“If the vertebral subluxation is an anatomical and physiological abnormality and anatomical and physiological abnormalities are the domain of the health care profession, then chiropractic is a health care profession”-A well-known chiropractic philosopher.
Response: What makes chiropractic unique and places it outside the so-called health care professions is the fact that a metaphysical aberration, an interference with the transmission of metaphysical mental impulses, is the important part of the profession’s objective. That is not only not part of health care’s professional objective, for the most part they ridicule that objective. Focusing on the anatomical and physiological aspects and ignoring the metaphysical aspect destroys the uniqueness of chiropractic. There is nothing wrong with chiropractic being part of the health care profession as long as those professions are willing to agree that just addressing the physical for the purpose of changing the physical and doing that to meet the desires of a profession’s educational standards is not all there is to health care.The fact is that M.Ds take care of physiological and anatomical abnormaliies. The metaphysical component is what makes the vertebral subluxation unique.
Hey Joe,
Actually it is the other way, and you can quote me,(jk) healthcare is part of chiropractic. Obviously the life experience is more than just health. And what kind of chiropractic philosopher says “IF” the vertebral subluxation is an anatomical and physiological abnormality?
It’s funny that chiropractic gets roped into medicine. Why can people go to the gym, train, and have that not be a part of medicine. Yet when they go to a chiropractor to get checked… that is a part of medicine? Medicine does not own anatomy or physiology. They own treatment of disease…
All one has to do is look at a few dozen chiro websites (even some on THIS blog) to see why chiro is roped into medicine. For whatever reason, they ARE practicing a form of medicine, physical medicine. Same objective as medicine with just different means to accomplish that objective.
Some correct posture, others correct balance issues, still others correct scoliosis. If we correct vs, are we any different?
Should the focus be on correcting vs? If we say we are correcting vs and that is what we do, is this not seen as just another condition?
I know many here will disagree. But I am guessing that the focus should be on the reason we assist in the correction of the vs which is to lessen the interference to innate forces for the full expression of ii. If we shift our focus to “for the expression of ii” and emphasis it more, are we still as congruent or more congruent with the philosophy?
Don,
That is EXACTLY what it means to practice the OBJECTIVE of chiropractic: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD!
Ultimately, it is ALWAYS about WHO making a choice. The NTOSC is one WHO chooses to practice the OBJECTIVE of chiropractic which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! 🙂
I think the public and the profession would be best served if chiropractic care was offered via the fitness industry instead of the health care industry. Understanding that “health” care in the U.S. today is really symptom/disease care.