The issue is: are you treating a condition or correcting a vertebral subluxation to enable the body to resolve a condition? The question is: what’s the difference?
The issue is: are you treating a condition or correcting a vertebral subluxation to enable the body to resolve a condition? The question is: what’s the difference?
The CCE.
The difference is in the initials behind your name. MD or DC (that practices in the therapeutic model).
The difference is “objective” versus “results”. When the result(s) becomes the objective, that’s when the line is crossed from non-therapeutic to therapeutic chiropractic.
We all know “results” happen. But they happen in light of, or in spite of, the objective of LACVS, if, when and how the II of that body wants them to.
I would say that one is the practice objective of medicine and the other is Traditional Chiropractic objective. Neither is the OSC objective.
Did I get that right Joe?
There is no difference between “treating a condition or correcting a vertebral subluxation to enable the body to resolve a condition”. They are both therapeutic objectives and therefore they are both medical objectives! –
– The function of intelligence is to create force. The function of force is to unite intelligence and matter. The function of matter is to express force. Innate intelligence is always normal and its function is always normal. The forces of innate intelligence operate through or over the nervous system. There can be interference with transmission of innate forces that are always directly or indirectly due to VS. –
– Therefore, through rational logic and we deduce together without condemnation that THE chiropractic objective is (regardless of health status, creed, culture, financial to pay) to: LACVS for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– This is WHAT the chiropractic science of the 33 principles states, nothing more, nothing less!!!! PERIOD! –
– It truly is as simple as that!!! AMAZING ISN’T IT?
The difference is “objective” versus “results”. The problem comes when the result(s) become the objective and that is when the line gets crossed between non-therapeutic and therapeutic chiropractic (or any other therapeutic objective.
We all know results happen. They occur in light of, or in spite of, the objective of LACVS. But if, when and how they occur is up to the II of that body.
Dr. Duncan,
I’m not sure I understand exactly. When you say the problem comes when the results(s) become the objective. Is this from the perspective of the chiropractor, patient or both?
I honestly think some people “consume” services that are intended to be non-therapeutic for their own objective. In your opinion, is this an example of a line being crossed?
Many have mentioned firm expectations for initiation of care. I’m looking for your perspective.
Thanks for clarifying.
Don,
People ALWAYS consume services for their own objective, even in a “non-therapeutic” office. You (we collectively) provide a service based on OUR objective. Sometimes with education/teaching the pm and “time” THEIR objective may come to match OUR objective. When that happens, the pm’s are seeking or “consuming” the non-therapeutically objectified service (LACVS for a better expression of II) for the SAME reason we are offering it.
Often that doesn’t or NEVER happens and they (the pm) remains always “consuming” for a different, and usually therapeutic objective. However, we can STILL (I believe) that we can provide a non-therapeutic service based on OUR objective, regardless of THEIR objective, as long as the pm agrees to receive it and based on knowing/hearing that objective. This would NOT “cross the line” because we are being true to our objective.
However, we all see “results” in the office of folks under chiropractic care, which is true regardless of which “type” (straight or mixer) or “objective” (non-therapeutic or therapeutic). Results that may be a change in symptomatic presentation or resolution of symptoms, because whether we like it or not, part the process/outcome at times of a better functioning II that is restoring function, healing, health and LIFE in that person, of which includes “resolution of a condition” at times.
But “results” (regardless of what they may be or IF they are perceptible or not) are the by-product or effect of a better expression of II, NOT the “objective” of the non-therapeutic chiropractor. Therefore, when the “results” (whatever it is) become the “objective”, then THAT is when it crosses the line from a non-therapeutic objective to a therapeutic one.
Joe Strauss wrote an article (Pivot Review, I think) titled “Objectives vs. Results” that probably explains better than I did. But I hope that helps clarify a bit?
Good reply Mike. If anyone would like to read the Pivot Review article mentioned by Mike : on the toolbar at the top of the home page click on “pivot Review”, in the search box type “Objectives and Results”. It is the 4th article, published in 1986
Don,
What Michael just posted, is crystal clear! When chiropractors WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective, which is to LACVS for a full expression of the INNATE FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body, PERIOD… it is those same chiropractors WHO choose the chiropractic objective as CAUSE of the matters of their practices. WHO they choose to BE is part and parcel of the CAUSE of their ADIO VIEWPOINT in the matters of their very own lives. –
– Those chiropractors will experience many contradictions and paradoxes during the course of their own lives that includes practicing the chiropractic objective. Yet, as it is OCs WHO choose to CONSTANTLY practice the chiropractic objective, they CONSTANTLY provide instructive informations for their PMs that “may” eventually RESONATE with them and INSPIRE them, so it is these very same PMs WHO may choose to MOVE from their objective toward the chiropractic objective as they “consume” your service.
You covered that clearly Dr. D..
That clears it up very nicely Dr. Duncan, Joe and Dr. Lessard.
I will definitely take a look at the Pivot Review mentioned.
Thanks.
Great article on objectives and results Joe!
http://chiropracticoutsidethebox.com/1986/08/01/objectives-and-results/
Never liked the term dis-ease. Invariably when I would write or type it (before self justifying computers came along), it would come at the end of a line and you would not know whether I was writing disease or dis-ease. I came to capitalizing it, not because I wanted to be like Claude but in order to make it clearer. It looks too much like a medical term. In fact I have even seen DIS-EASE in old medical writings. I prefer incoordination or dis-order which is a little better although not much, still too medical. It has come to be synonymous with nerve interference in the chiropractic lexicon although it is the result of nerve interference rather than the same as. No extra charge for that bit of ancient chiropractic trivia:)!