There have been numerous instances in history when the practice and the philosophy of chiropractic has confronted the law of the land head on. The earliest example was the very practice itself. In the early 1900’s chiropractors were being arrested left and right for practicing medicine without a license. They maintained their innocence, not denying they were ministering to sick people but explaining that it was not the treatment of disease (medicine) that they were practicing, but the restoration of health (the removal of DIS-EASE). Some went to jail because they steadfastly denied practicing medicine. Often they would have been released with only a small fine if they would have pleaded guilty to the charge. But the principle that said chiropractic was not medicine, its objective was different, was more important than their freedom. This steadfastness is what convinced the legislatures that chiropractic was different and deserved its own licensing laws. It took time, and some suffered at the hands of misguided justice, but it was worth it.
Chiropractic is a truth. As a truth it should be able to stand on principle rather than power politics. We are seeing the battle between principle and power politics being waged today. At the time of this writing, the SCASA recognition by the USDE has not been decided upon. If it is decided favorably, it will be because the straight position is one of principle, not of power politics. The CCE/ACA represents power politics. The decision, if in SCASA’s favor, will be made because it is a correct and proper position, not because we are bigger (we’re not), more powerful (we’re not), have more money (we don’t), or represent the majority of the profession (we don’t). The decision will be favorable to SCASA because the principle is correct and in keeping with the constitutional form of government that we live under, which says that the rights of minorities must not be infringed upon. The chiropractic principle is a truth, and as such it does not conflict with other truths and principles.
One principle in chiropractic relates to the right of the individual to make decisions regarding his or her own health. Immunization is an historical example. It is a medical procedure involving a medical condition, therefore straight chiropractors do not take a position on it. However it is also a health issue and chiropractors defend the right of individuals to make their own decision regarding their health and the health of their children. As much as chiropractors would like to see everyone under chiropractic care on a regular basis, to pass laws requiring regular chiropractic care would be in conflict with our principle. That law would deny individuals the right to make their own decisions regarding their health. Our job would be easier if everyone were forced to be under chiropractic care, but forcing them would be inconsistent with our philosophy. That is why public education is so important to the practice of chiropractic. Understanding and reason are the methods of getting everyone under chiropractic care, not power politics which will take away their freedom of choice even if that choice is unwise in our mind.
Let’s bring this concept right to today’s headlines. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of ERISA saying that self-funded private employee health care plans are not subject to insurance equality regulations. Basically the Supreme Court decision said that since it is a private funding, ERISA is entitled to include and exclude whomever it wishes. If they do not want chiropractic care included in their program, that is their business. The difference between ERISA and insurance companies is that the insurance company is regulated by the state government and the state government tends to frown upon discrimination. But the private funding maintains that they have the right to exclude whomever they wish. Power politics says we will override their rights and force them to include us, despite the fact that the majority of their members do not utilize chiropractic care. The rights of the minority should not be abridged but when that affects the rights of the majority, that is wrong. The majority of members will have their rates increased to pay for chiropractic care despite the fact that they do not utilize it.
How do we overcome the problem by means of principle? We convince the ERISA people that it is in the best interest of their members to have chiropractic care included in the program. Or we explain the benefits of chiropractic care to the membership (employees) so that they demand the coverage from their employer. That is the principled way of doing it. That allows the choice to be made freely and without coercion. To lobby and pass legislation to force unwilling people to include chiropractic care to benefit a few is not consistent with our philosophy. Sometimes being principled hurts, doesn’t it? v7n4
