I don’t really know what it is supposed to mean “to be a chiropractor”. Or more correctly, I don’t know what it is that would allow me to say to someone who calls themselves a chiropractor: “you’re not a chiropractor!” even if they are registered with the GCC…
Statement 1: Despite some people saying that there is some evidence, which is true, I still stand that there is no evidence to support the subluxation model as a whole. The evidence that is available is primarily spinal and specifically within the spinal arena physiological, functional and anatomical. It refers to te efficacy of manipulative therapies compared to others and includes some varying and seemingly logical tautologies but does in my view not test the subluxation model. It tests compenents of the vertebral subluxation model, but no more, and in doing so fails to lend creedence to it. In fact because the studies fail to actually test the subluxation model, I believe the manipulative therapy studies to be both pointless and dissapointing to the chiropractic profession.
Statement 2: It is my belief that because of individual chiropractor’s liking for complexity and lack of a solid starting base (both in terms of assessment method, treatment method and treatment protocol) the exterior view of the chiropractic profession is almost inevitably confused and unsupported. The greatest supporters of chiropractic care and the chiropractic approach are those people who have internalised these complexities and nuances, i.e. chiropractors and patients.
As it stands anyone registered with the GCC can call themselves a chiropractor, whether they practice chiropractic or not. So, the discrimainating point surely is not the technicality of getting a degree and a registration license, but rather what it is that makes that someone who is registered with the GCC looks like what (s)he is doing is providing chiropractic care, or what it means to be a practicing chiropractor. Unless of course the only distinguising factor between chiropractors, osteopath and physiotherapists is GCC registration.
Hence why my question: am I a chiropractor? What are the questions I would need to answer and what are the answers I would need to give to those questions in order to qualify? Amongst those questions, which ones are the ones that make it so that I can only be a chiropractor if I answer them in one particular way?
An obvious one is Q: “what do you do?” A: ” I detect and adjust subluxations”.
Another one is Q: “Why do you adjust subluxations?” A: “to enable innate intelligence to do the healing”.
The issue is ofcourse then “What is a subluxation/an adjustment/innate intelligence?”
Another big issue derived from this is the chiropractic business model, i.e. “Who needs to get adjusted? A: “Only those people with subluxations” I hear you whisper in the corridors Find it fix it and leave it alone was the oldskool adage. But if you don’t have a clear idea of what a subluxation is and what an adjustment is then you basically don’t know who your customer is. Ergo without a clear view on these points, chiropractic simply does not have an economical model.
But back to the beginning: As you can see from this and previous postings I don’t have issue with the meaning of the original chiropractic concept, and I acknowledge it to be an untested theoretical model. I do have some trouble with certain interpretations of the subluxation model and the way some people have opted to interpret matters for pecuniary gain.
So I guess I am making a case for compiling a workable model. I think I have one, and am playing with research models but before telling you what makes me think that I am a chiropractor in its theoretical sense (in my view) I would love to hear form you about what makes you a chiropractor?
No related posts.