Thoughts on the Chiropractic Objective

One of the greatest breakthroughs in the practice of chiropractic, during its 103-year history, has come about by the decision to define chiropractic by its objective. Up until the early seventies, there were numerous ways to define chiropractic and the arguments regarding what was and was not considered to be chiropractic were constant. With 50 states, a federal government and two national organizations, the definition often became terribly confusing. Some defined chiropractic by how they did it (i.e., by hand only), others by what they did (i.e., chiropractic physician). Then the leadership at Sherman College and the newly formed FSCO gave the profession not just another definition but a totally new way to describe chiropractic, by its objective. That is to say, a chiropractor was considered to be practicing chiropractic if he was engaged in the location, analysis and correction of vertebral subluxation. It no longer mattered how or even what a chiropractor did as long as it was to achieve this end.

That solved many problems within the chiropractic profession, at least for those willing to live by this mechanism for defining chiropractic. However, it did not solve all the problems. In fact, it became and has continued to be necessary to further refine the chiropractic objective. Neither the original definition nor the objective it created has been changed, but they have both been made more clear. To those critics of straight chiropractic, we admit chiropractic is still evolving, but within a definite framework. Without a definite framework, which the objective gives us, chiropractic is free to wander aimlessly in a hundred different directions. This is evident by the variety of types of practices that we have today.

Those who formed the idea agreed that correcting vertebral subluxations was a worthy objective in and of itself. Unfortunately, “correcting vertebral subluxations” really does not represent a very clear and well-defined objective. As a definition it seemed somewhat incomplete or inadequate. By analogy, I guess getting up in the morning could be your objective for the day, but why bother if you do not have a goal or reason to get up. Similarly, people climb mountains because mountains are there to climb. That hardly seems like a worthy goal but even if it is, the fact that the chiropractic objective is accomplished on someone else, who, by the way, is paying for that service, means that as an objective, subluxations are corrected for at least one other reason. It would be ridiculous to think that patients would pay the chiropractor just because the subluxations are there. Clearly, there is some benefit to the patient.

The definition of “objective” as we are using it in this discussion is, “Something worked toward or striven for.” Of course, one could also say that the straight chiropractic we practice is based upon “objectivity,” what the straight chiropractor wants to accomplish, rather than the relief of the patient’s subjective symptoms. That however does not really reflect the intention of the word as straight chiropractors use it. It has been argued by some that every chiropractor has an objective and that is probably true, but they do not use their objective to define chiropractic. Thus, the development of the term “objective straight chiropractic.” It is not that we are the only ones with an objective, but we are the only ones who define our practice of chiropractic by it!

Some still define chiropractic in the traditional way, using B.J.’s definitions. Unfortunately, the “philosophy, art and science of things natural” has nothing to do with the objective of locating, analyzing and correcting vertebral subluxations. (Besides, no one really knows what B.J. meant by that.) Other chiropractors still define chiropractic by how they do it. However, the phrase “by hand only” relates to technique not to objective. Others define their practice of chiropractic by state laws, which allow them to druglessly practice the medical objective. If they were to define this approach to chiropractic as “trying to diagnose and treat disease without the tools, education or license of a medical doctor,” then they too would be defining chiropractic by their objective. Most chiropractors would not admit that their objective is treating disease or correcting its cause for a very simple reason, that is the medical objective. So they just go through life practicing “objectiveless” chiropractic.

Those who agreed with the objective of correcting vertebral subluxations, felt they had, once and for all, defined chiropractic in a reasonable, rational and defensible manner. But there was a problem; chiropractors may correct vertebral subluxations for many different reasons. Some of those reasons include relieving pain, curing disease, correcting the cause of disease (it is specifically this that differentiates the traditional straight chiropractor from the objective straight chiropractor) making money, improving circulation and/or increasing mobility. There may even be as many reasons as there are chiropractors. It was clear that “correcting vertebral subluxations” was an insufficient description of our objective.

