One would think that with straight chiropractic becoming an organized entity in the past decade it would be much easier to identify chiropractic and chiropractors. However, it does not appear to be the case. Sadly, there is more confusion now about what is straight chiropractic and what is not than there was at the start of the 80's. Clearly, what was straight chiropractic in the 20's is not the same straight chiropractic as we enter the decade of the nineties. Whether the roots or the objectives are the same is a moot point. Straight chiropractic today is a new entity. It is not traditional chiropractic or even "B.J. chiropractic, " although most feel if B.J. were alive today, he would embrace the philosophy of 1990 straight chiropractic. There are many "forms" of chiropractic in existence today and it is somewhat naive to hold to the idea that there is "only one chiropractic." In reality no one has a claim on what chiropractic is but B.J. and D.D.. Neither of them is with us and, frankly, their writings vacillate and wander to such a degree that we have many different chiropractors practicing chiropractic and claiming it is "B.J. chiropractic." Much confusion lies within the so-called straight chiropractic movement itself. Various forms of chiropractic technique are being practiced based upon different philosophies under the banner of straight chiropractic. Sadly, today there are almost as many variations and degrees of straight chiropractic as there are mixing chiropractic and that is a pretty strong statement . All who call themselves straight chiropractors are not straight chiropractors. Perhaps it is time that many should disassociate themselves from the straight chiropractic movement; for they are confusing the public as to what straight chiropractic is almost as much as the mixer is confusing them about chiropractic in general. Part of the problem lies in the stigma we have created in being something other than a straight chiropractor. The term "mixer" or whatever term is used to describe the non-straight is usually said in an effort to anathematize someone. Unfortunately, we only have two categories, straights and mixers, and every chiropractor who is not trying to treat disease assumes he is a straight. Just because your objective is not to alleviate disease and/or its symptoms does not mean you are practicing straight chiropractic. In discussion awhile back with some chiropractors who identified themselves as straight, but were openly practicing a new and different technique, I suggested that what they were doing was not straight chiropractic. Needless to say, they were offended and not the least bit defensive. When I indicated that just because it was not straight chiropractic did not mean it was bad, they were somewhat placated. Then I proposed that what they were doing could even be superior to straight chiropractic (although I really did not believe that). At that suggestion they were visibly elated and even indicated that if I investigated this new technique and the philosophy behind it, I would be convinced that it was better than straight chiropractic ("merely" adjusting "vertebral" subluxations). Let's understand that we are not talking about different techniques to accomplish the same objective. When one discusses a technique being superior to all other techniques on a general basis, he has left the realm of straight chiropractic. True, various techniques may be better under certain circumstances and for certain patients, but chiropractic deals with objectives not technique and from a chiropractic philosophical viewpoint all techniques are created equal as long as their objective is the same. It is somewhat embarrassing for us as straight chiropractors to admit that many in our professional movement are not practicing straight chiropractic yet we are not condemning them, all the while we disparage the mixer who combines a chiropractic objective with a medical objective. Apparently, the mixer feels he is doing something better or superior to merely correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the innate intelligence of the body to better express itself. We cannot very well condemn him when many in our movement are removing new interference "above Atlas" or somewhere other than at the vertebral level. We can ignore these aberrations of straight chiropractic and wait for them to leave the straight chiropractic movement. They will usually leave of their own accord, not wanting to associate with us "unenlightened" individuals. But the confusion and damage they do during that interim usually leaves our profession much the worse. Attacking them causes division and discord and the straight movement has had more than enough of that. The only other alternative is to reiterate what straight chiropractic is, why practicing it is superior to any other types of chiropractic and let logical, thinking people draw their own conclusions. In the next few issues of The Pivot we will endeavor to develop a sort of chiropractic apologetics. We will explore the philosophical, practical, legal, historical, and logical reasoning for practicing straight chiropractic and nothing else.
