We are as educated as an M.D." But, our comparison should not be with the M.D. who may or may not be our equal, but with the innate intelligence. In that comparison, there is no question of our inferiority. The old axiom, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is a chiropractic truth. All the knowledge of the human body that is known to man is a "little bit of knowledge" compared to what innate intelligence knows. Increased education is fine, if it can be balanced with a proper philosophical perspective. Chiropractors apparently have yet to find that balance.
* * *
Disease/DIS-EASE
We still have many D.C.'s who talk about subluxation as a cause of disease rather than the cause of dis-ease. They claim that the intent of correcting the cause or a cause of disease is what separates chiropractic from medicine. Yet, historically, medicine has addressed causes of disease or at least what they think causes disease. Antibiotics destroy bacteria which medicine claims causes disease. Surgically removing a diseased organ cures the body of the diseased organ. The point is that chiropractic's claim to be different from medicine because it looks for a cause of disease is not a valid argument for our differences. Historically, it would not have appealed to any legislative body. Chiropractic was allowed to exist because it did not address disease but instead sought to correct the cause of dis-ease. Those who seek to adjust subluxation to correct a cause of disease are not doing anything different from those practicing medicine except that they are using a drugless manipulative approach for certain diseases. If chiropractic claimed subluxation was the cause for all disease then perhaps it would have a legitimate argument. However, that is a totally irrational position. The medical doctor uses drugless methods, surgical methods, and medicine depending on the disease. If we are to exist as a separate and distinct profession, we must abandon the relationship of chiropractor and disease altogether and relate entirely to health and dis-ease.
* * *
Professional Dis-Order
Why is it whenever we have an illness or malfunction we tend to blame it on something outside rather than look within? Our philosophy teaches us that it is not ragweed pollen, germs, or the environment that makes us sick. It is DIS-EASE within. We claim to understand this concept but then we turn around, look at our profession and blame that disorder on the AMA, IME, ERISA. We say "Let's get together and fight them!" The danger of the attitude that spawned the Wilks' case is to lose sight of the real danger to chiropractic, that of (as B.J. often said) "boring from within." Blaming medicine and MDs simply clouds the issue. The AMA, ERISA, IME, etc. will not destroy chiropractic. Only chiropractors can destroy it.
* * *
Being a Professional
Being a professional means accomplishing your objective regardless of the consequences. It means correcting subluxations and not worrying whether you are making the patient feel better. It means staying with your objective even if you have to turn away or lose a few patients. Being a professional means doing your job regardless of your feelings toward people. It does not matter whether the patient is rich or poor, pleasant or miserable, complaining constantly or symptom free. It does not matter whether you like their personality or not, or whether you feel sympathetic toward their problems. Every person needs a good nerve supply by having their subluxations corrected. That is your job. Being a professional means doing your job regardless of anyone's feelings toward you. Everyone wants to be liked, thought well of and held in high esteem. But you do not compromise your philosophy in order to make people like you. A marine drill instructor does not worry that his recruits like him. He wants to make sure that they are prepared for combat - so they can stay alive. Our job is to correct subluxations and educate people as to their damaging effects. Anything else, in an effort to impress your patients, detracts from accomplishing that objective. Being a professional means recognizing your limitations and functioning within those limits. Ours seems to be one of the few professions whose members feel the more you do the more professional you are. Children do not realize their limitations. Quacks and charlatans feel they can treat or cure anyone, that they have all the answers to all of ones problems. A professional truly understands what he can do, what he cannot do and places upon himself limitation. What is more important is that he is comfortable and secure within those limits. Being a professional is not easy. It takes more than schooling and a degree. It takes a mental attitude and strength of character. We need more professionals in our profession.
* * *
A Thought on Insurance
Insurance companies do not pay for the correction of vertebral subluxation because they, in and of themselves, are detrimental to the body's well being. They pay for the correction of vertebral subluxation only when it can be shown that the subluxation is associated with some medical problem. Many chiropractors associate vertebral subluxations with medical entities as their cause. Straight chiropractic does not associate vertebral subluxation with a medical entity.
* * *
Factors in Disease
Disease is almost always a combination of human factors and environmental factors. Medicine has been able to alter the environmental factors just enough to make an appreciable difference in the disease. They can put fluoride in the water and reduce tooth decay. Their shortcoming is in believing that this ability to alter the environment is in any way related to health. To think that it is worthwhile to poison an entire community in order to reduce the incidence of a disease (dental cavities) is absurd. This should be another indication to us as chiropractors of how far apart and unrelated the two concepts of health and disease are. Medicine almost invariably searches for the environmental factors. They must. For if they began to search for the human factor, they would very quickly come upon a situation which they are unable to handle. They would find that the human factor is invariably caused by genetic deficiency which they are unable to correct, or by an interference to the coordinated function of the body's parts, which the chiropractors have already claimed.
