2190 Australia Assoc. Fights Back
Printer Friendly Email a Friend PDF RSS Feed

Dynamic Chiropractic – July 16, 1993, Vol. 11, Issue 15

Australia Assoc. Fights Back

Responds to Medical Position Paper

By Editorial Staff
As reported in the April 23, 1993 issue of "DC," the Australian Medical Association (AMA) published a position paper "Chiropractic in Australia" (Sept. 1992) which claimed, in short, that chiropractic was unscientific, made false claims, and was unsafe. It further called for limiting DCs to treating musculoskeletal conditions and restricting spinal manipulation for visceral disorders.

The AMA's position paper was circulated to the full AMA membership, federal, state and territory health ministers, and members of the national press and electronic media.

The position paper of the Aussie medics also asserted that:

  • Chiropractic represents only an unnecessary duplication of existing, competent services, and that treatment by MDs is always preferred to chiropractic.

     

  • Patients seeing DCs as portal of entry doctors lose the "safeguard of a preliminary medical consultation and diagnosis is unavailable to them."

     

  • Chiropractic is "unsuitable for public or private health insurance funding."

     

  • Patients who report relief of symptoms "should not be interpreted as confirmation that chiropractic manipulation constitutes effective treatment."

The response of the Chiropractors' Association of Australia to the AMA's position paper has now been published as Chiropractors Fight Back -- The Response, a 41-page, referenced, magazine-size document.

The Response details the history of the AMA's opposition and explains chiropractic (treatment, education, legislative and insurance recognition). Distortions and misrepresentations of the AMA's paper are addressed, including chiropractic's scientific basis.

The attitudes of the AMA are reflected by this policy statement established in 1981:

"The Australian Medical Association maintains that a medical practitioner should at all times practise methods of treatment based on sound scientific principles, and accordingly does not recognize any exclusive dogma such as homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic and naturopathy."

The CCA responded that chiropractic is no less scientific than medicine, nor is it an exclusive dogma. They reference Dr. David Eddy, professor of Health Policy at Duke University, who contends that only 15 percent of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence.

The AMA contends that chiropractors treat or cure virtually all disease by manipulation of the spine.

The CCA's responded that:

"...although there is empirical evidence that complaints suggestive of organic disease and neurological disorder respond favourably to chiropractic care, there is insufficient substantive research documenting such results and it is unethical to make claims or inferences to the contrary."

To counter the claims of chiropractic as dangerous, the CCA cites the New Zealand Chiropractic Inquiry:

"The conspicuous lack of evidence that chiropractors cause harm or allow harm to occur through neglect of medical referral can be taken to mean only one thing: that chiropractors have on the whole an impressive safety record."
The AMA's paper referenced a number injuries associated with spinal manipulation. On closer examination, the CAA discovered that four of the references concerned treatment from:
  • an Indian barber

     

  • a blind, unlicensed masseur

     

  • an unidentified person

     

  • a naturopath

That the AMA would contend that manipulation is dangerous seems laughable, particularly in light of medicine's record. An Australian House of Representatives Committee found that Australian doctors had wrongly prescribed up to eight million medications in the past 12 months. The report estimated that these mistakes put up to 40,000 people in hospitals annually.1

The Wilk case is also reviewed in Chiropractors Fight Back, a reminder to the Aussie medical establishment that its larger American equivalent also sought to subvert chiropractic and lost. The CAA calls the AMA's attention to the Wilk case as representative of the international acceptance of chiropractic as a "mature health discipline with a rightful place within the health care delivery system."

The CCA blasts the AMA's position paper as self-righteous, "an arrogant demand for the right to monopolise..." with "...no consideration of the importance of quality of care, nor the fundamental right of the health care consumer of freedom of choice uninhibited by inequalities of access."

Reference:

1. A report on the prescription and supply of drugs. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. "Prescribe Health, Part 2, Prescribing and Medication Management." Chairman: Jenkins, H.,M.P. Sept. 1992.

Editor's note: The national headquarters of the Chiropractors' Assoc. of Australia (National) Limited is:

459 Great Western Hwy.
Faulconbridge, NSW, 2776
(or P.O. Box 241, Springwood, NWS, 2777)
Tele: 011 61 (047) 51 5644
Fax: (047) 51 5856


Dynamic Chiropractic editorial staff members research, investigate and write articles for the publication on an ongoing basis. To contact the Editorial Department or submit an article of your own for consideration, email .


To report inappropriate ads, click here.