It was suggested that we define ourselves not only by our objective but also by our area of interest, i.e., the human spine. But that is redundant and does not help clarify our professional mission. Where else would we correct vertebral subluxations but in the human spine? Subsequently, some chiropractors suggested that we correct them because they are in and of themselves detrimental to the well-being of the human species. That is quite definitive and gives some value to what we do, but it was still lacking, in the opinion of some. It still failed to emphasize the real importance of what we do. Everyone, from the medical doctor to the garbage man, may have as their objective, improving the well-being of the human species.

Finally, the objective was refined to include the fact that by correcting vertebral subluxations we are enabling the innate intelligence of the body to be better expressed. That was a significant addition to the objective. It was something to strive for and there was now a truly important reason to correct vertebral subluxations. It said why we do what we do. It also implies what we do not do. We do not treat disease, its symptoms or its causes. We do not promise to cure or even to relieve. We do not confine our efforts only to that aspect of the human experience called health. We simply allow the wisdom that runs the human body to be expressed a little more fully by correcting interference in the nerve system due to vertebral subluxation. this improves every aspect of one’s life.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this part of our objective is that it emphasizes the importance of what we do. Every profession has an objective, however, there are very few that are involved in something as grand and lofty as allowing a fuller expression of the innate intelligence of the body. This innate intelligence is the principle of life within an organism. It creates the tissues that make the organs that make the systems that make the body. It heals the body and produces every substance necessary for sustaining that body from birth to death. To improve upon it is impossible, for it is perfect. To try to help it is foolish. To remove an interference to its full expression is just about the most important thing one human being can do for another. That is what objective straight chiropractic is all about.

Revisionist History

Changing history to suit ones personal bias or to give credibility to one’s position is in the opinion of this writer one of the most academically dishonest things that can be done. It is also one of the most common practices by the academic community. Some professors at colleges and universities believe it is their right, even their duty, to rewrite history to strengthen their philosophical or political point of view. Unfortunately, this practice has slipped into the chiropractic profession. Granted, it is not widely practiced, but that is primarily because there is so little interest in chiropractic history. The lack of interest in our profession’s history is directly related to revisionism. Chiropractic history gives us some principles which should guide our practice and some very many clear objectives which should determine our future. Many chiropractors are forced to either ignore our history (which most choose to do) or rewrite it (which a handful have also chosen to do). I suppose choosing ignorance over dishonesty is the better choice although I feel both leave a lot to be desired.

There are numerous examples of revisionist history within our profession. The emphasis upon ancient Greek and Egyptian manipulation appears to be an effort to give credibility to the chiropractic procedure as having been done since antiquity. However, the emphasis by some is to negate the unique discovery of the Palmers and therefore to detract from the historical and philosophical underpinnings of their discovery. Ancient manipulation was strictly of a musculoskeletal nature and probably more resembled physical therapy than chiropractic. There is no indication that it was done to affect the function of the nervous system, as was the Harvey Lillard adjustment. Another example relates to the ever-controversial B.J. Palmer. While there is no doubt that B.J.’s influence waned after the 1924 NCM incident at Lyceum, the attempt to make it seem that B.J. was not the most influential chiropractor in the profession, more than all the rest put together, for the next 35 years, is simply not accurate history. There is also a concerted effort to belittle and ignore the scientific and research contributions made by B.J. during his lifetime. We may think them lacking in light of present-day research methodology (although in many ways they are as scientific, if not more scientific), but the fact remains that in the period in which they were done, they met or exceeded the standards of the day.

