One way I know B.J. was much smarter than me: when he published an epigram, it was succinct and anybody reading it would say “that makes perfect sense!” I, on the other hand, post a thought on the blog and it ends up creating discussion and comments. Last week, I published the following:
Old Chiropractic Tolerance- accepting/respecting therapeutic chiropractors even though their procedures and actions were unacceptable.
New Chiropractic Tolerance-considering their procedures and actions as now acceptable.
The new tolerance will lead to the destruction of our profession.
Apparently, how I define (understand) tolerance is not how others do and my desire for brevity made my post incomplete. When I wrote that my “old tolerance” was accepting therapeutic chiropractors but not accepting their procedures, I apparently was not clear. To clarify, I hate mixing, in any way, shape, or form. I wish it did not exist. I wish it never occurred. I hope it ends some day. But I do not hate mixers. I have no desire to see it outlawed. I respect their right to practice as they do as long as it is within the law of their state. Mixing will never be acceptable to me, whether it is putting on a hot pack or prescribing a drug or treating a headache with an “adjustment.” Mixing (and straight, for that matter) is a philosophical issue, not a political one. I do not feel comfortable depriving someone of his right to legally earn a living even if he disagrees with me philosophically. In that sense, I am tolerant. I would rather convince him of the superiority of my manner of practice and see him change but unable to do that, I accept that we are both chiropractors because that is what the law says. But I will never accept it as part of chiropractic. That is where the “new and old tolerance” differ. Some chiropractors cannot see that so they draw the line, not at the chiropractic objective like I do but at “drugless” for example. They can tolerate the hot pack. That is the “new tolerance” but they oppose prescriptions (that is irrational). That said, unfortunately there are therapeutic chiropractors who want to make this philosophical difference a political issue and they are intolerant of my approach. They are trying to force me to practice therapeutic chiropractic. So, in an effort to protect my approach, at times I must be political. They are not willing to respect me as I respect them. I’m sure this is not the last word on this issue and since it was not meant to be a universally accepted epigram feel free to continue the discussion.
Two things Joe
1. BJ wrote several times on how easy and quickly he could write a book and how long and difficult it was to express “an idea”.
2. Is that not the point of a blog, to start a conversation?
and
C. Your knowledge and clarity in OSC is why I return to this site over and over again. It’s why I ask questions and why I put my opinions out there, to be criticized and or corrected. YOU DA MAN, besides what chiropractic is and what many chiropractors do is not the same, we all know that. (Just like what Christianity is and what many Christians do is not always congruent.)
1. I’ve heard that BJ said producing an epigram took longer than a book. So where did he get the time to write so many of both?
2. No, the purpose of my blog is to torment people with my thoughts! 🙂
C. That is the key Steve. All kidding aside, the purpose of this blog is so that we all can develop congruency in our chiropractic…. and hopefully in every other area of our life. Thank you for you comment. No need for criticism or correction on this one. Good points and thank you for the compliment but I am only A man learning and growing (hopefully)like everyone else.
He went to bed at 8 and got up to write at 2-3-4 am when innate could speak “uninterrupted”(his explanation not mine). Paraphrased he said, give me a week and I’ll write a book, a month for a chapter, a year for a paragraph and yet longer to express a single clean clear idea. He wrote extensively on condensing thoughts and avoiding redundancy and superfluous words (I believe he used the term “goatfeathers”) in his book on RADIO SALESMANSHIP
I liked answer #2
Steve, you wrote about BJ,
“He wrote extensively on condensing thoughts and avoiding redundancy and superfluous words (I believe he used the term “goatfeathers”) in his book on RADIO SALESMANSHIP” It’s a shame BJ did not follow that advice in some of his Green Books! Or perhaps it was because he knew that repitition is the best teacher. Hmm…now I know where Reggie got his speaking style. That being the case, why is it we don’t bother to continually repeat the chiropractic big idea to our practice members? Personally, I believe it involves a four letter word, L-A-Z-Y. And that is an admonishment to all of us, especially myself!
I do believe you are quite right, guilty as charged
Little bit off the subject here, in a way, But: How do you explain to your patients that chiro is not for pain when people always come in saying this or that hurts? I know I have set this up in my practice and am now trying to get away from it. You all may not have this problem as you have tried to set the record straight, pardon the pun, right away. but i am sure you still get this? I sometimes feel like I am uncaring to say it is not for pain, when that is what they are seeking. I think it must be in the way and tone that it is stated that comes off as caring or not, right!? I am just having a time retraining myself much less my patients when I still live and treat my some of my kids and some of my patients therapeutically.
try saying, “you know Joe, your pain has a purpose, what purpose do you think your _____ pain has?… This adjustment also has a purpose, do you remember what I told you the purpose of the adjustment was?” a couple of times and they will probably stop asking.
You’re correct Robert, pain does have a purpose…but I’m not sure we can know or they can know what that purpose is. We like to think that it is the body’s warning system but in conveying that to people we may give them the mistaken impression that it is a small fire in the basement that we can easily put out when in fact the whole building is coming down on their head. I like your idea of getting them back to the purpose of the adjustment but we need for them to know that the pain may mean nothing, (the body is adapting well), it may mean the body is failing to adapt and it may mean the body has failed and passed limitations of matter. We just do not know and so we do not relate to symptoms but we do relate to the purpose of the adjustment.
We acknowledge the pain and if not too awkward touch the area to reinforce the recognition of their bodies expression. That symptom is important to the person and should therefore be important to us even though we DO NOT base our care on the presence or absence of symptoms. We do not want to belittle or devalue the patient or their situation (symptom).
Then we explain, like a blood test or urine analysis, pain is an indicator or sign, one of many, but it does not tell us where, how or when to adjust. And since we only adjust when and where they are subluxated, “let’s get you on the table and see if you need an adjustment”. Use the opportunity to reinforce the objective goal of your work LACVS. (in your own mind as well as the patients)
Nice, thanks!
Great presentation of this huge issue. Thank U Joe. Yes people mostly come due to symptoms, and we increase humen functionality.
In actuality it should be preserved from birth till the last day.
Yet how do we make clear to the people?