If you are into healing, getting sick people well or relating to disease in any way, are you not assuming the responsibility of being able to determine limitations of matter and thus the need for diagnosis and referral?
If you are into healing, getting sick people well or relating to disease in any way, are you not assuming the responsibility of being able to determine limitations of matter and thus the need for diagnosis and referral?
I’d say yes.
Absolutely!
– That is WHY chiropractic is NOT about healing, getting sick people well, getting rid of pain, increase joints mobility, eliminating symptoms and it is NOT a natural alternative to treating diseases. –
– The 33 principles state VERY CLEARLY that chiropractic deals with life and “living things” more than a dozen times. The 33 principles NEVER mentioned healing, getting sick people well or relating to diseases. –
– Chiropractic is about LIFE and the practice of chiropractic is the LACVS which is the CAUSE of DIS-EASE. –
If you are into healing, you are playing god. I do not believe chiropractors should believe or say that they do ANY healing.
Relating the principles of life and lack of it causing dis-ease, mal-function and eventually symptoms I see no problem, in actual fact I think it is a necessary step in educating patients, although it shouldn´t be the focus.
I agree with the statement above.
If someone who has no knowledge of chiropractic and asks me what I do in my office I tell them I LACVS. That usually leads to the question of what is a VS and why I do not treat symptoms.
Most people I speak to try to relate what I do to disease and this is the problem I see. Is relating to disease a necessary step to educating them? I’m not so sure.
Some would say we relate to the prevention and/or the cause of disease (medical definition…not dis-ease). I’m not even sure this is correct. Maybe someone can correct me.
Hey Ben,
Wouldn’t it be…Relating the principles of life, and dis-ease causing the lack of it.
I struggle with this too. I was raised with TSC ( adjustments make them well ), but now I try to stop at “a clear nerve system is always good for you”.
I think that we become therapeutic by expecting a certain physiological result . To expect a specific result we must know the specific problem, which would require diagnosis. If we stand on not knowing as much as innate, how can we be sure of what to do, when to do it, when to stop on a per condition basis? Since we have no way to determine whether a condition is an innate response (vomiting a swallowed poison) or a LOM (blocked intestine), it seems that by getting into malfunction and symptoms we are assigning a positive or negative value. This is essentially diagnosis, treatment and a claim for healing usually follow.