The uniqueness of the non-therapeutic OSC approach in chiropractic care is that it is also for non-symptomatic people, those without a medical condition, but still subluxated. Does the traditional objective of “getting sick people well” and the activities surrounding that objective (like research into medical conditions) undermine that approach, its intention, and its importance?
To a point I would say yes, but proper patient education of the true objective of chiropractic can overcome this. Many of the older chiros I have talked to were into getting sick people well. I once had a conversation with I.N. Toftness D.C. about his x-ray corrections; he did x-ray re-exams after every 35 visits. On one case he re-x-rayed after 3 yrs. and I asked why it took so long? He said, “they only came in when they were hurting.” I told him I wanted to see patients regularly symptoms or not, And he replied “what are you trying to do start a religion?” and he was taught by BJ.
If I gave you a car and told you, “you can only drive this car to the store”, but over time you find the whole world has opened up to you, would you not still be grateful for the car. Although the “baggage” can be heavy at times, improvement in health is often a result of chiropractic care. I think it should be included in the whole story, but not necessarily be the whole story.
Steve, that would be okay if we agreed upon terms to start with. Whose definition of health do we use? Yours, mine, the states, BJ’s, the WHO or that used by the public? Apparently BJ changed the parameters and the location of the “store”. Do you think BJ gave up the right to define chiropractic when he allowed the states to regulate its scope of practice? Did you ever hear Reggie’s presentation on giving by Gibron (I probably spelled his name incorrectly). The bottom line was that if there were stipulations attached to the gift, it really was not a gift.