D.C., F.C.S.C
Editor
Volume 17 - Number
1
October 2000
The above is a favorite statement of B.J.’s. People do not reach their potential and hence the advancement of human
history is thwarted as a result of inhibitions. Unfortunately, we
tend to think about getting rid of our inhibitions as shedding our conservative,
society-acceptable attitude and acting in a wild outlandish manner.
Surely, we have seen our share of those people in our profession.
While B.J. may have been guilty of doing some outlandish things and is
perhaps the best example, we should keep in mind that these things were
not done for exhibitionism purposes but to shed inhibitions. There
is a great difference. The greatest inhibition in chiropractic is
fear. We fear offending people with our message. We fear rejection.
We fear confrontation. We fear seeming to be unprofessional, whatever
professional might be and it is usually the standard set by the doctors
and the lawyers. Let me give you an example of how uninhibited chiropractors
changed history even among doctors and lawyers. In the mid-sixties
when I began to practice, it was illegal for chiropractors to advertise.
Medical doctors and lawyers did not do it. I do not know whether
it was illegal for them to do it or that they just thought it was unprofessional.
In that era, a group of uninhibited chiropractors decided to challenge
the laws (laws incidentally which were created by inhibited chiropractors).
They challenged these laws not for self but for the sake of humanity who
needed to hear the message. One by one the state laws fell as the
issue of freedom of speech was put forth. Today not only do chiropractors
have the freedom to advertise and assert their freedom but medical doctors,
hospitals and lawyers all advertise as well. Uninhibited chiropractors
blazed the way for advertising by all professionals. (Judging from
the ads of some chiropractors, lawyers and physicians, it is questionable
whether we created a good thing. But in the long run, the poor exercise
of one’s freedom is better than no freedom at all.) Today no one
gives it a second thought, although I wonder how the first lawyer or medical
doctor to advertise was received by his association.
Getting rid of our fear inhibitions, which is really
what B.J. was talking about is an important idea in business and industry
today. Companies do rope courses and other activities to get rid
of their employee’s fear inhibition so they can be a better salesperson
or executive. Chiropractors do firewalks to get rid of their fears
and other inhibitions (although frankly, I can think of better ways to
do it). B.J. saw that if people got over their inhibitions they would
be more aggressive, more forceful, and more effective in promoting this
new idea called chiropractic.
Let me give you one more historical example from
recent chiropractic history. Standing up in front of people and speaking
is one of the greatest fears that human beings have. In fact, in
some surveys people rank it ahead of death. One of the greatest practice-building
tools of the late sixties and early seventies was the lay lecture.
Chiropractors were told by people like Reggie and Sid and Jim Sigafoose
that to be successful, you had to give them. From my personal experience,
I would say they were right...the lay lecture is a great educational tool
and will surely help to build a successful practice. But I am also
convinced that its ability to enable a chiropractor to get rid of the inhibitions
that surround chiropractic and cause chiropractors to starve, was as big
a factor as anything. To give lay lectures takes a command of and
a confidence in your subject. You never know what questions will
be asked. That builds confidence in chiropractic and yourself, and
confidence dissipates fear. Lay lectures overcome the fear of confrontation.
That is what a lay lecture is, confronting the audience with a new and
radical idea that they have probably never thought about. It overcomes
the fear of rejection. In any size audience you can be sure that
some will reject your message. Giving lay lectures built a generation
of fearless, aggressive chiropractors who had no reservations about the
world’s need for chiropractic. The lay lecture was a big part of
destroying the fear inhibition. If you were brave enough to lay out
the philosophy to 15-25 strangers, it took less courage to give it to one
on the street. If you could say something face to face, it was easier
to say it in print and in the media. Lay lectures continue to be
perhaps the most powerful fear-busting tool. Anyone with willingness
or lack of common sense can walk across hot coals. However, to stand
up in front of a group of strangers week after week takes courage and courage
was what built this profession.
It is possible that some of the problem with our
profession and its growth is that we do not have fearless chiropractors
anymore. We are inhibited by society and by the fact that we are
generally accepted as back doctors. If we rock the boat by maintaining
that chiropractic is not about your back but about your life, we may jeopardize
the fragile truce between us and the medical profession. We are going
to shake up society by saying things like everyone needs chiropractic care
on a regular basis and children should be adjusted from birth. The
exact things you say in a lay lecture. If your practice is not going
like you would want it to, perhaps you need more courage, more zeal, more
enthusiasm, and more aggressiveness. You can begin to give lay lectures
and acquire all these traits. Or you can take the easy, less effective
way out and walk across a bed of hot coals.
Reggie Gold has used the very good analogy of a walk
in the woods when describing our understanding and development of the chiropractic
philosophy. You can only walk into the woods halfway. Beyond
that point you are no longer walking in; you are walking out of the woods.
