A Readers Question #2

A reader posted the following comment
“Joe- It seems good reason to me that there should be no distinctive “types” of chiropractors at all. You either are practicing chiropractic, or you are not. Of course, when I make this statement in a public forum there is always one individual that makes the following statement, “why do you get to decide what the practice of chiropractic is?”. The answer simply is that no one has the right to change the definition of chiropractic.
As a profession I see chiropractic as already defined. There already is a definition of chiropractic. It is our job as the professional of this profession, to know what chiropractic is and how to practice it.” What I gather from this post is that we want to know, (the writer already has his opinion):
Who gets to define what is the practice of chiropractic?
That question/statement seems to be the major argument of TSC. I cannot understand why. It was answered in 1974 when Louisiana, the last state in the U.S., to do so, licensed chiropractic. When chiropractors agreed to be licensed and practice under the aegis of the state, chiropractors gave up the right to define chiropractic. The state government gets to define chiropractic, to answer the above question. Thus far, that is good or at least it is better than allowing the Federal government to do it. We experienced that situation some years back, when the federal government decided it was no longer the right of the state or individual municipalities to determine what the maximum speed limit should be. Their reasoning was that since they gave the states “federal money” to repair the roads, they should make the laws and they decided that 55 mph should be the limit. Interestingly, the “federal money” is taken from people who are residents of states. Apparently the old states rights issue once again came up. (Remember we fought a war over that issue for 4 years beginning in 1861 in which hundreds of thousands of Americans on both sides of the issue died) The victors got to pass a law (the XIII amendment to the U.S. Constitution to settle the issue once and for all, at least as to whether individuals in states had the right to own slaves). Since they could not get the 55 mph speed limit written into the Constitution and since the Constitution, rightly so, gives rights not outlined in the Constitution to the states, slowly but surely the states began to take back speed limit laws.
Aegis is defined (for those who have yet to look it up) as”means of defense, a safeguard.” The question is who is the law meant to defend and safeguard. Apparently all laws are meant to safeguard and protect everybody. The Constitution is designed to insure that the individual state, municipality and citizens are given the right to establish the laws. That’s why the state charged with protecting and safeguarding the state highways can set the speed limit at 40, 55, 65, or 70 (in my state) whatever they feel is best under the circumstances (my understanding is that in certain parts of West Texas the speed limit is “use your common sense”, which is great unless you are an idiot or an armadillo in which case you probably won’t last very long on the highways of West Texas). However the municipality can set the speed limit at 15mph in school zones. They also recognize that 15 mph is not a needed safeguard on Saturdays and Sundays and so alter the speed limit laws to “only when flashing “ or during the times when the kiddies are walking to and from school. I think it works well. Imagine if we had some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. establishing the speed limit in Blandon, PA.
The laws concerning the practice of chiropractic are meant to defend and safeguard everybody, the chiropractor and general public alike. It limits the chiropractor to only being free to do certain things the state believes he is trained and competent in doing and protects him as long as he is staying within those limits, safeguarding him from civil and criminal prosecution and inter and intraprofessional persecution. State by state, the individual states created laws concerning the practice of chiropractic and with the passage of the law in Louisiana, all the states representing every chiropractor in the country in effect said , “D.D. and B.J. Palmer no longer have the right to define chiropractic. That right now belongs to the individual states. The states have the right to define chiropractic and by the duly elected representatives of the people, the right to change the definition and practice of chiropractic.” Today we are seeing battles in state legislatures to change the state laws, battles that have been going on since the first state passed the first law regulating chiropractic. Chiropractic is no longer what B.J. said it was in 1906, 1927, 1961 or 1976 when the FSCO was formed . It’s what the individual states say it is in 2014 or thereafter. That makes chiropractic almost like everything else these days, a matter of politics in a republic fast degenerating into a democracy which amounts to majority rule. The problem is that very few people know and the majority don’t care what B.J. said chiropractic was at any time. Fortunately, B.J. and those around him left us with certain principles , 33 in number that can provide, not a law but a foundation for the practice and definition of chiropractic based upon reason and logic.