An interesting television program, of which I only caught the last few minutes, was broadcast the other evening. It was a documentary on alcohol and drug abuse. There was one especially interesting point brought out. Doctors evaluating alcoholics have heretofore realized the effects of alcohol on the liver, but recently they have come to the realization that alcohol effects every cell of the body. It is just that the most obvious effects occurred in the liver. Now we could have told them that! Our chiropractic philosophy teaches us that every cell is related to and dependent on every other cell, and that what affects one affects all. Hopefully, medical science will begin to apply this principle that they have noted with regard to alcohol abuse to all diseases. I am not implying that alcoholism is a disease but if they (the medical profession) believe it is and they see this principle demonstrated in alcoholism, will they logically conclude that it is applicable to other diseases also? I doubt they will. But if by some chance they do, they will come a little closer to recognizing the concept of DIS-EASE and understanding the effects of nerve interference due to vertebral subluxation upon the human organism. We chiropractors do not relate to disease as part of our professional objective nor the effects of disease upon the entire body but there are principles applicable to us. The important principle in chiropractic, too often overlooked with our "pressure on the nerve, Meric Chart mentality" is that nerve interference does cause DIS-EASE and DIS-EASE is a state in which every cell in the body is affected negatively. Those of our profession who practice upper cervical specific technique are a constant reminder to the rest of us of that principle. I hope we always have the HIO practitioner to keep us from falling into the "this bone is out, putting pressure on this nerve, going to this organ, causing this problem" trap. A subluxation affects every cell in the human body! We need to keep reminding ourselves that we deal with individuals in a state of DIS-EASE.
CHIROPRACTICAND THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS Does chiropractic fit into the environmental movement? Many chiropractors feel that having a "natural" approach to health aligns us with environmentalists. There are some applications of the principle outlined in the preceding article entitled "Dis-ease" that enable us to better understand our role as chiropractors in our society. One of the arguments of the environmentalists is that every cell or living thing in the universe affects every other. Their argument is further strengthened by a principle that we use in chiropractic philosophy that which is true in the perceptible realm is also true in the imperceptible realm. As an example, if you drop a brick into a bucket of water, the level of the water raises in proportion to the mass of the brick (Law of Displacement of Fluids). Similarly, if you drop a brick into Lake Erie the lake will rise by the mass of the brick. It is obviously imperceptible and impossible to measure, yet the principle remains true. How does all of this relate to chiropractic, the environmentalists, and the world? It is both true and part of our philosophy that every organism and even every cell affects every other and that there is a relationship between life forms. However, the concept is only practical and effective as long as we realize that everything in the universe affects us and thus conduct our lives accordingly. In understanding that principle we work toward enabling ourselves to effectively adapt to what in chiropractic is referred to as universal forces. As long as we do this everything appears to be fine. The converse is also true. Everything we do affects every cell in the universe, to some degree. Unfortunately, the realization of that fact often precipitates action that is not in accordance with our chiropractic philosophy. Realizing we can affect the universe by our actions, we may become arrogant and attempt to make changes in nature, or the world (our state, our profession, or other people) rather than confining our attention to self. I may view the above attempt as minding my own business. Before jumping to a conclusion here that this view is selfish and only caring about #1, hear me out. This is fundamental and of paramount importance. If there is, in fact, a relationship between myself and the universe, then by improving myself, my quality of life and life expression (physically, mentally, and spiritually), I am improving the whole of the universe, without meddling in the affairs of or, excuse the expression, encroaching upon someone else's "space." This is the essential difference between the environmentalist and the chiropractor. Since the environmentalist thinks of us as all "cells of the universal body" let us look at the situation in light of human function. A human cell does not worry about changing the environment of the rest of the body. Neither does it attempt to change the environment that surrounds it. It merely works (under the direction of greater wisdom) to adapt itself to its environment whatever that environment might be. Likewise the innate intelligence of the body works to adapt the entire organism to the ever-changing environment. The innate intelligence of my body does not try to change the functioning of other people's bodies. Moreover, the educated brain's objective is to enable the organism to better adapt to its environment. With these two examples before us, how do we have the arrogance to attempt to change the environment? We know that every cell, paying attention to its own needs and adapting to the environment, results in a healthy organism without thinking or worrying about it. Heart cells do not worry about the kidney cells. They just take their orders from the wisdom of the body and leave the kidney to do the same. However, the heart cells "know" that by being the best they can be, the kidney is better off. If each of us paid attention to ourselves, and endeavored to be the best possible expression of life, not worrying about the universe or trying to change the world, then the world will change within its limitation. (Those limitations exist even if we attempt to change nature.) All the well-meaning people who dragged the beached whales off the shore were frustrated as the whales repeatedly beached themselves. Perhaps the whales were responding to a universal force and the environmentalists were meddling. We really can't change or alter the universal scheme of things. What we need to do is make sure we are adapting to our greatest potential. Chiropractors understand this principle. The environmentalists have yet to learn it.
PREVENTING SUBLUXATIONS
Should chiropractors try to prevent subluxations in their patients? Without a doubt this is one of the most controversial questions among the straights. Many sincere young chiropractors have a concern that by not looking for the cause of subluxations, we are adjusting "effects" and allowing patients to go out and re-subluxate themselves. We all realize that chiropractors cannot go around picking up every banana peel on the sidewalk to prevent people from slipping, but are there things we can do? Are there things we should do? Each chiropractor has to make the decision for himself and obviously the extremes of the issue exist. There are chiropractors who would not even recommend a firm mattress and others who use every modality, device, and procedure, justifying it by virtue of their intent to "prevent subluxations." There are emotional factors involved. There are things which we as doctors of chiropractic perceive as common sense and yet we see that patients don't understand these things. Should we tell them? Trying to settle as complex an issue as this in a short article is virtually impossible. But, there are some philosophical thoughts that can be examined. There are numerous problems, some practical, some philosophical, that are involved with trying to prevent subluxations. 1. Trying to prevent subluxations involves making judgments for patients. That is: A. Philosophically unsound making a determination concerning a patient's lifestyle in order to help prevent subluxations is saying "my educated intelligence knows better how to handle your universal forces than does the innate intelligence of your body." The philosophy of chiropractic maintains that the patient's body knows better what its needs and limitations are. B. Practically impossible to make a halfway intelligent decision would necessitate omniscience and omnipresence. The doctor would have to follow the patient 24 hours a day.
