Obviously, it is not possible to condense the philosophy of chiropractic into a short essay. If it were, it would not need to be taught in six trimesters, and B.J. would not have had to write volumes of Green Books. But if there is one philosophi cal concept that separates straight chiropractic from every thing else, it is that the innate intelligence determines what is normal for the organism and not the educated intelligence of the person. This concept represents the uniqueness of straight chiropractic. Every therapeutic procedure depends upon estab lishing a norm, a standard, or a range and then attempting to conform the individual to that standard by some procedure. In straight chiropractic, we do not condemn that approach. In fact, we recognize that at times it may be necessary. However, it is always inferior to allowing the innate intelligence of the body to do the job. It is only when the innate intelligence cannot perform that function, due to limitations of the matter that it has to work with, that an educated mind is called upon to try to fulfill that task. This is the legitimate practice of medicine. Furthermore, if the wisdom of the body is capable of fulfilling that responsibility, it is foolish to attempt to usurp that authority, especially by a wisdom (the educated mind) that is admittedly inferior. Chiropractic does not involve itself with an inferior approach to addressing the problems of the human organism, not only because that approach is inferior, but because there is already a branch of the “healing arts” that has assumed that approach – it is called the practice of medicine. Whenever a chiropractor attempts to conform an individual to a standard, level, or a state which has been established by someone other than the innate intelligence of that individual (either “science” or the doctor himself), he is assuming a lesser role in the health care delivery system and also elevating that inferior approach to a higher position, which it does not deserve.
One of the most confusing things to a straight chiropractor, and I would imagine to the public also, is how a chiropractor can criticize the practice of medicine on one hand, and then emulate the practice of medicine on the other. If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, most chiropractors are paying homage to medicine all day long in their offices.
The issue of diagnosis, which appears to be the focus of conflict between straight chiropractic and mixing chiropractic is at the foundation of this idea of educatedly establishing norms for the body. A diagnosis is literally a determination that an individual has departed from an educatedly deter mined standard. Its use is solely a prerequisite to instituting action necessary to bringing the individual back to the educat edly determined standard. Straight chiropractors do not attempt to bring people to any educatedly determined stand ard; that is the practice of medicine. Even in the area of subluxation correction, the chiropractor is giving the innate intelligence of the body a force with which it can bring the spinal vertebrae back to an innately determined standard – normal. That is why we do not adjust spines, we introduce intelligent (hopefully!) forces. That is not semantics, but represents a mind-set. If we think we are doing anything else, like putting the bones where they belong, we are off purpose and will soon be practicing other than a straight chiropractic objective.
If every chiropractor would truly understand the concept of normal (innately established) and average (educatedly established) and how one represents the ap proach to health care and the other an approach to disease care, it seems inconceivable that he/she would choose to practice a limited, outdated approach that is only benefi cial to a very few when he/she could practice a modern approach that is beneficial to everyone. v6n6