Dear Editor:
This is an open request for all chiropractors to take a few minutes and consider the victims of hurricane Andrew in Dade County, Florida.
More importantly, there is no way to place a monetary value on human suffering. Victims of this disaster are existing in virtual Third World conditions. People are living in demolished buildings or under cardboard. Days are devoted to basic survival -- finding food, water or ice. Darkness brings on a nightmare of looting or gang activity. Citizens have armed themselves to protect each other and what little is left. The police, many of whom are also homeless, have been working 12-14 hour shifts since the winds subsided. There is a growing concern about the possible outbreak of typhus, typhoid, and hepatitis. Rain has caused the mosquito population to soar, adding to the misery. Infants are drinking contaminated water and suffering from diarrhea and dehydration. Ten days after the hurricane there are many areas in the country where no help has yet arrived. It will be months before conditions stabilize and years before anything approaching a normal life returns for the victims of this disaster.
Donations of food, baby formula, diapers, insect repellent, and building and medical supplies are desperately needed. Financial contributions are no less important. Organize a relief effort, or at least contribute to one in your area. Contact the Red Cross or Salvation Army on how to forward donations.
No matter how your practice may have fared in these last few years of economic downturn, if your family is safe and healthy, has food to eat, and sleeps under a tight roof, you have everything that really matters in life. Count your blessings and be as generous as possible.
Kurt J. Russell, D.C.
Delray Beach, Florida
Editor's Note: A letter from Dana Miller, D.C. in the Sept. 1 issue ("It's Time for a Divorce"), and Don Petersen Jr.'s editorial ("Divorce?" in the Sept. 11 issue) has garnered the following letters, representative of the responses on the subject of a "divorce" within the chiropractic profession of mixers and straights.
Room for All Legitimate Chiropractors
Dear Editor:
It was most interesting reading Dr. Dana R. Miller's letter in the "We Get Letters" column of the September 1, 1992 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic. After 16 years of practice, Dr. Miller proposes an answer to all our problems by splitting into two different professions: the straight chiropractors and the mixers. How novel!
Apparently Dr. Miller fails to appreciate there are two distinct organizations within chiropractic. One tends to be quite conservative, the other quite liberal, making room within its ranks for all legitimate chiropractors.
Failing to see his name in either the ACA or ICA Directory, I find it absolutely unbelievable that he would try to seek a "divorce" from the rest of the profession. He has his divorce already. He just doesn't know it.
John H. Gantner, D.C.
Medina, New York
"We Can Live without Them"
Dear Editor:
I agree that the time for leaving is at hand. Straights have been the major factor in holding back our natural growth and have brought more than their share of bad press to all of us. I hope that "DC" will publish the results of this underlying question of divorce. Most of our state and national leaders have never asked the field doctor what they want; they assume they already know. We can't live with them, but I feel certain we can live without them.
Cletis Burnett, B.S., D.C.
Chandler, Arizona
"Such Trivia"
Dear Editor:
When I read articles expressing "straight versus mixers," it makes me sorry I fought so hard to help make chiropractic legal. What a waste of human resources to waste time on such trivia. My husband was "almost" straight; I was not, but we did get along and in the same office. Maybe we should let our patients decide the issue.
Anastasia F. Fry, D.C.
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
DCs and DCMs?
Dear Editor:
I read Dr. Miller's letter and your editorial with great interest.
I strongly believe that an eventual merger of chiropractic will never occur. It has been proven time and time again to be an unrealistic goal. The differences are too great, and when one examines history, it becomes apparent that this division concerning which path chiropractic should take has existed since D.D. Palmer's time.
The present situation continues to divide and hinder the profession and confuse the public. Two separate and distinct professions is the logical conclusion to this dilemma.
Instead of SC and DC, what about those interested in the so-called "straight" approach retaining the degree DC and the so-called "mixer" group initiating the degree DCM? The chiropodists of years past made a smooth transition to become doctors of podiatric medicine (DPM). Their image and acceptance, both within the health care system and the public, was greatly advanced. Secondly, the "straight" chiropractors have the appropriate training and have earned the right to utilize the title, doctor, and therefore should retain the DC degree.
This separation would allow each distinct group to grow and mature without the present distractions and backbiting. The divorce could prove to be highly beneficial for both groups. Let's thoroughly think it through and lay down a plan of action so that both sides leave this present-day, forced marriage with dignity and respect and then go into action and do it.
Gregory P. Dutson, D.C.
Sandpoint, Idaho
"Quasi-Religious Fervor"
Dear Editor:
A common response when a divorce is mentioned is "Have you tried counseling?" I think this idea might be very relevant to chiropractic's situation.
It is my observation that the problem between the mainstream and the extremes in our profession is not that there are different points of view, but that the extremes often tend to promulgate their views with a quasi-religious fervor. I am not referring to mainstream religious beliefs here. I am talking about fundamentalist/literalist beliefs that always involve an emotional dysfunction and are, in fact, clinically categorized as a religious addiction.
Most, if not all of the extremists in our profession are in fact addicted to their quasi-religious beliefs about chiropractic. This type of addiction is particularly insidious because the addict always believes that they have a noble purpose to save the uninitiated when, in fact, they are merely imposing their dysfunction on others. Please note I am not belittling the good that the extremists do with their patients on a physical level. The extremists may even have some good ideas that would benefit chiropractic as a whole, but until they are expressed in a manner that is not dysfunctional, they will be poorly received.
Mike Phillips, D.C.