2. Trying to prevent subluxations fosters the medical concept that man can and should make decisions for his fellow man. Making decisions is one of the most important aspects of life. There are two schools of thought on the subject of making decisions: A. People are products of their decisions. This is the inside-out approach. It maintains that an individual's decisions create the environment in which he lives. This school of thought fits into the chiropractic philosophy. B. People are products of their environment, that environment causes decisions. This is the outside-in approach and is espoused by most of the medical community. The first group says that decisions regarding diet, rest, exercise and getting adjustments cause diseases. Those who adhere to the second school of thought say that germs cause disease. The inside-out group says that decisions resulting in a body not working properly and decisions to abuse the body result in creating an internal environment that makes the body susceptible to pollen in the air. The outside-in group disagrees, saying that the environment in the form of ragweed pollen causes hay fever and ultimately causes the decision that you should move to Arizona. Many decisions are made in ignorance but a decision made in ignorance is still a decision and if we must place responsibility for that decision it is always with the person making it. If I decide to drive 40 mph in a 25 mph speed zone it is my decision. Even if I'm ignorant of the speed limit I am still culpable. If you don't believe that, try telling the police officer you should not get a ticket because you didn't know what the speed limit was. Here's the point. If we accept that people are products of their own decisions and we deny people the opportunity to make decisions, we reduce the product or reduce the quality of that person's life. Why don't parents continue to make decisions for their children as long as they live? The answer is obvious. Our adult offspring would remain intellectual children. There was a movie made some years ago called "The Stepford Wives." The men in a small New England town drugged their wives with a substance that would make them sweet, obedient, dutiful housewives. The side-effect, which was not really a side-effect but the actual desired effect, was that they were zombies with no ability to think. Do you see the analogy? By telling people how to live their lives in order to prevent subluxations, we are creating health zombies, people with no ability to think for themselves. It may be great for the ego of the doctor, but it is bad for the health of the patient. 3. Trying to prevent subluxations takes away the patient's responsibility. Is that bad? After all, many people don't want responsibility. But if we take away responsibility we also take away freedom. The greater the responsibility the greater the freedom; less responsibility, less freedom. Some people are apparently willing to give up their responsibility and freedom for security. In discussing this issue in a philosophy class, I once mentioned that if you want no responsibility, then you should somehow get yourself committed to a prison. There you will have plenty of security, three meals and a roof over your head, guaranteed, but no freedom. A student argued that you have no security in prison, at least no security in your person. You can be raped or killed in prison. He was right. When you take away responsibility, you take away freedom and you leave a false security. In a capitalistic society you have responsibility for success or failure and the freedom to pursue either, thus giving the potential for security. In a communistic society you have no responsibility, no freedom, and only false security. You are only as secure as the system and the whims of those running the system. Many a Russian has felt secure one day and has been on his way to Siberia the next. Being free to lock yourself in your home or buy a gun to protect yourself is true security. Being in prison is false personal security. Many a senior citizen can tell you about a false system of financial security called Social Security. The truly secure ones are those who are free and responsible enough to invest their money wisely. The patient's security is only as good as the doctor who has taken away his freedom and responsibility. If the doctor's whims, knowledge, or thinking changes, the patient is out in the cold. Doctors do retire and die. If you really want to take responsibility for your patients' health, do it properly adopt them! 4. Giving advice in order to prevent subluxations has to be one of the most frustrating things one can do. It really is rather arrogant to believe that people are going to listen to you when they have ignored their medical doctor, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and all the other authorities, especially when these other authorities are making recommendations to prevent having a painful disease that people have seen others succumb to. There you are, trying to give advice to prevent the unseen and unfelt, seemingly innocuous vertebral subluxation. As a philosopher, I never thought I'd say it, but... let's be practical! Herocles of Ephesus, a 5th century B.C. philosopher once said "the easiest thing in the world to do is give advice, the hardest thing is to know yourself." Trying to prevent subluxations involves getting people to be a better expression of their innate intelligence, which is knowing yourself understanding your body, its needs, its potential and its limitations. There is one final important point to make on this subject. Not giving advice to people to prevent subluxations is not an excuse for a lack of patient education. We should be educating our patients about health, chiropractic, and understanding their bodies needs and limitations. What then is the difference between patient education and giving advice? Patient education can be done on a group basis and, for practical purposes, must be done on a group basis. Advice must be given on an individual basis. Here is an interesting irony. Chiropractic deals with a personal application of health (patients living in accordance with the dictates of their innate intelligence) and therefore must be explained impersonally (in a group.) Advice, on the other hand, deals with an impersonal application of health (conforming people to a standard of lifestyle, e.g. sit this way, do this exercise, eat this food.) It may be slightly different for each patient (although it usually isn't), however, it is still someone else's standard, not the patient's innate standard. Advice must be given personally. How can you tell whether you are giving advice or doing patient education? If the information you are imparting could be given to a group of people, it is probably patient education. If the information is specifically meant for that person, it is probably advice. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is generally applicable.
