Modern-day straight chiropractic has one great weakness. Its weakness is that the successful practice of it is dependent upon the proper communication of its purpose or intent, after all, even mixers are often competent at correcting subluxations. It is the safest approach to the practice of chiropractic as long as the patient understands what the chiropractor’s goal is and what the chiropractor will not do.
The goal of this approach to chiropractic is to correct vertebral subluxations because they, in and of themselves, are a detriment to the proper function of the body. They interfere with the nervous system’s ability to carry out the dictates of the innate intelligence of the body. For that reason alone they need to be addressed. Vertebral subluxations occur on a relatively frequent basis in young people, old people, apparently sick people and apparently healthy people. Consequently, all of these people need to be checked on a regular basis. That is what the chiropractor does.
What the chiropractor practicing this approach does not do is diagnose or treat medical conditions or the symptoms of medical conditions. He or she does not present chiropractic as an alternative or substitute for medical care. In fact, chiropractic has little to do with whether an individual is under medical care or not. It is no more relevant than if the individual is under regular care or treatment by a dentist. No one would consider chiropractic a substitute for dentistry. It is no more a substitute for medicine.
Now this concept is really not too difficult to grasp nor should it be. The problem is one of communication and usually arises because we are continually accepting patients with medical problems (usually one of a minor musculoskeletal nature) who have come to us for a resolution of those medical problems. All of us have been in situations in life outside of chiropractic when we say one thing but know that the person to whom we are speaking hears something else. For example, “I’ll be home late tonight dear” may mean 9 PM to your spouse but midnight to you. Sometimes we do it on purpose. Using the above example, maybe we would rather not handle the confrontation relative to the three-hour difference. I actually did this in the first part of this article when I said “… people need to be checked on a “regular basis.” You see, I tell my patients they should come in weekly, but for fear of turning some chiropractors off who may only schedule maintenance patients on a monthly basis or practices HIO, I said “regular,” that way you the reader could interpret it any way you want. That may be okay in this article, but it is not all right to do in your office. If you want to see patients weekly, you must say, “I want to see you weekly.” Not “I want to see you regularly.” We must make sure that what we are saying is what we want the patient to hear. Regular to some patients may be as often as they go to a dentist or a medical doctor or to a mechanic to have the oil changed in their automobile.
This is especially important when it comes to why you accept a patient. Sure we accept them when they have a condition. I am not suggesting that we should not accept patients with medical conditions, although that is an interesting idea. How would it be to tell someone with a back problem, following your examination and history, that they need chiropractic care and you would gladly give it to them after their back pain goes away? Now I realize none of us would do that. But would we not do it because we believe they need chiropractic care even when they have back pain or because we are afraid they might not come back? Think about that!
Here is the point. Are we sure they are hearing what we are saying? Some readers may be wondering if it is even possible for us to know that for sure. That is a reasonable question. Some patients may lie to us and tell us they are coming for vertebral subluxation correction when they are really coming only for the relief of a condition. Anyone who discontinues care may fit that profile. However, people may also discontinue care because they really do not understand. Despite our orientation and explanation, they are coming for their symptoms rather than in spite of them. If that is the situation, then the responsibility to teach them still lies with us. Some readers may still be wondering if we can ever know if they know. I believe in the vast majority of cases, we can know. We can tell by our conversation, their remarks, their questions, and their responses to our questions. If we are not absolutely convinced by the end of the first visit that we know why they are coming (even though it may not be why they say they are coming to us) then we need to develop a method of being able to ascertain that information in that initial dialogue. The responsibility is still ours. v14n1