Volume 15, Number 3
Editor, Joseph B. Strauss, D.C., F.C.S.C.
In this issue...
Were Our Forefathers Straight Chiropractors?
I was recently discussing the issue of objective straight chiropractic versus traditional straight chiropractic and conservative mixer with one of my friends who is not fond of the term objective straight. He thinks you are either straight or you are a conservative mixer. I jokingly told him that I made up the term because I was not about to admit that I was a mixer for the first seven or eight years in practice. Aside from my ego, however, is the problem of having to tell Reggie Gold, Thom Gelardi, Lyle Sherman, Joe Donofrio, and even B.J. Palmer that they too were mixers back in those days! We all practiced the same model of chiropractic. The change took place with the acceptance of the CCE in the mid-seventies when those who are now referred to as objective straight chiropractors refused to agree that chiropractors should do medical diagnostic tests. The discrepancy in philosophy has broadened over the years as the traditional chiropractors have incorporated nutritional counseling and sports rehabilitation into their procedures. They still, however, refuse to admit they are no longer straight chiropractors or they try to get rid of the term altogether which is ironic since they claim to adhere to B.J.’s chiropractic and he used the term for over 50 years. Most claim that they correct the cause of disease and what they are practicing is "B.J. chiropractic," which implies that it therefore must be straight chiropractic (who would call B.J. a mixer?). There is no doubt that the (objective) straight chiropractic of today is much different philosophically than the chiropractic of B.J. Palmer. Contrary to the charges of some straight chiropractic detractors, the philosophy of chiropractic is not dogmatic. It is continually evolving. There are a number of differences between B.J. chiropractic and objective straight chiropractic, although the former has led to the latter. We could not have reached the understanding that we have today had we not been given the vision of D.D., B.J. and others. But chiropractic philosophy continues to evolve. As scientific knowledge increases and as our understanding increases, we change. I believe that in the evolution of any idea there are great leaps, breakthroughs in thinking. Surely when D.D. gave the first adjustment, that was a breakthrough. Another was certainly when B.J.recognized the metaphysical aspect of chiropractic, removing interference to the expression of the body’s innate intelligence. I believe the most recent breakthrough is the idea that chiropractic should not be arbitrarily or traditionally defined but that it should be defined by its objective. We have made some relatively small breakthroughs since that time including, for example, the idea that chiropractic is not an alternative to medicine, that we are not in competition and, in fact, our approach and the disease approach are entirely different. Consequently, the modern-day straight chiropractor does not comment on anything medical. Each breakthrough creates an accompanying change in thought, in philosophy and, as a result, in practice. As these changes occur, in some ways we move further and further from B.J.’s model of chiropractic. In other ways we can see that we are practicing that model in a purer manner, in a way that was closer to what B.J. seemed to have had in mind.Will chiropractic continue to change and evolve? Of course it will. But in defining chiropractic by its objective, we have very definitely limited the manner and degree to which it can change. That is good in that it will preserve the idea of correcting vertebral subluxations. It is also a detriment. For if something better, something more effective in enabling the innate intelligence to be more fully expressed over the nerve system (or in any other way) is discovered, objective straight chiropractors will still be stuck with only correcting vertebral subluxations. Unless, of course, we want to call what we do something other than objective straight chiropractic (e.g., intelligence enhancing chiropractic). You see, our objective cannot change. Our philosophy definitely will. In fact, I believe we will see some major philosophical changes in the next decade or so, ones that will more clearly support, explain, and clarify our objective. Will that make what we are doing now mixing? I do not think so. But perhaps practitioners twenty years from now will be calling us "ultra conservative mixers." Was D.D. a mixer? Was B.J.? Were those who are leaders in the straight chiropractic community today, mixers 30 years ago? It seems to me that when one scrapes away the confusing issues like the cause of disease and getting sick people well, the objectives were and are correcting vertebral subluxations so the inborn wisdom of the body can be more fully expressed. They simply did not fully understand that objective or have a clear way to explain it as we do today. Consequently, there is no longer a need to present chiropractic in the confusing way it was explained 30 years ago. Our forefathers expressed chiropractic philosophy the best they could with the information and knowledge they had. The important thing for all of them was that they strove to get rid of confusing issues in the philosophy of chiropractic, to refine it, to bring it to a point rather than add things to chiropractic as some are doing today, sending out mixed messages. If that makes D.D., B.J., mixers and Reggie, Thom, Lyle, Joe D., and me, for that matter, former mixers, so be it.
As a profession, we do not want medical doctors adjusting vertebral subluxations but we want to treat disease.Why is it medicine can be so adamant that a displaced (herniated) disc can impinge upon the cord and spinal nerves and cause all kinds of problems affecting the function of the nerve system? They are so confident this can happen that they actually perform major surgery to reduce that impingement. Yet they are just as adamant that a misaligned bone cannot have the same effect.The strength and greatness of chiropractic is and always has been in the chiropractor’s realization of his or her own limitations. When chiropractors cease to realize their weakness and dependency upon the innate intelligence of the body to accomplish their objective, chiropractic will cease to be great.
