Chiropractic Apologetics – Introduction

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. v6n4