In the January, 1995 issue of one of the profession’s
newspapers, the publisher wrote a very fine article on the
terms “adjustment” and “manipulation.” He emphasized that
definitions are important and that the “chiropractic
physicians” are purposefully attempting to get us to use
words like “manipulation,” “spinal manipulation,” “spinal
manipulative therapy” and even the term “physician.” The
nefarious purpose of this segment of the profession
apparently is to make us more like medicine, to blend the two
professions in the eyes of the public and hopefully in the
minds of the medics so we will be better accepted. The
author sees their use of terminology as a planned effort to
lead the chiropractic profession into medicine. While that
may or may not be true, there are certain observations to be
made concerning the article and the different chiropractic
approaches.
The first observation is in his noting that the mixers
see the terms “adjustment” and “manipulation” as
“interchangeable and that the difference is merely one of
semantics.” Anybody in the communication field must cringe
when they hear the phrase, it’s “just semantics.” Semantics
are everything. Look up the word–it is defined as “the
science of the meaning of words” (Webster). That is what
communication is all about, the clear, definitive explanation
of ideas. Semantics are the starting point. To say “just”
or “merely semantics” is almost oxymoronic. Semantics are
everything. Treatment/adjustment are “just semantics.” But
so are the words men/women “just semantics.” Men, try using
the ladies locker room at your local health club and telling
the irate occupants that the sign on the door is “merely
semantics.” As the writer suggests, the difference in the
words “adjustment” and “manipulation” is important and it is
a matter of semantics. He correctly emphasizes the
importance of the words treatment/adjustment but incorrectly
minimizes the importance of semantics, and in so doing, the
author himself, makes a major semantical error. This one is
the major fault of the traditional chiropractic community.
He says, “We have labored long and hard to establish
chiropractic as a distinct alternative to medical treatment
(italics his).” Chiropractic is not and should not be
considered an alternative to medical treatment. Look up the
word “alternative.” It’s “only semantics” but it means “an
opportunity for choice between two things, courses or
propositions but not both; also a proposition to choose
between two…” (Webster). The inference of the word
“alternative” is that people must choose between chiropractic
and medicine, whether it be for the determination of what
ails them or for the alleviation of their condition. That is
not the concept we should want society to grasp. It will
cause them to choose one over the other. As a result, we
will often lose out. (Even with back pain, studies show
medicine is the choice the majority of the time). Further,
it will cause them to choose neither if they have no
conditions. If you do not have a headache you do not choose
between Bayer and its alternative, Anacin. You choose
neither. What we should want the public to understand is
that medicine treats diseases and their causes. Chiropractic
does not. Chiropractic corrects vertebral subluxation to
allow the innate intelligence to be expressed more fully.
Medicine does not. Chiropractors do not and should not
determine whether medical treatment is necessary, whether
there are alternatives or what the alternatives are.
Conversely, medical doctors are not trained and therefore
should not determine whether chiropractic care is necessary
or whether it is a legitimate “alternative” (the fact is,
there are no alternatives to subluxation correction, anymore
than there are alternatives to eating, sleeping, or
breathing). People do get well under both chiropractic care
and medical care not because they are alternatives but
because the body heals itself under all kinds of care,
including no care. That may be due to, or in spite, of
either form of care (medicine or chiropractic) but that does
not make one an alternative to the other.
There is clearly a semantical problem in using the term
“alternative” to describe chiropractic care in relation to
medical care. But, even worse, there is a practical problem.
We live in an age where absolutes are no longer accepted much
of the time. I’m not saying that is correct but that’s just
the way it is. Further, almost everyone eventually needs or
thinks they need medical care. Because of these two factors,
alternatives of all kinds including “alternative health care”
almost invariably end up in compromise or blending. (How is
that for a euphemism for “mixing”). The alternative highway
routes from Maine to Florida (US 1, Route 13, Garden State
Parkway, NJ Turnpike, Delaware Turnpike, etc.) have
compromised and merged (supposedly for the better) to form
Interstate 95, which not coincidentally, includes some of
those former alternatives. They took the best routes (in the
engineers’ minds) merged them and then added others. In
professional sports, the players’ association and the owners
have alternative ideas regarding free agency, pension plans,
salary caps, minimum contracts, etc. They compromise. We
see similar situations in our profession’s history.
Chiropractic was seen as an alternative to medicine many
years ago. Those with the alternative mentality think the
therapeutic routes that they use are acceptable. Nutrition,
addiction counseling and “sports chiropractic” are all the
first steps in making the chiropractic alternative a
compromise. Whether it is done for financial gain, image
enhancement or because it is believed that adding to
chiropractic makes it better is immaterial. Ironically these
same people seem to worship at the feet of B.J. What would
B.J. think of people adding to subluxation correction only?
Subluxation correction only and “subluxation based” are two
totally different entities.
Here’s the point, chiropractic as an “alternative to
medical treatment” will eventually become some form of
medical treatment. Because, if we are trying to get sick
people well (the medical objective), we are going to have to
find the most direct, efficient, cost effective route.
Often, that is medicine instead of or in combination with
chiropractic. The only difference I see between the two
groups is that the “chiropractic physicians” are openly
anxious to see chiropractic become medicine. Those who
promote chiropractic as an alternative are taking us
unwittingly in the same direction. Just because the latter
group is well-meaning does not make their approach less
dangerous. In fact, because it is being done in ignorance
and with subtlety makes it less obvious and hence, more
dangerous. The question before the profession is–Do we want
to become medicine, totally aware of what we are doing, or do
we want to get there, by the “alternative” route, in ignorant
bliss quoting B.J. epigrams all the way. Either way we are
dead as a profession. Personally, I would rather not go that
direction at all by any route.v11n3