Carlsbad, California
Integrating Chiropractic into the Military: Points to Ponder
Dear Editor:
It was with considerable interest that I read the article by Dr. Wallace R. Cole, "Chiropractors in the Military," in the September 1, 1992 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic. In my opinion, the remarks of Dr. Cole are right on target and are deserving of widespread publication to the profession.
As a former commissioned officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, and a veteran of the Korean war, I would like to point out a few points Dr. Cole may have overlooked.
- Assuming that current legislature is enacted and a few DCs are "buried," the Medical Services Corps of the various branches of the armed forces, sharing the same career paths and promotion slots with pharmacists, clinical psychologists, dietitians, physical therapists, optometrists, podiatrists, veterinarians, and hospital administrators, just what kind of an inducement is this going to provide for chiropractic physicians to remain in the military as a career? Having some knowledge of the bias that exists in the military medical establishment, I prognosticate that DCs in the planned program will be unlikely to rise higher than 0-3 pay grade. There have been reports in the media that military osteopathic physicians are not too happy with their career opportunities which they share with allopaths. It is virtually important to the quality of health care for our service personnel that only the highest caliber professionals serve in the military in health care billets. Dedicated chiropractic physicians calling the shots in a chiropractic corps would help ensure that goal.
- I am told the current legislation authorizes the DOD to commission DCs in the Medical Service Corps of the Armed Forces. As I recall, osteopaths were authorized to be commissioned in the Medical Corps of the Armed Forces in 1946, and it was more than 10 years before one ever put on a uniform. The point? The current legislation does not spell out how the act is to be implemented and how chiropractic is to be integrated into an establishment that is biased and in fact does not want us. Even if the current legislation passes, I foresee huge problems in developing a workable chiropractic program in the military, particularly when we will be negotiating from a less than desirable position.
It is not too late to correct this situation. In all probability a Conference Committee will write the final wording of any enactment for chiropractic in the military and some petty strange things have happened in conference committees. The first place to start is to convince the leadership of the chiropractic profession that the current bills are inadequate. Then convince the Congress or the Conference Committee that it is imperative that a chiropractic corps be established in the medical departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and that a sufficient number of chiropractic physicians be recruited as commissioned officers in numbers necessary to ensure the availability of chiropractic care at each military installation that supports a hospital or outpatient care facility.
In any event, it is not too soon to think about forming a committee composed of chiropractic physicians who are retired military, reservists or veterans, to formulate policy and deal with the Department of Defense should chiropractic services be authorized in the military.
Raymond T. Kern, D.C.
Glendale, Arizona
Kentucky Chiro. Society Sets the Record Straight
I read the Sept. 11 issue of "DC" with much amazement. First, I wonder how an article such as the one I've enclosed got in Dynamic Chiropractic. (Editor's note: Dr. Byers is referring to "Kentucky Supreme Court Amends Civil Procedure" p. 37.) We have two chiropractic organizations and neither of them would have supplied you with this false information.
Let me state what the State Society has done. We have been working on this for several years. (Editor's note: allow DCs to give depositions from their offices.) Civil rule procedure change must have the support of a majority on the Supreme Court bench. We have entertained prospective members of the high court and recently courted two candidates when they ran the last time on the basis when and if elected, they would help us change this rule. We had them as our banquet speaker and gave one of them our "Public Service Award." They were supported financially by our members in their area and they won seats on the Supreme Court. I personally have been to the judges offices, who are friends, many, many times about this matter. The State Society has adopted an interprofessional code between the Legal Profession of Kentucky and the Kentucky Chiropractic Society. This helped to open the door a little. We employed our legal counsel, who has worked on this actively for the past years. The State Society, along with other doctors and lawyers, has spent hours on this project, and to get chiropractic added was not an easy task.
For anyone to say in print that this "did not cost chiropractic one cent," simply means Dr. Aston is so far behind that he did not know it was being worked on until it came out in print. It's true, he did not put one cent into getting this done and over the years never supported our efforts.
It would appear for a paper to maintain credibility, at least they would check with one of the organization officers and not print what one DC states, who has no credibility among organizational doctors in Kentucky.
We are printing and distributing to all DCs in Kentucky step by step how this change came about for I have worked on it since the beginning.
The article is false, misleading and does not really state the Civil Rule accurately.
Harold Byers Sr., D.C.
Louisville, Kentucky
Louisiana Association Politics -- Who Gets the Credit?
I would like to comment on the article "Louisiana HMO Law Gives Chiropractic a Foothold" in the July 31, 1992 issue. Your article excluded the prime movers in this legislation.
The Louisiana Union of Chiropractic Physicians (LUCP):
- questioned the profession in Louisiana and the number one answer was HMO inclusion;
- held the first joint legislative conference in over four years;
- initiated the HMO legislation, when the state association's lobbyist was skeptical about becoming offensive on legislation;
- Representative Glenn Ansardi handled the bill upon LUCP's request;
- The LUCP through a telephone network to the field doctors and the AFL-CIO's 14 member lobbying team proved too much muscle for the opposition which included more than 12 of the most powerful medical, insurance, and HMO associations. This was in direct contrast to the previous four years of no meaningful significant economic chiropractic legislation being passed.
A more reflective description of how this bill passed should have read -- the profession unified under a grass roots campaign, the AFL-CIO's 14 lobbyist and the CAL lobbyist worked together, the LUCP and CAL worked together, and our great Senator Gerry Hinton, D.C., guided its course.
Joseph Stagni, D.C.
LUCP Second Vice President