One of the criticisms of chiropractic educators is that they often lack the practical experience to make the student’s education as complete as it should be. For two reasons, that argument usually does not extend to those who function in the philosophy departments. The first is that the philosophy department does not exist in most chiropractic colleges, or if it does, it is a meaningless, non-functional area and those teaching in it are not teaching true chiropractic philosophy but a mixture of traditional B.J. philosophy, new age religion, motivational material and scientific theories.
The second reason that those who teach philosophy do not seem to need practical experience, is that they are dealing with a largely intellectual endeavor. In fact, it could be suggested that exposure to the practical aspects of chiropractic may even hinder the exercise of free thought. Could being practical in practice dissuade you from philosophical positions? Many a young chiropractor has come out of school with the fervor of the chiropractic philosophy and eventually dissuaded from its practice by the trials and tribulations of the real-world practice. For this and other reasons, there is a real tendency to keep the philosophical and the practical separate and distinct.
With that in mind, I still believe that it is important for us to constantly subject our chiropractic philosophy to the rigors of practical application. If it can not hold up to the scrutiny of practice then let us relegate it to cocktail party conversation and nothing more. If it can be practically applied to the public, then that is the determining factor as to whether we have a profession or not. We can have a philosophy without a profession (in fact, many in the objective straight chiropractic community think we are on the verge of that right now), but it doesn’t do very much for mankind. I would suggest that our philosophy should be practical in that the ultimate proof of the validity of what we do is whether it is consistent with our objective and it brings about a greater understanding with the practice members, in particular, and the public, in general, of that objective.
With that in mind, I see a trend among some chiropractors, chiropractic schools, chiropractic philosophers and educators to divorce the impact that our philosophy has upon the public from the philosophy itself. This is really not a new issue. It has been plaguing us for years. B.J. used to call it mixing. Saying you are a straight chiropractor because the medical/therapeutic procedures you do are clearly explained to the practice member as not being chiropractic does not make you a straight. Some so-called straight chiropractors believe that since therapy has no more to do with objective straight chiropractic, than say, oil changes they can do oil changes (prescribe nutritional supplements in their office) without fear of being labeled a mixer. I believe that there is a difference, perhaps not philosophically, but practically. From a practical/philosophical position we must overcome the idea that straight chiropractic is part of the medical model. Changing one’s engine oil does not support the idea that chiropractic is part of the medical model. Nutritional advice clearly does. There is a trend among chiropractors to incorporate “wellness programs” into chiropractic. Perhaps people need wellness programs. There is a trend to incorporate medical-condition reimbursement into chiropractic. These things are not bad in and of themselves. They may be valuable and helpful to people with certain medical conditions, or to prevent medical conditions, or even to promote health. They are just not straight chiropractic and we should resist the attempts by well-meaning persons to say that since they are not part of philosophical chiropractic, it is acceptable to make them part of the practical chiropractic. If we do not, we will never advance the utilization of chiropractic by the general public and that is definitely not a practical approach. V18n4