When we look at the human body, we see it as a single organism with billions upon billions of parts working together in an organized manner.When we look at the universe, we see the planets moving about in a coordinated manner and we establish our major premise based upon these observations.We see order and organization in the environment, from seasonal changes to various biological cycles.From these observations a number of our profession, as well as naturalists, have concluded that the earth is one big living organism with all its parts working for the good of the whole.I do not think this is a reasonable position either from a philosophical or a practical standpoint.It might be a nice scenario for the New Age philosopher or the environmentalist to claim that the lion and the lamb are part of the same larger organism but the real world does not play out that way.In the healthy human body, the liver works for the benefit of the kidneys and hence, the whole body.Itdefinitely does not work toward the demise of the kidneys.However, if a hungry lion is put with a lamb it will not work under the direction of an organized intelligence for the benefit of the little woolly.The lion will eat the lamb.
There are too many examples of hostility in the environment and in the animal and plant kingdom to view it as one large interrelatedorganism, at least not in the same way as we look at the human body.We can see hundreds of examples of how one part of the body works for the benefit of another part.If you have ever seen an electron microscopic photograph of a white blood cell engulfing bacteria, it is a violent battle, not a hug as I heard a chiropractic speaker once state.Microorganisms act as universal forces.They are destructive toward structural matter. Perhaps with chiropractic care, good health habits, and hygiene we can reduce their negative effects but the fact is these little buggers are out to get us.That is part of their innate nature. The very fact that there is a food chain indicates that there is hostility and warfare going on in the world. The actions of organisms to kill and destroy other organisms cannot be written off as mere catabolism. It is a violent kill-or-be-killed world.Granted, much of it is for food.But that just proves the point.Vegetarians maintain that killing animals for food is wrong.Yet all carnivores kill animals. It has been estimated that 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived upon the earth are now extinct. So much for a benevolent “mother nature” (and why do we spend billions trying to preserve the snail darter, whatever that is).We assume that it is up to us to be the peacemaker for the plant and animal kingdom.As chiropractors, our role is to remove interference in vertebrates so that they can have the greatest chance of survival when the laws ofnature take their course.It is clear that those natural laws include some violent action among different species for food, self-defense, and protection of the species. That is far different than what occurs among the cells and organs in the human body.Our role as chiropractors is not to build a more harmonious world, as some would contend.It is to enable the human organism to adapt better to the environment, to be better equipped to handle universal forces in whatever form they may come.
Actually, I happen to think it is sad.When you realize that 25% of that 30% believe chiropractic is for bad backs, more than 4% believe it is a treatment for some other condition or a cure-all and less than 1% realize it’s purpose is to allow your innate intelligence to be expressed more fully, under all circumstances, we really should not get too excited about that statistic. Defining chiropractic by its objective has been one of the greatest breakthroughs in the development of straight chiropractic.It has done more to clearly elucidate what we do than all the authority wielded by the Palmers and R.W. Stephenson put together.It could be and should be the way in which the entire profession determines its mission.While defining ourselves by our objective has been important, I think it equally important that we strive to more clearly articulate that objective.I was happy to see an organization in our profession attempting recently to do just that. Unfortunately, I believe that we can strive to the point of counter productivity.
While it is true that it is not the chiropractor that “corrects” vertebral subluxation but rather the innate intelligence of the body, it seems that including that concept in our definition inadvertently confuses the issue.It is true that the body makes the adjustment and that the chiropractor merely introduces a universal force which tends to be destructive toward structural matter unless the innate intelligence takes that force, invests it with new character, and makes it an innate force to correct the subluxation.That is technically what we do. However, not only does it unnecessarily “clutter” up our definition but we may open a can of worms by insisting in our documents and our definitions that we do not correct subluxations.If we are going to insist that we do not correct subluxations, then perhaps we should not be using the word“adjustment” to describe what we do.After all, technically speaking, we introduce a force and the body makes the adjustment.You can see the direction we are going.
Additionally, if we do not “correct” subluxations, what exactly is it that we do?Can we describe the idea that we introduce a universal force into the spine which the innate intelligence uses to correct a vertebral subluxation in a word or two?I have heard various terms like “facilitate,” “aid,” and “enable” used to describe it but inferring that we only help the body, creates another problem.Many chiropractors use physical therapy to change the character of muscles to “aid” in the adjustment or to “facilitate” the body’s acceptance of a universal force.Heat, cold, electricity, vibration or rollersmay prepare the body to better accept an adjustic thrust.I feel confident that we do not want to embrace those measures.
There is no one who is more persnickety than me about the use of language, about being precise in our language, and about making sure our terms and wording clearly convey our thoughts.It is critical that we try to convey our thoughts and our ideas of what chiropractic is all about and as clearly as possible.Our objective is to see people live their lives as free of subluxations as possible.To do that we correct these subluxations, or aid in their correction, or facilitate their correction, or enable their innate intelligence to correct them.Frankly, I am satisfied to say we correct vertebral subluxations with the inherit knowledge that it is really the innate intelligence of the body that does the work.I think it causes more confusion to try toexplain a philosophical concept in one word than to just say this is our objective.It is our goal to correct vertebral subluxations.That is why we introduce a force. The philosophical and physiological mechanism by which that correction is accomplished is an important discussion from a philosophical, scientific, practice member education and technique standpoint.People should understand what we do but I do not believe it is necessary to totally explain the details of our philosophy in a single sentence in defining our objective.Our objective describes what we want to see done, that is the correction of subluxations and the fullest expression of the innate intelligence.Our philosophy explains the mechanism by which that occurs. Both the profession and the public will benefit if we can distinguish between our objective and our philosophy. Our objective is simply an objective that we have chosen because it is a valuable service to mankind and because it is one no one else on the face of the earth has chosen as a professional objective.Our philosophy explains the reasoning behind the choice of that objective and how we accomplish it.Let us keep them separate and distinct. v17n2