The chiropractic profession is at a unique stage in its history. The objectives of both aspects of the profession (straight and mixing) have been clearly realized by the leadership. However, it appears that those objectives and their results have not been adequately communicated to the profession at large.
It is clear (to me at least) why the mixing leadership of the profession has not elucidated their position. Without doubt 90% of the profession would reject it. Occasionally a spokesperson for the broadscope mindset (mixer) of the profession will present their position too clearly and will create a stir (as in the case of a certain legal counsel recently). Once in a while a rational thinking mixer will suggest that chiropractors use drugs or perform minor surgery. Everyone will rise up in protest. However the poor fellow is only carrying out broadscope chiropractic to its logical conclusion. But for the most part the objectives and direction of the mixing element of the profession are clouded in secrecy, if, in fact, they do have direction.
On the other end of the spectrum is the straight mindset of the profession. They have clearly defined objectives. The only problem is the vast majority of the profession, while knowing the objective, do not know the rationale behind it and why it is sound. Perhaps it is time we communicated the rationale! The time is right to explain it on many fronts.
The straights provide for the consumer a non-duplicating approach to legislative situations. It presents, not something that will confuse the legislator as to whether we are trying to infringe upon the practice of medicine, but a clear approach that is different. It can be clearly shown that it is not an alternative to medicine and gives the legislator the opportunity to support and pass chiropractic legislation without offending the strong medical lobby. The problem of malpractice is facing every chiropractor. The straights claim (and I believe correctly claim) that the straight approach is the safest, most easily defendable way to practice chiropractic. We need to communicate to the profession what we do, what we don’t do, what we say to patients and how that gives us greater protection from possible litigation than if we practiced broadscope chiropractic. In this case I am told there are even statistics to substantiate this.
As previously mentioned, 90% of the profession do not want to see chiropractic go the way of osteopathy. The straight approach prevents that, the broadscope approach guarantees it. It can be logically shown. I am told a number of the leaders in chiropractic education who have left the straight position within the past twenty years have suddenly awakened, looked around and seen that they are traveling the “osteopathic highway.” Contrary to popular belief, the straight approach is a more professional, more respected approach. The doctor, by being able to clearly explain his objectives to the community at large is considered a legitimate member of the health care community and not some flim-flam, con man. The majority of our profession, mixer and straight alike, is sick of this type of chiropractor and the practice management programs that breed them. They have no place in professional chiropractic. Unfortunately, the free x-rays, volume practices, low or patient-determined fees, heavy advertising that many straights have done in the past cause the straight movement to be associated with this type of practice which is not compatible with straight chiropractic. The profession needs to know the difference. Increased service with the straight objective in mind is professional, not gimmicky. That distinction needs to be made.
Third-party overutilization is also a problem. The straight position does not allow for the dishonest bilking of insurance companies. The broadscope approach actually encourages this by adding on unnecessary procedures. Almost everyone in our profession is concerned with this and how it can hurt chiropractic inclusion in further health care programs.
The straight rationale is pro-scientific research. It is research which will demonstrate the detrimental effects of the vertebral subluxation and the valuable service of correcting them and thus enhance chiropractic recognition and respect. The research being done by the mixing element of the profession is merely duplicating the tired, old medical research into disease conditions and their treatment. Research in the straight arena is exciting.
Practice success is a difficult area in which to communicate the superiority of the straight approach over the mixing approach. Quite frankly, you can make a lot more money mixing than you can practicing straight. But you can practice straight chiropractic and make an awful lot of money, more than you need. Perhaps I am naive (that’s been suggested before) but I believe money is not the most important thing in life for most chiropractors. The practice rewards of fulfillment, self-esteem, helping people, contributing to society in general and your community in particular are much greater when practicing straight chiropractic. It’s more fun, too! We need to communicate this idea to those who don’t make the dollar number one. Even those who are primarily interested in money could be convinced to change their priority if all of these areas were adequately presented.
The time is right for a position paper to be written by the leaders of the straight movement. These seven areas merely came off the top of my head. I am sure there are more. Some organization or individual should be commissioned to put together this information in a clear logical manner. No haranguing, no stone throwing, or nasty name calling, just a clear, concise explanation of the superiority of the straight philosophical approach to chiropractic. Perhaps for the first time in the history of chiropractic the entire profession is ready to accept it. v4n3