Principled Chiropractic

There are some words in chiropractic that at one time or another had an important meaning but are now meaningless, or at best no longer convey clear thought.  The word “straight” is one of those words and I must admit that I am as much to blame for that confusion as anyone else when I coined the term traditional straight and objective straight.  These terms were developed to convey the thinking of chiropractors at certain periods in our history (see Refined By Fire). v20n3

The word “principled,” as it relates to chiropractors and chiropractic, is another such word.  It has come under discussion recently because some chiropractors assumed that if they did not fall into the category of “principled chiropractor” that they were considered to be unprincipled.  A similar problem seemed to exist in the titles “straight” and “mixer.”  Somehow, while many wanted to identify themselves as straight, even some who were not (e.g., “I just do a little physiotherapy, but not on everybody!”), very few took any pride in admitting to be a mixer.  Somehow the term “mixer” had a negative connotation.  (I am sure some psychoanalysist could make something of that.)  In any event, people took exception at not being considered a principled chiropractor and inferring that they were unprincipled. 

The term “principled chiropractor” dates back many years but it came into popular usage in the mid-seventies with the popularity of the D.E. Movement.  From my observations, it was considered to be a level higher than a straight chiropractor.  The principled chiropractor was one who “accepted all cases regardless of condition or financial ability to pay.”  A principled chiropractor advertised, especially free x-rays.  He had absolute faith in the chiropractic principle and was into having a volume practice.  You can see that you could be a straight chiropractor and not necessarily embrace those aspects of “principled chiropractic.”  As time went on and many chiropractors sort of drifted away from the above procedures, the term somewhat fell out of usage.  Insurance, among other things, helped to kill the term.  There was no need to give free x-ray if the insurance company was willing to pay for them.  Low fees to make care affordable to everyone was not necessary if the insurance company paid for care.  Insurance does not lend itself to a volume practice.  Whatever the reasons, “principled chiropractic” if not extinct in practice was certainly in hibernation.  In fact, with the general melding of chiropractic practices, all descriptive terms used to categorize chiropractors fell by the wayside except for those obstinate straights who still want that badge of honor.  

In recent days, various descriptions are once again being used.  Subluxation-based, evidence-based, and non-therapeutic are just a few more common ones.  Some chiropractors are resurrecting the term “principled chiropractor.”  Part of their basis is that these chiropractors adhere to the 33 Principles set down by B.J. and found in Stephenson’s Textbook.  Perhaps this is in response to some who are questioning the need or value of all 33. 

I think terms to describe different approaches to the practice of chiropractic are helpful.  It would be great if one day chiropractors would describe their manner of practice in their ads and on their cards.  It sure would be helpful in finding a chiropractor in an unfamiliar area.  We should probably have more and more terms, ones that people will be proud to use but ones that will not reflect negatively on other approaches.  ”Principled” is not one such term, specifically because it reflects negatively on other approaches.  In fact, it is probably one of the worst descriptive terms in chiropractic because it not only reflects negatively on other approaches, it also calls into question the integrity and character of a   chiropractor who practice those approaches.  As such it is not of value and should probably be done away with.