* * *
Principle and Opinion
It is entirely permissible and even desirable to be dogmatic about a direct statement of principle. We need more people who are unwilling to give ground on issues of principle. On the other hand, it is arrogant to be dogmatic about a personal opinion. Personal opinions can end in compromise and often should. Principles cannot end in compromise. the problem that we have in chiropractic is two-fold. First, so much of chiropractic is based upon principle and therefore does not lend itself to compromise. The second problem is being able to discern between what is principle and what is personal opinion.
* * *
So-called scientific laws are not science. They are merely testimony to the consistency and character of the intelligence of the universe.
* * *
The non-straight segment of our profession is either treating the cause of a variety of diseases by one procedure - adjusting the spine - or they are treating one disease (musculoskeletal conditions) with a variety of procedures - modalities. The straight segment is addressing one condition, vertebral subluxation, by one procedure, the chiropractic adjustment. Therein lies the difference.
* * *
Straight chiropractic came into existence as a defense mechanism. Much of chiropractic was moving toward medical practice and much of medical practice was moving toward drugless, wholistic, and natural healing methods. Consequently the clear delineation as to what constituted chiropractic was becoming unclear. Straight chiropractic was merely a clarifying movement.
* * *
.98% of the practice of medicine does not make the slightest bit of sense, the day-to-day treatment of symptoms and disease. .2%, the heroic life-saving measures and first aid can at least be justified. However, chiropractors want to copy the 98%. If anything, they should be trying to steal the 2%.
* * *
A few years ago many state boards declared that they were not against the straights but that they just wanted assurance that chiropractic education was adequate at all schools. CCE, they say, gave them that assurance. SCASA, the federal accrediting agency for straight chiropractic, now has parity with CCE. You would think that the states would now welcome straight school graduates to sit for licensing examinations. Not so! Recognition by the federal government has only opened a few states to straight college graduates and it appears that the remainder will only be opened through legal or legislative pressure, if at all. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
Most of our profession wants to make up new models of chiropractic that utilize numerous procedures, including, but not limited to physiotherapy, nutritional therapy, and now even the use of pharmaceuticals. Yet when straight chiropractic attempts a new model based upon some very old chiropractic concepts thereby giving it historical credibility, something none of the other models have, we are attacked, legislated against, ridiculed and generally opposed. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
Isn't it interesting that the Associate Editor of one of the profession's periodicals is constantly calling for mixing chiropractic to be taught in straight colleges? He suggests the straight schools should not be afraid of their students being exposed to other forms of chiropractic and if the straight graduate one day chooses to mix, he at least will be qualified. However, at the same time the editor rejects the idea of a straight philosophy being taught at mixing schools and the schools themselves seem very antagonistic toward the idea of their students' being exposed to the straight philosophy. Recently the faculty and administration of one mixing college were up in arms because the president of ICA was invited to speak at a commencement ceremony. He represents the middle of the road viewpoint and still was not acceptable!
* * *
Historically, chiropractors maintained and even testified under oath that chiropractic was different from medicine. We did NOT TREAT DISEASE, we ADJUSTED SUBLUXATIONS! Chiropractors were not practicing medicine and therefore should not be found guilty of practicing medicine without a license. We attempted to convince the courts (with varied success) that WE WERE DIFFERENT. We did manage to convince the legislatures that we were different, thus justifying our existence. Now that we are recognized and licensed as a separate and distinct branch of the healing arts, we are playing down that difference and trying to show how much we have in common with the practice of medicine. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
The mixer claims that the straight is acting like a technician because he is only interested in adjusting subluxations. He then practices physical therapy, a procedure which is ordinarily performed by a technician. Odder yet, he fights to prevent the technician (physical therapist) from performing adjustments, what he has already said is a mere technical procedure. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
Chiropractors choose to be chiropractors rather than medical doctors presumably because they find that the principles and practice of chiropractic offer success in the maintenance of health where medicine fails. Once in practice, they abandon those principles and practice and begin to embrace the principles and practice of medicine. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
Non-straight chiropractors will refer a patient who is suffering from an organic condition for medical treatment and lose them as a patient even though they know the patient could be helped to some degree if they also received adjustments. They will not, however, refer a person with an acute low back condition. Instead they use therapies along with their adjustments. They reason that if they would send the patient to a physician for back pain relief they would lose him or her as a patient. They don't seem to be bothered by losing patients with organic diseases but are afraid of losing those with musculoskeletal conditions. Odd, isn't it?
* * *
The mixer wants to be considered a "physician." He diagnoses and treats disease. However, when the medical physician wants to perform procedures that may impinge upon chiropractic, such as manipulation, he becomes indignant. From the mixer's viewpoint the term "physician," when referring to a medical doctor, should be limited to surgery and the administration of medication. When referring to a chiropractor, however, he feels that the term should include the privilege of practicing everything but surgery and the dispensing of medication. The medical doctor, on the other hand, believes a physician is one who diagnoses and treats disease by whatever means he deems necessary. Despite all this confusion, the mixer cannot understand why the straights don't like the term. Odd, isn't it?