Many in the chiropractic profession totally ignore the vitalistic foundations of chiropractic. Others accept that vitalistic mindset but ignore the fact that it was theistic vitalism. They pretend that our historical basis is scientific vitalism, sort of a nebulous force that is a product of itself, rather than a characteristic of a Being. The Palmers constantly spoke of God in their writings. While we have clarified the uniqueness of the term “innate intelligence” and explained that it is not a theological term, there is no doubt that they meant it to be a manifestation of God. This example of revisionist history, sadly, is being promoted by some within the straight chiropractic community. But the more widespread revisionist history among the straight chiropractic community relates to the evolution of straight chiropractic itself. There are those who would maintain that there is no difference between the straight chiropractic of B.J.’s time, the straight chiropractic of 1973 and the straight chiropractic of today. Those of us who realize that difference have chosen to use the term “objective straight chiropractic” and “traditional straight chiropractic” to describe that difference. Let me illustrate this reality with my own personal experience in straight chiropractic.

The term “straight” has been used to describe chiropractic since the writing of the first Green Book. When I graduated from chiropractic college in 1967, my school was a straight school. It was an ICA-approved school. Granted, it was changing and would eventually align itself more with the ACA, but at the time of my attendance it was straight. I considered myself a straight chiropractor and by anyone’s definition I was (except for maybe an HIO practitioner, for I adjusted below axis). I did not use modalities. I adjusted by hand only. I accepted the idea of innate intelligence. I had my spine checked regularly by another chiropractor. I opposed vaccination. I disliked the ACA. However, I also talked about chiropractic correcting the cause of the patient’s medical problem. I pointed to a vertebra on an x-ray and said “this is the cause of your problem.” I used the Chart of Effects of Spinal Misalignment. which demonstrates the lateral view of the spine with lines from the different vertebra to three columns. The first column lists the vertebral segment. The second lists all the areas supplied by the spinal nerves emitting from that segment and the last column lists every disease known to man that might be associated with interference in that area. I talked about chiropractic getting sick people well. I also took blood pressures and did a few orthopedic tests. That was straight chiropractic when I graduated from chiropractic college. I could name a number of today’s leaders in the straight chiropractic community who were doing the very same thing. They too were straight chiropractors at that time. It was basically whether you used modalities or just adjusted that determined whether you were straight. Unfortunately some of these leaders have either forgotten what they use to do or they are trying to deceive present day chiropractors as to the procedures that they practiced that were not consistent with today’s objective.

Here is the point. Either there was no such thing as straight chiropractic before 1973 in which case we were all mixers, including D.D. and B.J. .. or straight chiropractic has evolved. I choose to accept the latter option. Consequently, we need other terms for clarification and to identify the difference between those chiropractors who still practice like I did in 1973 and those who practice, not by tradition, but by the single objective of correcting vertebral subluxations so the innate intelligence can be better expressed and by only performing procedures consistent with that objective as I do today. I chose to use “traditional” and “objective”. Some have suggested that that gives credibility to things that are not straight by today’s standards. Perhaps it does. But they are things that we all did and were legitimately considered to be straight 25 years ago.

Practically speaking, the issue will resolve itself in the years to come. Those who practice, teach, and adhere to the traditional approach to chiropractic are and will continue to be more and more forced to adopt the medical model. The objective straights, by their actions and by their contrast, will be further divorced from that group. Meanwhile, we must acknowledge that all approaches to chiropractic are legitimate. We have said that we respect a mixer’s right to practice his form of chiropractic. If that is so then we must also respect the traditional straight’s right to practice his model of chiropractic and call it what it was prior to 1973, straight chiropractic. However, we must also clarify that it is not the straight chiropractic of 1997. The history of chiropractic that future generations will study demands no less.

*********

Reality Check

After one hundred years, there appears to be a very evident change in the thinking of those chiropractors who might be described as the traditional ones, the one-cause, one-cure chiropractors. There is a not-so-subtle change, if not in the rank and file, at least among the leadership in how they are describing chiropractic. It seems to me that the members of their organizations, the students at their colleges and the readers of their publications may want to consider whether they truly represent traditional chiropractic any longer or whether the chiropractic that they are now presenting would even be acceptable to D.D. and B.J.