Types of Chiropractic Practice Memebers
I sit in church on Sunday morning and I look around at those in attendance, wondering why they are there. Not that it is any of my business, but I am curious as to what motivates people in general. I am sure that some of the people are there because of a crisis in their life without which they would not be in church. They believe that when difficulties arise, going to church for a few Sundays will help resolve them. They do not necessarily understand the mechanism by which it happens and they are not even sure there is a cause-effect relationship but they figure they have nothing to lose except an hour or two of their Sunday morning. They may be there as part of a deal with God. They may promise to even attend regularly if God will get them out of the crisis. Whether that promise is sincere or not, they often do not return when the crisis is over until another difficulty arises. Further, if the crisis does not end, many stop attending because they think God reneged on His end of the deal. Others are there because they have been forced to attend. Perhaps a spouse has nagged them into going, or perhaps they are a child whose parents are making them go. Whatever the case, if it were up to these people they would be some place else, anywhere but church. They perceive no benefit to attending church. third group consists of people who attend regularly but who really do not fully understand why. They just know that going regularly to church makes their lives a little better. The last group consists of people who attend regularly and who understand what attendance is all about. They go whether there is a crisis or not. No one forces them to go. They do it because they know that what they receive in church fulfills an important need in their life, a need that cannot be filled any other way. But there is one other individual in church every Sunday morning. He is the focus of my attention and, I must admit, has my greatest admiration. He is the minister. He is there every Sunday because that is his job, his calling if you will. He stands in front of all of those people, knowing better than I that they are there for different reasons. He may even know who is there for what reason! Still, he treats them all the same. To those who are there because of a crisis, he gives what he has to give and trusts that even if it is not what they wanted at that moment, that it will fill a need, perhaps an even greater need than the crisis they are concerned about. He hopes that what he gives them will enable them to get through the present crisis and perhaps see the value of his ministrations in handling future crises. And in the event that new difficulties do not arise, the minister hopes that these people will see the need for his service in their lives and he teaches them to that end. He does not and can not address every person’s individual crisis from the podium. He loves them, cares for them and gives them what he has to give so they will be better, whatever the circumstances of their lives. He does not think less of them because they may not be back. I am sure he struggles with wanting people to come regularly and with their lack of faithful attendance. But you would never know it from his loving attitude toward them.To those who are there because they have to be, he shows no resentment. He does not tell them to leave if they do not want to be there. He does not get upset knowing his message is probably falling on some deaf ears. He gives his message to them simply because that is his calling. For those who do not know why they are there, he is thankful simply that they are there. He gives them the same message as the others but with the hope that the positive act of being there will one day enable them to truly understand not just that they need to be there but also why.And for the last group, those that are there for the right reasons, I am sure they are the minister’s greatest joy. They understand his message and apply it to their daily lives.But there is something interesting about his attitude toward those that truly understand. He does not show them favoritism because they are knowing ones. Neither does he ignore them because they are already "in the fold." He gives to them, in the same manner, with the same message knowing that it can only reinforce and strengthen their understanding and prepare them to better handle life. The minister is truly worthy of that name. He serves or ministers to his people, not because they deserve it or earn it, not even because they need it. He serves because that is what it means to minister and he serves out of the depths of his knowledge, his love for humanity and his calling. Would that we all, as chiropractors, could be like him in our attitudes to those who daily come into our office.
Truth is the verbal coinage by which we exchange concepts of value and engender trust—Ravi Zacharias. During the past year this country has experienced a traumatic series of events surrounded by a disregard for truth and a fudging of words that has led to a situation in which the words have all but lost their meaning. When that happens, society as a whole loses its ability to have any meaningful dialogue. Although it is not my intent to address this problem as it relates to all of society, I do think it is important to discuss it as it relates tothe chiropractic profession.