The philosophy of chiropractic is without a doubt a vast area of thought
with many trails for exploration. Unlike general philosophy, however,
chiropractic does have specific circumscribed boundaries. Its parameters
are defined by chiropractic and chiropractic is defined by its objective,
at least it is in our straight model. So while there is a vast area
of exploration within the chiropractic philosophy, there is also a set
boundary. To be into chiropractic as much as possible, it would seem
desirable to move as close to the middle as possible, to the central point
of the philosophy, the middle of the woods, and once there to stay there.
I am not sure that anyone has found the center yet, although Reggie has
probably come the closest. And if we ever get there, our search for
knowledge or “love of wisdom” will not end. One could spend the rest
of his or her life in the center of the woods studying the flora, the fauna
and the microscopic activities there. Perhaps someday that is what
will happen in chiropractic. Meanwhile our exploration is still in
its early stages trying to find the middle of the woods. I believe that
there are numerous trails that can take us there but, unfortunately, there
are even more that lead us out of the woods.
The history of the straight chiropractic movement
is replete with great thinkers who, in their quest for the central point
of chiropractic, took a trail out of the woods and either left the chiropractic
philosophy altogether or ended their journey so far from the center and
so close to the edge that what they were doing barely resembled chiropractic
at all. The late Dr. Bill Bahan of the famous Bahan Family of Chiropractors
in New Hampshire is a good example. Dr. Bahan left chiropractic and
established a religion. At the risk of being branded a heretic, I
must say that B.J.’s writings indicate he had missed the center and was
moving toward the edge. Of course at the time he was developing the
philosophy, chiropractic was not yet defined by its objective. Without
the objective to clearly circumscribe the boundaries, one cannot possibly
know where the center of the philosophy is. Had B.J. lived long enough,
I believe he would have found his way back toward the center.
If we are honest about our chiropractic journey,
we are all on a trail to the center of the philosophy. Some of us
are on a relatively straight trail (no pun intended) and some are on a
rather circuitous route. No matter which trail you are on, you need
to periodically stop and check your location and direction. It is
called slipping and checking. As I look at the straight chiropractic
community, I often feel like there is too much slipping and not enough
checking. Obviously, it is easy to slip when you are blazing a trail
over uncharted territory. The insidious problem facing many in the
straight community today is the temptation to follow those who appear to
be or claim to be trailblazers. Those who say “follow me, I have
the easiest and the shortest route, I know where the center of this philosophy
is. It is in my concepts, my technique, my programs and my ideas.”
When following these trailblazers, we often fail to use our compass, the
objective and the previously learned truths of the philosophy. After
all, if someone claims to know the way, there is no need for a map or compass.
Many of these would-be leaders however, do not know where the center is.
They have not been there themselves. They themselves, are stumbling
along, trying to find a path. They can and are leading good chiropractors
down the wrong path. They are well meaning and often they believe
they have the way, but many of them are just a little off in their direction.
It is not enough to have good intentions. We must have a good philosophical
compass. We need to be following less the philosophies of would-be
chiropractic gurus who are conducting seminars and follow the dictates
of our philosophy and of reason more. We need more thinkers and less
followers so that we may more quickly reach the center of the woods as
individuals and as a profession.
OSCs do not make judgments on whether a symptom or sign of disease is a response or a reaction (is the fever bad or good?) because addressing symptoms in any manner is medicine. We do make the judgment as to whether vertebral subluxation is present or not, based on some physical findings. (We must base it on some physical changes otherwise we might as well flip a coin...heads we adjust, tails we do not.) Since we must make a judgment on physical findings, it behooves us to base our analysis on a response (i.e., what innate intelligence is trying to do), rather than an obvious manifestations of its failure (i.e., a reaction due to limitations of matter).
Muscle palpation is based on the assumption that, in spite of vertebral subluxation, the innate intelligence is responding (normal/good) to attempt to correct the subluxation. Hence, this is a superior approach to one that is based on manifestations of innate intelligence’s inability to respond due to limitations of matter or on manifestations that could be either good or bad. For example, a curve could be a response or a reaction. If it is a response, then it is adaptation directed by innate intelligence and should not be changed. If it is a reaction, then it is only an effect and not any more valuable an indicator than a fever. What is more, there is no ability to post check when manifestations are used to analyze the spine. If the curve disappears, that may simply mean you have changed a curve, not necessarily corrected a vertebral subluxation. Orthopedists can change curves. If the curve does not disappear, that does not necessarily indicate that you have not corrected the subluxation. The body may want or need the curve just as it may want or need a fever. I believe there may be more than one indication of innate intelligence attempting to correct a vertebral subluxation or responding to a subluxated state. However, at this point a working muscle seems to be the only one we have because it occurs only in the presence of vertebral subluxation. Empirical findings and deduction tell us there is no other reason for its presence. Certainly there could be other effects of subluxations, short legs, patterns, skin temperature changes, spastic muscles, limited range of motion, and pain. Since these things may occur for other reasons, they are not ideal for determining the presence of vertebral subluxation.
