It is exciting to see that vitalism is becoming an important issue in the discussion of contemporary health care policy. The fact that Life University has held a conference on the subject is exciting and those involved in the conference are to be applauded. The list of presenters at the conference is quite impressive, especially when only two of the eleven were chiropractors. Does this mean that vitalism was making a comeback in the world’s approach to health care? I truly hope so. More important, is vitalistic philosophy finding a place in mainstream scientific thought? That would be even better. With that said, I believe that there are a few areas of concern that we as chiropractors should be aware of before we embrace the modern vitalistic paradigm.
The first, which Dr. Guy Riekeman points out very clearly in his August 12, 2009 article in Dynamic Chiropractic, is that prevention and wellness care do not necessarily embrace vitalism. The fact that medicine has embraced both in a totally avitalistic system indicates that so-called “health care” can occur in a non-vitalistic model. As Dr. Riekeman points out, the very fact that the proponents of government health care reform are going to the medical profession with the idea of wellness care indicates that they may have an altogether different model of health care than we would embrace.
The question that we must address is whether health care, true health care, can occur apart from embracing vitalism. If you consider disease prevention as part of health care or part of wellness care, then it surely does not need a vitalistic framework. Early detection of disease is considered by most to be a part of wellness care or prevention although we would surely dispute that idea. We in chiropractic maintain that because vitalism is left out of the health equation, medicine will never really approach health and will always merely be, at best, an effective means of treating disease in its early stages. That has been the position of our profession since its inception and largely the reason for the development of a profession that related to health from a vitalistic viewpoint.
There is one further issue that needs clarification and I am not sure that a short essay in this publication can do it adequately. We can, at this time, clarify the issue though, and that is a clear understanding of what vitalism is. Under the heading Not Your Grandfather’s Vitalism, Dr. Riekeman discusses the “historical concept of vitalism” that proposed “the idea of a spirit that animates and operates the body.” If I understand correctly, Dr. Riekeman is saying that “originally,” or in the past, vitalism had a religious element to it, hence the use of a religious term like “spirit” (which although used by our Founder and Developer does not really belong in contemporary chiropractic philosophy). Here is where it gets sticky. The group of presenters at the recent conference share a different definition of vitalism, a contemporary one that sees vitalism as “a recognition and respect for the inherent, self-maintaining, self-organizing, and self-healing ability of the body.”
I think we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While the idea that it is a spirit that animates and operates the body is not consistent with our philosophy, the idea that this something that we call innate intelligence is inherent in the organism is also not consistent with our philosophy. Matter can express it and it can cease to express it. The body, in and of itself, has no self-maintaining, self organizing, or self-healing ability. A corpse is just as much a body as you or I but it cannot maintain, organize or heal itself. The innate intelligence is not inherent in the matter. Similarly, it can take a bit of non-living matter (food) and make it into living matter. However, life is not inherent in the food, at least not from our chiropractic philosophical viewpoint.
We have a very important philosophical construct called the Triune of Life. It holds that intelligence, force, and matter are three separate and distinct entities. When and if they are united we have an entity called “life” and when they are separated life no longer exists as a unique entity. They are not inherent. Inherent is defined as existing as an essential constituent or characteristic. Innate intelligence is not an inherent or essential part of matter. Most matter does not possess it. Some matter does and then does not and it is still matter. In that sense, innate intelligence transcends matter. It is independent of the material.
An issue to be considered is whether this “inherent in the matter” idea can be reconciled with our chiropractic philosophy. I am inclined to say no. The title of the symposium Vis Medicatrix Naturae: Stewardship of the Source of Health leads me to believe that chiropractic and those who embrace an “inherent in the matter” concept are not on the same page. Viz Medicatrix Naturae is a medical term. It is not synonymous with innate intelligence. It is actually a naturalistic concept. Most of the participants embrace a medical or outside-in philosophy. They may be “alternative” approaches but they have the same goal as medicine (i.e., to treat or prevent disease). That does not make them bad, anymore than it makes medicine bad. To prevent disease by wellness programs may be valuable but it is not chiropractic and chiropractic does not belong in that model.
Some may say that I am “splitting philosophical hairs.” If I am, there is nothing wrong with that, but I believe there is a practical application. Outside-in approaches, like medicine, recognize a law or principle “inherent in the matter” but because of that they address the matter in an entirely different manner. If it is inherent in the matter then it is possible and acceptable to alter it, play around with it, change the matter however your educated mind would suggest. If you see innate intelligence as a law that has come about by chance or natural selection and is still in the process of evolving to something higher or better, then you are going to relate to that matter and intelligence in one way. But if you see innate intelligence as something far above your ability to add to, then you will act differently. Chiropractic sees it as something that did not come about by chance plus time but was placed there by a Wisdom that acts intelligently and with thought. That is the uniqueness that chiropractic has. I see no other philosophy, no other health care profession, that has a practical working out of that mindset except chiropractic. That is something we cannot give up or change. That is important and necessary to a true vitalistic approach to health. V25n1