One of the most attractive aspects of the objective straight chiropractic approach is its affinity for veracity. It is based upon a truth, the Major Premise of chiropractic. Some may argue that that truth is only accepted by us, hence maybe it is not a universal truth. Others may argue that the idea that vertebral subluxation interferes with the function of the nerve system and prevents the innate intelligence of the body from being fully expressed is only our truth. In fact, it is not recognized by the scientific community, but it is important to note that we do not present our philosophy as a medical or a scientific truth. We present it as a chiropractic truth and we ask those people we have contact with to accept it based upon its soundness and whether it resonates with their truth (i.e., their world and life viewpoint).Our honesty extends or should extend to everything we do. We should be honest with people seeking our care from the start. We should not lead the individual to believe that we will treat or in any way address a medical problem with which they may have entered the office. In fact, we pointedly inform the person to the contrary. We should not present chiropractic as an alternative or a substitute for medical care. We should not claim to be able to do anything a medical doctor does. Our objective is quite different. While we are honest in our approach, I believe that there are a few areas in which we need to make sure we are not inadvertently misrepresenting what we do. There may or may not be a moral difference between innocently misleading a person and purposely doing so but the result is the same. We have seen examples of politicians under oath purposely misrepresenting themselves. But when it comes down to it, purposely or inadvertently, it still has the same results. For this reason I suggest that we as a profession expunge the following ideas, concepts, and statements from our chiropractic vocabulary:We correct the cause of disease. We are not medicine. We are different. Medicine attempts to correct the cause of disease and we have never medically proven that vertebral subluxation is the cause of disease.Medicine treats effects, chiropractic corrects cause. Medicine, while often treating effects, also endeavors to correct what they see as the cause of disease. We have no proof that our "cause of disease" is more valid than theirs.The power that made the body heals the body. While this statement is true, it is misleading in that it gives the impression that healing always occurs. The fact is that the innate intelligence is often limited by limitations of matter and cannot completely or sometimes even partially heal the body.We diagnose vertebral subluxations. The use of medical terminology is misleading. We have unique words for our unique objective. They are meant to more clearly explain what we do and what we are. We should refrain from using medical terms. There are many in our profession who use the above phrases to justify what they believe is a worthwhile cause. That simply should not be. If we do such things, how can we condemn the chiropractor who believes he has the cure for all disease? How can we criticize the chiropractor who says he can diagnose just as well as the medical doctor, who thinks he is fully competent to determine who can be helped by chiropractic care and who cannot? Is a falsehood said in ignorance any less harmful than one said with predetermined intent? Unfortunately, when we lie to ourselves long enough, we lose all capability of recognizing and expressing truth. Many in our profession have lied to themselves for so long regarding their parity with medicine and their ability to perform adequately in the medical model, they no longer have the capacity for the truth. If we should suggest that they are not as competent as a medical doctor in the area of diagnosing disease and determining the need for and the type of medical care, they will look us in the eye, put their finger in our face, and with all sincerity deny that fact just as strongly as the president did more than a year ago. They have deluded themselves to such an extent that they actually believe it. Certainly the person who cannot be honest with himself and who believes his own lies is in dire straits. That, of course, is also true for a profession. What we are able to do is to continue to be honest with ourselves and with those whom we come in contact with, as to what we can do and what we cannot do. We can express our truth in clear meaningful words and always try to express ourselves more clearly. We can maintain the humility that being a straight chiropractor imposes upon us so that we will always strive for truth and maintain the trust that humanity places in us.
The objective of straight chiropractic is simple and beautiful, to correct vertebral subluxation to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. The philosophy of chiropractic is complex, as complex as life, but it is logical and can be understood using common sense. The vertebral subluxation, however, is another matter. Medical antagonists of chiropractic have always implied that the subluxation has not been scientifically proven to exist let alone that it causes the body to work at less than its full potential. Many in our own profession acknowledge the subluxation only as a joint dysfunction with little or no neurological ramifications. Unfortunately, the real difficulty in defining the subluxation lies within the straight chiropractic community. Some straight chiropractors talk about "global subluxations" that involve entire sections of the spine and others will only adjust one segment. Some straight chiropractors locate and adjust meningeal subluxations and others say that is not straight chiropractic. Some maintain that people need only be adjusted every six months or so, others are adamant about weekly adjustments. Similarly, the area of methods of analysis opens up a related but different area of controversial discussion. The objective straight chiropractic community has spent so much time in the last 25 years developing, clarifying, and defending what we do that we have spent little time among ourselves discussing these issues. Further, much of this touches upon the area of technique and there is or should be room for difference of opinion among straight chiropractors relative to technique. But I believe there are philosophical issues here, ones that are long overdue in settling. Which techniques are consistent with the objective of straight chiropractic and which are not? Can those that are not, as presented by their developers, still be practiced by an objective straight chiropractor in a manner consistent with the philosophy? Perhaps it is time that a conference be convened to discuss these issues, not from a technique perspective, but from a philosophical one. Maybe we should challenge our educational or organizational leadership to begin this process.
A paradigm is more then a model. It assumes a way of looking at life. For example, the evolutionist has a naturalistic paradigm. His model assumes that God does not exist, did ot interject Himself into human history and that man has no purpose or rational end. He then goes about accumulating facts to support that assumption. We in Objective Straight Chiropractic have made an assumption concerning the human body and the universe. Our assumptions are based on intelligent design, order, organization and the existence of an intelligent designer. We merely try to describe it in non-theological terms. We are accumulating facts to support it. Objective Straight Chiropractic is no less scientific than Darwinism.