To this I answer: in our profession, more than you think!
The one basic concept that will create unity for the chiropractic profession is a definitive stance! Once this has been achieved, unity will evolve with little or no effort.
In the dichotomy of this profession lies more fundamental differences than most of us realize. For instance, my last column discussed immunization. I wonder just what percentage of the chiropractors in this nation believe in this form of disease prevention? How many chiropractic families actually have their children immunized and take immunizations themselves? I would venture to say that a goodly portion of the chiropractors in the United States accept this tenuous doctrine of allopathic medicine.
The 1986, the ACA Journal published an editorial by their then long-time chief legal counsel, Harry N. Rosenfield, Esq. In this editorial, Attorney Rosenfield suggested a "Ten-point prescription for chiropractic planning." Number 9 in this plan stated:
"Chiropractic must join the 'real world' by ceasing opposition to inoculation."
Just how many of us would go along with Attorney Rosenfield on this matter? So you see, as we contemplate our future, our dichotomy and unity, there are fundamental questions that need to be answered. Those that tout and hawk the panacea plan of unity, ignore the fact that many fundamental issues need to be faced and resolved before unity can be a fruitful and constructive professional venture. Let us look at two more very fundamental issues:
Drugs: "Aunt Minnie can tell you to take an aspirin, why can't a chiropractor?" Those that advocate the chiropractic prescription of proprietary drugs use this argument often. How do our two major chiropractic organizations stand on this issue? The ACA condones the prescription of non-prescription (proprietary) drugs as common domain by placing an asterisk after the word "drugless*." "...chiropractors may elect in their practice to use common domain procedures, otherwise allowed by applicable law..."1; in other words whatever is legal to practice within your state law is chiropractic. Their stance is "states rights."1 The ICA's Policy Handbook has an unqualified and positive position against any type of drug use in chiropractic.2
Surgery: Here is another major issue: Just what is minor surgery, ambulatory surgery, incisive surgery? Should surgery be qualified? The ICA's policy statement renders an unqualified statement concerning surgery. Chiropractic care is a ... "non-surgical alternative form of health care."2 The ACA states chiropractic care does not include incisive surgery.1 (emphasis mine). Now the way most interpret the word incisive, it refers to operative. ACA Attorney George McAndrews has refused to interpret the meaning. So, if you have followed my train of "thot" it is perfectly clear that there are poignant fundamental differences of opinion in the organizational doctrines of our two most significant national chiropractic organizations.
Collectively, those of liberal concept always outnumber the conservative in mind. Thus, you see, that in a merger today, their opinion would prevail, and it would tend to produce a wishy-washy interpretation of the above three very basic issues (immunization, drugs, and surgery). In other words, if unity were accomplished today, we would stand for nothing!
As Dr. E. L. (Bud) Crowder so succinctly states: "Stand for something or you will fall for anything and be good for nothing."
Chiropractic, in the past, walked to a different drummer. We were (are) not part of the medical team, we opposed vaccination, fluoridation, drug therapy, and excessive and needless surgery. Chiropractic was generally antithetical to the entire medical regimen. We stood for something and a goodly number of us still do today. We continue to march to our own unique drummer. But, alas, many of us not only do not oppose the medical regimen, they want to be part of the team!
I contend that until basic issues are settled in this profession, there simply is no place for unity. Perhaps the first basic issue to be settled will be immunization. At present, it is encouraging (on my part) to see the New York Chiropractic College through its assistant professor, Dr. Ronald G. LaFranchi, D.C., Ph.D. offering a continued education course called "Vaccination: Facts and Fallacies." Also, Drs. Chris Kent, Patrick Gentempo, and others are continuing to write against this antiquated allopathic menace to the health of our children and our nation. The ICA's Policy Handbook takes a firm stand on this matter and states: "... the association is opposed to compulsory programs. ..." But I doubt if the collective consciousness of the chiropractic profession will be galvanized into stating a unanimous policy statement on immunization until the vaccinators come knocking at each and every chiropractor's door insisting that all health care providers be inoculated against AIDS! Where will we ... will you ... stand then!
As the title of my last column stated:
"Immunization, Your Choice or Their Command?"
Those refusing to take a stand when the liberties of others are lost, lose their own liberty in consequence: a just reward!
And a profession with no agreed-upon definition of what it is or what it does, or a goal for what it wants to be, a profession which blows with every whim dictated by medical fads and third-party payer demands, a profession that shouts for unity without uniformity, will also get its just rewards: subscription.
No, we are a long way from being ready for unity. Resolving basic fundamental issues comes first.
References
- ACA: Master Plan Definitions, 1989.
- ICA: Policy Handbook, 1991.
Next time Dr. Barge will discuss "Chiropractic Paranoia and Insecurity."
Fred H. Barge, D.C., Ph.C.
La Crosse, Wisconsin