Recently, I wrote a paper for Sherman College’s Philosophical Conference discussing the pros and cons of chiropractic (particularly straight chiropractic) identifying itself as a part of health care. It was intended to create thought about our philosophy, to challenge some of our present perceptions as to what we do and why we do what we do, and to make us think. I am not sure it accomplished that purpose. On the contrary it seemed to create mostly knee-jerk reactions. In fact, one chiropractor had a rebuttal to my paper before it was even presented. What truly surprised me was the fact that many chiropractors, who I perceived as being the leaders in the straight movement, were opposed to the idea. Some were adamantly opposed. (If you have not yet read the paper, it can be found on the FACE website at www.f-a-c-e.com. It would be helpful to read it before going on with this article. Some, who I believed thought “outside the box,” surprised me with their fervent desire to desperately hold onto the health-care image. Perhaps we (objective) straight chiropractors are not as forward thinking as we try to let on. Perhaps we really want to hold onto the security blanket of health care.
Yet why embrace the health care system a system, that is so wrong? At least 98% of its thinking (apart from chiropractic) is outside-in philosophy and the system itself is controlled by medicine. It has a distorted respect for life, embracing euthanasia and abortion. It is willing to kill a fetus that in a few weeks will be a living, breathing human being in a effort to retrieve some cells that have only the remotest possibility of “curing” some disease in the distant future. Health care has virtually nothing in common with us except that we care for the human body. So many professions do that that I would think we would desire to be separate just to avoid confusion. What is more, health care has a financial reimbursement concept that is totally antagonistic to chiropractic philosophy-payment for a specified time, specified number of visits or until a medical condition goes away. Not only is it antagonistic to our philosophy, socialized medical reimbursement programs are antagonistic to the concepts of a free society. Medicare and drug reimbursement specifically are on the verge of destroying our economy. Finally, in many cases chiropractors have to lie on insurance forms to qualify for reimbursement. And still, we want to be associated with that system?
Apart from the wrongness of the outside-in philosophy that permeates the health care model and gives rise to the above-mentioned procedures and actions, chiropractic is not a natural fit for the health care model. That model is made up primarily of medicine and its alternatives. Chiropractic is not an alternative or a substitute for anything. Health care addresses conditions. In fact, we often joke of the irony that it is called health-care. Chiropractic does not address diseases or conditions. Stephenson makes that clear. Disease involves conditions. Even trauma involves conditions. DIS-EASE involves the lack of coordinated function. It is different from disease and different from trauma (Read Stephenson on Trauma). The subluxation cannot be compared to a broken leg (trauma), as one chiropractic philosopher has suggested.
Chiropractors, straight chiropractors, see people on a regular basis regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms or any other so-called criteria of health. We realize that the need for chiropractic is not based on whether you are sick or healthy. While some people are trying to create specialties in chiropractic like pediatrics, most of us realize that such specialties are vastly different than their medical counterparts. All people need chiropractic–not just children or athletes or any other particular group. Of course, if an individual chiropractor wants to focus on a particular group that is fine. It is unfortunate, however, that these specialties end up being driven by a medical condition or conditions.
One chiropractic philosopher has recently suggested that because of our unique position we could just as easily be a religion. I guess if you do not see the difference between chiropractic and medicine or chiropractic and health care, there is no distinctness to chiropractic and it could just as easily be practiced as a religion. Another chiropractic philosopher also suggested we could just as easily be seen as a religion because we are so unlike medicine. His argument is that we have to be one or the other and so let’s be health care. That was, in fact, the choice B.J. made many years ago when George Shearers and others wanted to go the religion route and avoid the legal problem of being health care. I see chiropractic as like nothing else. It fits into no category, it is totally distinctive and unique in its philosophy and practice.
Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose you could snap your fingers and suddenly everybody in the world understood what chiropractic was all about. They understood it was not about backaches or any medical condition. They did not associate it with “health care” except as it related to their over-all well being. They understood the need to come regularly and to bring their entire family in for lifetime care. Everybody in your community and the world had the big idea. However, there is a catch, a trade-off. You have to give up a few things. First you have to give up insurance. You can see all the people you want but they have to pay out of their own pocket. Second, you have to disassociate yourself from health care. You cannot talk about chiropractic for conditions or diseases or prevention or health maintenance, but then you would not have to because people would know what chiropractic is. Third, you would have to give up the title “doctor.” You would have the respect, the admiration and the love of your community but they would not call you doctor. Lastly, you would have to call yourself something other than a chiropractor. Here’s the question that impacts upon your philosophy: would you do it? Would you accept that role? Would you snap your fingers? Despite the fact that we straight chiropractors know that the above hypothetical scenario would do the most for humanity, I wonder how many would be willing to do it. I wonder how many so-called straight chiropractors would.
Of course, we know that this scenario is beyond the realm of possibility, but then so was the practicality of my paper. Both the paper and this hypothetical situation are merely exercises to make us think about what we are doing or what we should be doing, whether we should be moving further and further from the medical model or embracing more and more of it. Apparently, some in the straight community are perfectly willing to accept the latter. V19n2