There has never been a problem recognizing there are two aspects of our profession, straight and mixing. The problem has been historically trying to identify the point where one begins and the other ends. At one time, it was hands only vs. modalities. Life was simple. Then we got into the era of diagnosis. There were hands only chiropractors who diagnosed. They began to incorporate medical procedures such as neurological, orthopedic tests, diagnostic examination procedures (blood pressure, etc.) and even blood work. They still maintained they were practicing straight chiropractic. Life got confusing.
In recent years a movement has occurred with the specific purpose of straight chiropractic in a nonjudgmental manner. It’s purpose was to stop the confusion along the profession, the legislature, legal community, and most of all the public. This movement began as a philosophical concept. It defined chiropractic not by state law, archaic or arbitrary definition, but by the intent or the objective of the chiropractor. This philosophical concept logically developed into a national organization. From there it progressed into the development of straight chiropractic educational institutions and an accrediting agency to meet the needs of those colleges. Most recently members of this community met to begin to develop standards of care that would serve as a guideline for those who choose to practice straight chiropractic. It would appear that with all this activity, the straight chiropractic aspect of the profession would be clearer and clearer in its mission. But there is a haziness and confusion that is hanging over the straight chiropractic community that is becoming a threat to take the movement back twenty-five years. Sadly, it is being caused by some of the most important leaders in straight chiropractic. They are dedicated,well-meaning people who are doing the wrong thing are the most dangerous people in the world.
There are five major ways in which this confusion is being perpetuated. The first is through speakers on straight chiropractic college campuses, conventions, seminars, straight chiropractic sponsored continuing education programs, etc. It is a shame that apparently there are not more good speakers in the straight chiropractic profession and people do not want to hear the same speakers over and over. In addition, seminars and conventions are trying to draw people. However, in doing that many straight chiropractic functions boast speakers who are not straight in their thinking, their practice, or their presentation. They may be dynamic speakers, able to throw around a few philosophical phrases and they may have or did have large successful practices. They may be nationally known and have their own seminars or practice building programs but they are simply not straight. I have been to a number of straight chiropractic seminars, meetings, school assemblies, and conventions where the speakers were not even close to straight chiropractors. It irritates me. But worse, it confuses th students, it confuses the new practitioner and especially the mixer trying to become straight. I’m all for embracing the “not so straights” into the movement but they don’t belong on a straight chiropractic platform. How are those trying to become straight going to learn what it is if they are hearing not so straights speaking at straight programs? I would venture to say that half the speakers on straight chiropractic programs are not even member of the straight chiropractic national organization, including programs sponsored by that organization! The national straight organization has even sponsored a seminar for straight chiropractors and invited a speaker who is not a straight chiropractor or al least refuses to identify himself as such. And we wonder why the rest of the chiropractic profession doesn’t understand where we are coming form! Add to this the fact that the colleges do the same thing and so do the straight state organizations. There are straight chiropractic speakers who will never be invited to an “ICA chiropractic college” to speak. yet these other speakers are invited constantly. Obviously the message they are giving is not offensive to these schools. I can only conclude that it is because it is not the straight message. I would rather have a “card-carrying” mixer on a straight college campus saying chiropractic should embrace medicine than a chiropractor who identifies himself as straight saying “chiropractic gets sick people well.” At least the students can identify the former for what he is and evaluate his message in that light.
The second area is in technique. There are a number of techniques out there couched in straight chiropractic philosophical terminology. They are being promoted and taught by people who identify themselves as straight chiropractors. Yet they cannot stand up to deductive, chiropractic philosophical scrutiny. Added to that, some of them are just plain weird. There is room within the straight chiropractic movement for wide latitude in the area of technique. But in many instances we are past that point and are causing confusion among straights (as well as derision and charges of religious cultism form the rest of the chiropractic community).
The third area involves our straight chiropractic educational institutions. Too often the facult are not presenting a clear straight message. It is not easy to get straight chiropractors to teach at chiropractic colleges, especially non-straight courses. But in getting chiropractors without our mission, objective, and who have graduated from “middle of the road” schools, we create a problem. Their perception of chiropractic as a drugless method of preventing and treating the cause of disease is not our philosophy and unfortunately it is communicated to the students as straight chiropractic.
The fourth area relates to controversial areas that the straight chiropractic movement appears to be uncommitted on and thereby confusing the profession. Whether it is purposeful or just neglect, straight chiropractic has failed to clearly communicate a position on such things as subluxation degeneration, the vertebral subluxation complex, taking x-ray for contraindication to care, personal injury care, ileum adjusting, techniques that address scoliosis and spine straightening techniques. These areas need to be addressed by the leadership of the colleges and the national organizations.
The fifth area is in belonging to organizations that have dual objectives, ones that look to meet the needs of the mixer as well as the straight. These organizations exist on the local, state and national levels. Many in straight chiropractic are endorsing this concept and even joining these organizations. I’m sure the concept has merit, if we can keep from mixing the programs or confusing people which programs are for the straight members and which are for the mixer members. Is endorsing and recommending mattresses for the straights also? Are testimonial type publications okay for straights to use? Can straights be certified in sports chiropractic? Are the mixers’ goals in the area of insurance the same as the straights? Is using postural screening deices at mall shows consistent with the straight chiropractic objective? Are saying “no to all drugs” and immunization straight chiropractic issues? I have my opinion but who makes the decisions which programs are for straights, which are for mixers, which are for both? Can we allow each individual straight to decide for himself which of the above are for straights? If we do are we not going back to the point when we allow everyone t determine for himself or herself whether he/she was straight or not? What about the student coming out of a non-straight school who wants to be straight and joins this organization. Are these programs identified “For mixer only”? It is possible to overdo the separation thing and turn off or turn away those students and chiropractors who are seeking to become straight by refusing to embrace them. But embracing them is one thing, embracing the concepts that we are anxious to se them abandon is something altogether different. We cannot water down our principle to attract people to our seminars, schools, organizations, or to the straight movement.
The straight chiropractic movement has worked hard to remove the confusion that surrounds this profession and its direction. unless the leadership begins to make some decisions and take some positrons as unpleasant as they might be, and as offensive as they might be to some very fine chiropractors, we are in danger of destroying all that hard work.
v9n1