SIMPLISTIC CHIROPRACTIC
Man, historically, has looked for a simplistic approach to disease. At one time or another it was believed that all illness was caused by demons, night air, "bad humors" and various other entities. Even in modern times medicine has embraced this idea hence the development of so-called miracle drugs. It was in this atmosphere that D.D. Palmer discovered the cure for what he believed to be all disease. While many early practitioners held to this idea with an almost religious fervor, it has passed into part of our history. Later it was suggested that he really meant DIS-EASE. B.J. was a complex man who looked for simplistic answers. As a result he developed the HIO technique in order to simplify the correction of vertebral subluxation confining it to the atlanto-axial region. While most of our profession has abandoned this position there is still a simplistic attitude that pervades much of the chiropractic profession. Perhaps man has changed very little in the last thousand or so years in his attitude. He still looks for monocausal theories of disease and simplistic cures. Remove the offending organ and you have cured the problem. Simple solution. Pop a pill, what could be simpler than that! The cure for every dreaded disease will one day be discovered in a laboratory and will be condensed into a simple tablet or single injection. Medicine still has a simplistic approach, but we are no better than our medical brethren. A large segment of our profession is still simplistic. Oddly enough, however, despite the charges of the antagonist of the straight movement, it is not the straight. He has long abandoned the simplistic monocausal theory of disease and simple adjustment to cure all of man's ills. No, it is the broadscope practitioner who still tenaciously holds to a simplistic approach. The proof of this is in his conclusion that he can adequately approach all aspects of health and disease. The straight says that the diagnosis of disease is a complex art and that practiced by the best trained it leaves much to be desired. It is better left to the specialist, especially since it does not help us in accomplishing our objective. But the broadscope practitioner believes it cannot be that difficult. It can be mastered along with the chiropractic art. The broadscope practitioner also desires to be a doctor of the "total person" as a recent ACA publication put it. However, as disease is a complex matter, likewise is health. It is rather simplistic to think that one can be an expert in both disease and health. Both are complex areas of the human experience. The straight therefore desires to stay out of the disease area and focus his attention on health or at least one aspect of health, the vertebral subluxation. Health involves genetic, nutritional and environmental factors as well as many others. To believe that one can address all these needs is oversimplifying to the point of naiveté. Yet when members of our profession attempt to address the dietary, exercise and every other need of the patient, is that not the message they are conveying? Are they not saying, "the care of the human body is a relatively simple matter. Despite my relatively limited education I can make the necessary decisions for you regarding your health and, if need be, disease. Granted, the human body is a complex organism, granted the factors that influence it both positively and negatively are complex. But I have reduced these factors to such a simplistic point that you the patient should put your complete trust and faith in me for I am the total doctor and if by chance you have a condition outside my area of expertise I will know and be able to refer you to the proper specialist." The human organism is complex. There are no simplistic solutions to its problems. But there are principles. If we utilize those principles we have help in sorting out the complexities. Medical doctors address disease, chiropractors do not. That's a principle. Chiropractors deal with one aspect of health that impinges greatly on the human species, the relationship between the vertebral column and the nervous system. That is a principle. By acknowledging the complexity of the human organism and our inability to be "total doctors," our profession will change from the image in society of simplistic, naive, semiprofessionals who believe they have all the answers, to professionals with a proper position worthy of respect from all levels of that society.
WORKING TOGETHER
There has been much discussion recently concerning chiropractors getting together, putting aside their philosophical differences and working together. So what's new? Aside from personalities, the problem seems to center around the mixers and straights. If we are to get together it would help to outline the practical problems that must be overcome from both sides. Below is, at best, only a starting point but it is a beginning. Mixers and straights can get together if we can convince the mixers that: 1. Straights, with their non-diagnostic approach to chiropractic, are not a threat to society. 2. The straight philosophy that says "symptoms are not an indication of health, and treatment of disease is a no-win situation" is not that radical a departure from mainstream thinking. 3. Straight chiropractors with their philosophy and the fervor with which they espouse it will not take patients from their offices. 4. Chiropractic education is moving in the wrong direction. It needs less materia medica and more philosophy and technique. 5. We need 200,000 more chiropractors in the United States alone at this moment to care for the spinal subluxation needs of the population and it will not overcrowd the profession. 6. Should the straight become the dominant political force in the profession, he will not pass legislation to outlaw mixing or force the mixer to give up the title "chiropractor."
Mixers and straights can get together if we can convince the straights that: 1. There is no danger to the public when chiropractors perform traditionally medical procedures.
2. Mixing does not confuse the public as to what chiropractic is. 3. Chiropractic will not go the way of osteopathy. That with a predominantly mixing understanding of chiropractic it will be virtually impossible for anyone to have their subluxations corrected a few generations from now. 4. A good chiropractic education really equips the doctor to recognize normal, abnormal, and disease in all its stages and to know what every one of the 25 trillion needs of the body is at any given moment. 5. The " outside-in" philosophy of life in general and health in particular is correct and that the chiropractic profession should be part of it. 6. Broadening state laws in chiropractic will allow him to continue to practice as he wants and not be forced into a "standard of care" that violates his philosophy.
The above are real problems and must be addressed. The argument is often put forth by those who look for unification that we have a common enemy in medicine and that we should unite against it. The problem with this argument is that the straight chiropractor looks at chiropractic through his philosophy. In order to unify you must have things in common. From a philosophical viewpoint, broadscope chiropractic has a great deal more in common with medicine than it does with straight chiropractic. In fact, if we define chiropractic and medicine by their objectives, the major difference between mixing chiropractic and medicine is the only thing that straight and mixing have in common--a name. Our common name is a good start for getting together. Unfortunately, where do we go after that? You cannot base unification on a name only. If East and West Germany are to unify they must do it based upon more than just the fact that they have a common name. They have contrasting ideologies, that of socialism and capitalism, and if they are to get together, one or the other or both will have to abandon theirs. Straights are not willing to abandon their philosophy and I seriously doubt whether very many mixers are either. We have just as contrasting a philosophy as do East and West Germany. The straight believes that the entire philosophy of "outside-in, below-up" of which medicine is only a part is not valid as a health care system. The mixer believes in that system but feels it can be improved upon. He feels that the drugless, conservative, alternative approach to treatment of disease that his brand of chiropractic offers is an improvement. The entire system is of questionable value because it is based upon a false philosophy (OIBU). True, it has its good points and it has accomplished some relatively good things. But the Nixon administration accomplished some good also. Communism has some relatively good points. East Germany for its size and population turns out great athletic teams. But when it comes down to the important things in life, apparently the thousands of East Germans rushing to the West do not think an Olympic Gold Medal is high on the list. The point is that the OIBU system of treating symptoms and disease does not meet man's real needs and as long as a segment of our profession desires to be a part of that system and a segment wishes to change it we will never get together.