Many of these leaders have finally come to the realization that chiropractic is not the answer to the cause of all disease. They realize that we live in a society that is becoming more and more demanding of proof and that we cannot just make claims about what chiropractic can do. We simply have no acceptable proof of an empirical nature to claim that chiropractic cures all or even any medical conditions, with the exception of a few minor musculoskeletal ailments. Not only have these traditional chiropractic leaders realized that chiropractic can no longer lay claim to the one-cause, one-cure theory, but they also have come to the realization that chiropractic is never going to replace medicine as the number one healing art. The reasons are numerous. Most people are relief-oriented and medicine is becoming more effective in that area. Chiropractic cannot compete with them. Most people generally are not concerned about health, especially when offered all the quick fixes and miracle cures that abound.

The chiropractor who has always thought chiropractic to be a subset of medicine, for the treatment of back aches and stiff necks, is not affected. But the chiropractor who expected to cure everything and to replace medicine with his subluxation correction for the cause of all disease is in a professional “no-man’s land.” As a result, some of them are advocating things that were once heretical procedures for a chiropractor to do. They were mixing. You see, B.J. considered mixing to be combining medical procedures with chiropractic ones. Various therapies were medical, adjusting subluxation was chiropractic. Analyzing the spine for subluxation was chiropractic. Doing medical tests for medical conditions was medicine. But now, chiropractors who once considered themselves practicing in the model of B.J. are somehow trying to justify doing medical procedures under the pretense of being a primary health care provider or, and here is the ironic part, replacing the medical doctor as the family doctor.

I cannot be sure, after all I never spoke to B.J. and he doesn’t speak to me today, but I do not believe that he ever envisioned us replacing medicine by assuming their role, doing their procedures or doing their tests to ascertain their conditions and then trying to treat those medical conditions or their cause with our adjustment. That was never his idea of chiropractic. If that is the objective of the traditional chiropractor who wants to look into all bodily orifices under the guise of being the “doctor, doctor,” well that is fine and good. But don’t pass it off as straight chiropractic and don’t tell us that is what B.J. would condone or would be doing today if he were alive.

The fact is, there is another approach to chiropractic, one that in no way infringes upon or tries to supplant medicine, we call it objective straight chiropractic. It is one which constantly looks less and less like medicine and more and more like what B.J. envisioned chiropractic to be separate, distinct and pure. If you are part of an organization, school or group that appears to be changing its approach, it is time for a reality check. Is that approach moving closer to medicine or further from medicine? If they are moving closer, you may want to reevaluate your involvement.

‘

Force Restoration vs. Matter Improvement

Over the years various chiropractic speakers have divided the profession into two groups. The earliest division, of course, was straights and mixers. What you did with your hands determined the group which you belonged. If you put them on the patient’s spine for the purpose of adjusting a vertebra, you were a straight. If you used a machine (i.e., instead of your hands), you were a mixer. (See Fig. 1)

Later some began to use other distinctions, broadening the classification to include other professions who appeared to have the same objective as many chiropractors. One notable division of modern times was doctor of cause (D.C.) versus doctor of symptoms (D.S.) or doctor of therapies (D.T.). (See Fig. 2) All of these divisions served a valuable purpose in clearly defining the roles of different aspects of the chiropractic profession. However, in more recent years the distinctions became blurred. As more chiropractors began to accept the idea that disease had other causes besides the vertebral subluxation, the classifications doctors of cause and doctors of therapy began to put more health care professionals, like nutritionist and P.T. (rehabilitation), on our side and in a way that seemed good. We then had other professionals with whom we had something in common. We were all trying to remove the cause of something. The downside is that some chiropractors began to utilize these other procedures under the banner of correcting the cause. So nutrition was added to chiropractic, as was the repair of sports injuries and other procedures that would clearly not have been considered to be chiropractic two decades ago. We were no longer distinct, no longer separate and no longer different.