I do not think we should rule out other methods of analysis because our limited thinking cannot yet understand or accept them. However, we use logic to accept the basis for muscle palpation as an analytical tool. I would also like to see some logical basis for other approaches rather than simply an experiential basis. I realize for some people experience is a valid criteria but based on experience everything works sometimes. Even flipping a coin makes you right 50% of the time. Based on logic some things do not make sense or at least do not make sense given the unique and narrow objective of the straight chiropractor.
The first one involves an article by the president of a chiropractic college who says that we should adopt the term “chiropractic medicine” to describe what we do since people often refer to our practice as chiropractic medicine. Actually, people rarely call it that. In fact, I almost never hear that term. Of course, I associate more often than not with people who are not trying to mix chiropractic with medicine. Thirty-five years ago when I started my practice, a few people came into my office to have bunions removed because they thought I was a chiropodist. I imagine some chiropodists had people come into their office with back problems. However, they have since changed their name to podiatrists which has pretty much cleared up that confusion and more accurately describes what they do.
This president notes that, “We are left with inadequate explanations when members of the public say ‘but how would you treat medical conditions?’ Medical conditions? What exactly are those anyway? Well, apparently they are things that occur which are somehow only treatable by allopaths--at least that is what we are lead (sic) to believe.” The easy answer to the question is the one I use, “We do not treat medical conditions.” That is surely simple enough. In fact, there really is no other answer to that question. If there is no such thing as a medical condition, as he seems to be saying, then all conditions are treatable by a chiropractor. It may be that he is inferring that chiropractors are qualified to treat all conditions, even highly contagious or life-threatening ones. However, I am inclined to think that he would be the first to say that there are conditions a chiropractor cannot treat that necessitate the care of a medical doctor. What then would we call allopathic conditions? Any alternative he would suggest would make things more confusing than they already are. However his objective is not to help people better understand the role of the chiropractor and that is where the issue of honesty comes in. His goal is to merge or blend the role of the chiropractor with that of the allopathic medical doctor. (We would have to refer to them as allopathic medical doctors because we would be chiropractic medical doctors if we practiced chiropractic medicine.) The resulting confusion tends to obliterate the lines of demarcation between the two professions.
The second example involves a chiropractor who is a known critic of straight chiropractic and sees himself as a specialist in backache care. He attacked one of the articles in The Pivot Review saying it was out of the “mainstream” of chiropractic. Of course it is. The Pivot Review is not written for the mainstream backache specialists. This particular article was for straight chiropractors who wander accidentally into the backache field. The one striking example of his less than honest analysis is his interpretation of a thought in the April issue. I said, “We need to confront people’s desires for chiropractic care gently and kindly but honestly and directly.” Both the person coming into the office and the chiropractor need to be on the same page. I think any chiropractor would agree with this regardless of how he or she practices. There has to be agreement regarding objectives. I guess if you confine your efforts to backaches, that is pretty well understood. However, if people come to a chiropractor expecting something other than backache care or if the chiropractor is offering something other than backache care, there needs to be an understanding between them. The chiropractor follows my quote with the following statement: “In other words, if a patient wants to talk about their pain and suffering, tell them to stuff it...” Now tell me, does telling someone to “stuff it” qualify as “gently and kindly” confronting someone’s desire “to talk about their pain and suffering.” The remainder of his article is full of similar attacks and misrepresentations which are very inflammatory and full of “hyperbolic rhetoric.” Oddly enough, he says at the outset that he respects me more than other “straight” writers because I “write in a logical non-inflammatory way.” Unfortunately, he does not respond in kind.
Much of the remainder of his article is akin to what the third writer does, lumping my writings with those of B.J., traditional straights, and what he calls “the quasi-religious writers.” This last author, writing for a National publication, calls chiropractic philosophy an attempt at presenting a religious doctrine. I agree that some of the writings of our predecessors could lead one to think that but surely mine do not. I think we have made that abundantly clear by this point in time. In the third example, the chiropractor takes the following statement from Chiropractic Philosophy out of context, “God is omnipresent, unswerving, without solicitude, immutable, all of which are characteristic of Universal Intelligence.” He in turn writes, “This again supports the idea that Universal Intelligence is God and that Universal Intelligence is the theological construct.” What he fails to quote is the next sentence in which I write, “God is love, justice and has personality, none of which Universal Intelligence has.”
We need dialogue and we need constructive criticism of our chiropractic ideas. However, it seems that our opponents like to take what we say out of context, build straw men, lump us with discarded chiropractic ideas when convenient, align the objective straights with the traditional chiropractors, and then attack their ideas. We need honesty, not emotional attacks, distortions and subterfuges. Surely our philosophy is not such a threat that it requires such questionable