Attacking medicine and its practices is a very important issue in chiropractic and entertains a long history. Many of D.D.’s earliest advertisements were attacks on medicine and the procedures of medical doctors. The objective straight chiropractor has moved away from this kind of activity in an effort to distance the profession from the idea that chiropractic is a substitute or alternative to medical care. The traditional chiropractor is still very vocal in his attacks and one national organization and its leadership seems to build its entire activity around attacking medical procedures and the medical profession. Is there a place for medical bashing? Does badmouthing the medical profession help us attract people to chiropractic? Certainly there are some people who dislike medical practice enough that they are attracted to anything that is against it, including chiropractic. But there are probably just as many, if not more, who have a degree of respect for medicine and who will be turned off by our attacks and, in the process, disregard the true message of chiropractic.
While medical bashing does not have a place in objective straight chiropractic, I do believe we should compare the ADIO approach to life and health with the outside-in approach. While in a strict sense this is not chiropractic, many chiropractors choose to educate their practice members about the ADIO viewpoint of life because it gives them a better appreciation for chiropractic as well as the ability to handle other matters relating to their life and health. Unfortunately, the clearest examples of these two approaches as they relate to health are chiropractic and medicine. In this respect, a comparison of the philosophies of medicine and chiropractic is not only appropriate but also helpful. However true, I would not suggest that a comparison between ADIO and outside-in be done on the first visit. It is clearly continuing education. Additionally, it should not involve anti-medicine, anti-medical information, be it written, spoken, or implied.
We should be comparing principles, not practices. For example, the fact that chiropractic has no harmful side effects really should not be compared to the many seen with medicine because it relates to practice rather than to principle. While it is true, it is comparing apples with oranges. Restoring good (health) should not have any side effects while fighting disease almost always does (in the military it’s called “collateral damage”). All the statistics about people dying or ending up in hospitals as a result of medical care is not relevant to a comparison of approaches. It makes it seem that chiropractic is an alternative. Comparing the education of a chiropractor with a medical doctor or the cost of respective care are non-issues. It would be like comparing the training of and cost of auto repair and plumbing. Again, none of this is relevant because it relates to practice.
What is relevant in comparing the chiropractic approach with the medical approach is anything related to principle. For example, the fact that chiropractic works to restore health can be compared with medicine’s attempt to treat disease. That is a relevant issue. The fact that medicine claims to know educatedly what the body needs is another issue. Usurping or trying to usurp the authority for running the body from the innate intelligence could also be discussed. There are a number of issues that could and should be discussed comparing the medical (outside-in) approach with the chiropractic (inside-out) approach. Remember though that these issues and principles are not really about chiropractic and medicine. They are about a way of looking at life. Consequently, the more we stay away from the practice of medicine, the better our presentation of the true issue will be. v15n2