But many of us happen to believe that we are different, that our objective is not like any other objective within or without the health care community. Our objective is not only different but also unique. We are interested in “force restoration.” The objective of correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be better expressed involves restoring the flow of innate forces over the nerve system. We are not interested in changing the matter of the body. That is perhaps the difference between objective straight chiropractic and ALL other approaches. All other approaches are interested in improving the matter of the body. (See Fig. 3) Chiropractic relates to restoring force to the matter. It may be argued that when the force is restored, the matter is improved and that is true, but matter improvement is not the objective. That is why the force-restoring chiropractor does not pay attention to changes in the physiology of the body and why he/she continues care even if the patient seems to be getting better, or for that matter when they are getting no better or even getting worse. The objective straight chiropractor knows that whatever is happening in the body, the organism is benefited by force restoration even if certain matter is not improved.

This way of making a distinction between approaches does not pass judgment on the validity or the efficacy of the other approaches. In fact, there are definitely situations in which the objective of matter-improving is necessary. Let’s look a little closer at the distinctions. Eating good food is matter-improving. Providing the function necessary to digest, assimilate and make use of that food necessitates force. The chiropractor sees that the force is restored when necessary. The nutritionist might provide sufficient food or nutrition to improve the matter. Exercise is intended to improve the matter, medicine is also intended to improve the matter, as is some surgery (i.e., reconstructive, open heart surgery). Physical therapy, like exercise, is intended to improve the matter. All of the above are directed at the matter. Chiropractic is directed at allowing the force to be restored. There are times when matter needs to be improved, when its ability to function is limited. If that limitation is due to a lack of force, then force restoration is the answer. If it is due to an inherent limitation within the matter, then perhaps a matter-improving procedure would be helpful. The difficulty, of course, is to know when and where a matter-improving procedure is necessary. The chiropractor not involved with matter improvement does not have to be concerned with that. His/her only concern is to determine when and where the force has been reduced at the vertebral level and to restore that force.

1990’s

Matter Force

Improving Restoring

Traditional Chiropractor Objective

Mixer Straight Nutritionist Chiropractor

Physical Therapist

Medical Doctor

Surgeon

Acupuncturist

Lending Libraries

A while back a question was put to me by a young student on the internet. Actually, the question was two-fold. First, he wanted to know about office lending libraries, were they straight and were they worth the expense. The second aspect of the question related to educating patients about vaccinations so they could have a balanced perspective.

Both answers are related to our objective. The first part of the question, regarding lending libraries being straight, of course depends upon what type of books, tapes and periodicals you have in your lending library. The number of books that could make up a straight chiropractic lending library are limited. In fact, besides Chiropractic Philosophy and Enhance Your Life Experience, there is not much else that explains straight chiropractic. The Green Books would probably confuse more people than educate. If you add other books on “health” issues to your lending library, you really are mixing those things with chiropractic even though they may contain valuable information. Remember, other things are not necessarily bad, they just are not chiropractic. Because they are good, some chiropractors may choose to mix other things that are not inconsistent with our philosophy. It is still mixing. A natural food cookbook in your lending library would be an example. In defining chiropractic by our objective we have excluded some things that are good. We do not necessarily choose to do everything that is good, just one good thing, correct vertebral subluxation.

Of course, there are numerous ramifications relative to this question. Part of the straight chiropractic goal is to educate patients. That is not considered to be part of the actual practice of straight chiropractic, but it should be the desire of the straight chiropractor. Remember, our objective is to correct vertebral subluxations to allow the innate intelligence of the body to be expressed more fully. With that definition, we would conclude that we do not need to educate our patients and, in fact, educating patients to the chiropractic philosophy or to the greater philosophy of above-down, inside-out is practicing something other than the pure chiropractic objective. Now, very few straight chiropractors would agree that all we should do is bring a patient in, lay them on the table, check and adjust them and never share the philosophy. Yet our definition, by objective, does not take into consideration educating patients. So we must admit that either we all “mix” patient education with the chiropractic objective, or patient education is not mixing. Since I do a considerable amount of patient education in my office, I obviously believe it is consistent with our chiropractic objective.

