We are once again hearing a call for unity from various segments throughout the chiropractic profession. One national publication has begun a program to elect a “virtual chiropractic association.” In the past few years, two of the three state organizations in Pennsylvania have merged. There has also recently been increased interest in uniting two of our national organizations, the ICA and the ACA. It seems that every year there is a survey that demonstrates that most of the profession would like to see these two organizations unite. There is no doubt that when it comes to organizations there is strength in numbers. There is also no doubt that there are certain issues upon which most chiropractic organizations could agree. In fact, that has been the reason for the call to unity. There are, they say, some issues that affect all chiropractors and we would be better able to promote those issues if we all pooled our resources. I would like to suggest that all issues are not of equal importance and that agreement on a less important issue cannot and should not override disagreement on a more important issue. If we unify on less important issues when more important issues are unresolved, the odds are good that the more important issue will only divide us. Pennsylvania is a good example. Some years back the state had only one non-straight organization. That group split over a specific issue, which maybe no one even remembers now. Recently, however, the two were able to put aside whatever differences they currently have to merge again for a “united front.” The problem is that they will only stay together as long as a more important issue does not arise.
More significant than issues per se, is objective. As long as these organizations have the same OBJECTIVE, it would make sense that they could either agree on issues or at least agree to disagree. Those within the ICA and the ACA that would like to see a merger should look a little deeper than the issues and determine what is the professional OBJECTIVE that drives both organizations. It is interesting that the FSCO has not been asked to join in these merger discussions. The fact is the FSCO only addresses issues in relation to the organization’s unique chiropractic objective. In the mid-seventies the ICA and the ACA united around the CCE mostly because they agreed upon the issue of diagnosis. The FSCO, on the other hand, maintained that diagnosis of medical conditions is not consistent with our professional objective and, in fact, confuses the public as to what our objective is. That is the reason for the split among so-called ICA straights and FSCO straights. The FSCO always tends to look at issues, not from the perspective of whether they are good or bad for the profession, but how do they line up with its professional objective.
At an even deeper level than our objective, however, is the base or the foundation for our objective. That level would be the most important on which to come to an agreement. It determines our objective, which in turn determines how we deal with issues. That level consists of our core beliefs, how we look at life, the basic foundation for what we do and what we are. For some of us in the profession that foundation is what we call an ADIO world and life viewpoint. The particular aspect of that viewpoint that we chiropractors address is the concept of an innate intelligence. We recognize the character and qualities of innate intelligence. In fact, how innate intelligence is expressed throughout the body forms the basis for our professional objective, that is, we correct vertebral subluxation so innate intelligence can be more fully expressed. That objective determines how we address issues. For example, we accept that there is an innate intelligence and that it runs the body. That is a foundational principle. It determines what is normal, is completely aware of every innate need, and needs no help from us. That foundational principle determines our objective, removing an interference to innate intelligence expression. That objective in turn determines our position on issues. Therefore when it comes to the issue of diagnosis, our position is very clear and unwavering. The innate intelligence already knows what is normal, we do not. It can establish normal, we can not. Diagnosis is not necessary for chiropractic and as mentioned before, it confuses our objective in the public’s perception.
If we are going to have unity in the profession, I believe we can only do so if we unite on the second and third levels. Otherwise, it is improbable that we will agree on issues.v17n2