"At the same school you went to," I replied.
"Well, they never taught us anything like that," she said as she left the room. One could get the feeling that she felt a little cheated -- as well she should.
What the doctor had witnessed was my use of the nasal bulb to structurally alter the nares. This form of treatment also includes the use of cotton tipped applicators, ultrasound, chiropractic adjustments, and homeopathic remedies and is one of the most effective forms of conservative treatment for sinus problems.
Later the young doctor and I sat down for some in-depth conversation. "I want you to show me how you did that," she almost demanded.
"And all the other things?" I asked. "Like how to treat the tonsils? And how to clean the ears? And specific diagnosis and care of. ..."
"Wait a minute," she interrupted, "We couldn't have gone to the same school. We were never taught anything like that."
After some thought I realized that she was right. She had graduated a number of years after I had and it was indeed a "different" school. With the passing of years a lot of blank spaces begin to appear.
A few years ago I attended a homecoming and noted a board with pictures of many of my old instructors on it. Also on the board was a sign that asked, "Who are these people and where are they now?" The school had forgotten those who had meant so much to so many just a few years earlier. The fabric of memory had unraveled and with it the wonderful things we were taught at the time.
You see -- many of our instructors were "old timers." You know -- those unsophisticated "academic bumpkins" who had practiced for years and were willing to take time from their practices for a pittance in pay so that they could teach us about all of the wonderful ways they had learned to help their patients.
This doesn't mean they weren't bright. On the contrary -- most were excellent academicians -- and some were even brilliant by any time or standard. The difference was that they considered themselves drugless physicians who were not afraid to threat the entire person for just about every pathological process.
Things these days are a little different. In our frantic desire to be "accepted" we're producing instructors who've been inculcated with the concept that to gain "acceptance" from the academic (medical) community, we must know our place, and that place is the treatment of musculoskeletal problems. Period. To do otherwise is "unscientific."
Most often the "scientific" appellation is of a medical derivation and in truth there really isn't very much that's scientific about medicine. Most of organized medicine is a circus of chemical nostrums, assorted weaponry, and shiny machines with lights that go beep in the night -- presided over by a group of pompous professional bigots.
Chiropractic on the other hand, warts and all, is still a far cleaner form of practice. Essentially we work with -- not on -- the body by attempting to encourage the function of the body's natural recuperative powers. This can and should be done through the use of chiropractic adjustments, physical therapy, nutrition, homeopathy, and whatever else is in the form of non-prescription non-surgical procedures.
Well, that's what should be done, but unfortunatly seldom is. Increasingly we are turning out chiropractors who are interested mainly in seeing as many patients as possible with little regard for the subtleties of diagnosis and diversified conservative therapy. Or -- we have those who go around pandering for the favors of Big Brother Medicine.
The unfortunate part of all this is that each approach tends to restrict the practice of chiropractic. If the trend continues we'll end up grinding out platoons of technicians who know their place under the heel of medicine's boot.
The problem, as well as the answer, is in our schools. More diversified forms of diagnosis and therapy should be included in the curriculum. If not in required, then elective form. And if not on an undergraduate level then postgraduate -- but in some form, for we are on the brink of losing a treasure of viable conservative approaches due to the need for wealth and acceptance.
It's my opinion that we can have both without sacrificing conservative eclecticism. It's estimated that 90 percent of the American public have never been to a chiropractor, so it's doubtful that they have too many preconceived ideas about what we do. It's also pretty safe to say that the majority of that 90 percent we've never seen have had adverse reactions to drugs and surgical procedures and would be more than slightly interested in safe and effective alternatives. This is the gap in health care we must fill if we are to be true portals of entry into the system.
Once again my mind goes back to the board with all the nameless pictures of those who taught me so well. Some have undoubtedly passed away, but with them should never go the legacy they attempted to leave.
For what it's worth -- I'm a chiropractic physician who treats the bodies of people who own the symptoms they describe to me and/or I can find with any conservative method that works. I do this because this is the way I was fortunate enough to be taught and wise enough to implement. My only hope is that the trend of turning out technicians will be reversed to the benefit of our patients.
"The welfare of the ailing is the supreme law." This is an old saying which should be remembered the next time there's a faculty meeting somewhere, and someone mentions the word "physician."
RHT