It seems to me, anything that better explains the ADIO philosophy and gives people a better understanding of why they should live their lives enabling the innate intelligence to better run the body and hence, have subluxations corrected, while not our objective, would be consistent with it and acceptable to the straight chiropractor. In other words, practicing chiropractic means doing one thing. Explaining the importance of having that done may involve a number of things and that creates a problem. There are some things that are definitely straight chiropractic, some that are definitely not, and others that are questionable. I obviously cannot present a complete list of these but perhaps some guidelines would be helpful.

1. If it involves a medical procedure, it is not chiropractic. It may also involve a health issue. Chiropractors need to be careful in touching upon health issues that involve medicine, both from a legal (malpractice) and a philosophical standpoint. An example of this relates to the second aspect of the student’s question of vaccination. If we are doing our job in educating people, they can make their own decisions regarding vaccination. If we are not doing our job, shame on us. There is no alternative. Our desire is to teach people the ADIO world and life viewpoint so they are able to make their own decisions in all aspects of life, not tell them how to live their lives.

2. Does the information take the person in a direction of living a more autonomous, innately-directed life or will they become dependent upon the chiropractor or some other authority for their life, health or well-being? for example, teaching patients to listen to their body’s needs in the area of exercise makes them autonomous. Giving people a list of exercises to do makes them dependent on you, their trainer/chiropractor.

3. Is the information being shared consistent with an ADIO world and life viewpoint? There are procedures and practices in this world that, while helpful to some people on some occasions, are not consistent with an ADIO viewpoint. Certain meditation and relaxation techniques, for example, may help some people with stress but they are therapeutic and not consistent with our chiropractic philosophy.

4. Does it move the individual toward a greater understanding and appreciation of the chiropractic objective, does it move them away, or is it totally neutral? If it gives them a greater understanding it can be acceptable even though it is not straight chiropractic. For example, I have produced a few audio tapes that discuss the ADIO viewpoint of life. They are not about correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the innate intelligence to be better expressed, but people who understand these tapes would be more receptive to straight chiropractic. The first nine or so chapters of my book, Enhance Your Life Experience do not even mention the word “chiropractic,” but they do lay the groundwork for an understanding of why having your spine checked on a regular basis is important. This type of information is acceptable, albeit quite rare.

Information that moves people away from the chiropractic objective should be avoided. Prescribed exercise programs, diets and most nutritional information, while supposedly “health-oriented,” would fall into this category. Here is the irony. Anti-medical information, like anti-vaccination or anti-drug literature, can move people away from an understanding of chiropractic. By taking a position against medicine or medical procedures we may be positioning chiropractic as an alternative or substitute for the practice of medicine, which in the long run can defeat the goal of chiropractic as a non-duplicating, non-alternative approach to increased well being and improved potential.

The last category, neutral information, is not easily described. I am not sure that anything is totally neutral but I create this category because I do not want to presume that there is not something that is neutral. The chiropractor would be wary of anything in this category. If we desire to take every opportunity to educate people, then why would we want anything neutral in the office? A newspaper in the waiting room may be neutral and the World Series on the office television may be as well, but the question here involved lending libraries. A library is for the purpose of educating people and all education is either ADIO or outside-in.

We all do things, say things, and have things in our office that do not directly related to correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to better express itself. We must be wary of those things and seriously consider their value in achieving our practice objective and our personal mission (educating people). Any chiropractic information in a lending library is valuable. As time goes on, those involved in straight chiropractic should produce sufficient educational material that points people in the direction of our philosophy. Then our offices’ lending libraries can be full of straight chiropractic material to truly educate the recipients of chiropractic care and the general public.