article archive
May 2006
Who ARE these people...and what the
heck are they DOING?
by Dr. Frank Bowling
I try to keep an open mind, and as a
chiropractor, I try to read a variety of material from across
a broad range of viewpoints within the profession. I'm not
sure whether it's a strength or a weakness, but I seem to
have an above average ability to see both sides of an issue.
At times, this leaves me perched precariously on the fence,
like one of those "lukewarm" people
Jesus talked about "spitting out."
The great chasm between chiropractors these days seems not
to be the traditional one of "mixer" vs. "straight," but
rather a question of the fundamental direction of the profession.
Should we simply focus on being "back pain specialists," or
should we talk about the broader implications of the adjustment?
I'll tell you right now, I belong to the latter group. Nevertheless,
being such a "middle of the road" personality by
nature, I've tried really hard to see the validity of other
positions.
The "back pain doctors" understandably
take offense when they're accused of secretly wishing they
were medical doctors, or of trying too hard to fit in, or being
afraid to stand up for chiropractic. Their chief argument seems
to be that we must be responsible, that we shouldn't make
claims we can't prove, that the chiropractic emphasis on
our ability to impact organ function or the immune system
or improve overall health just isn't backed by research.
I'm
all in favor of research, and of evidence‑based
care. Obviously, we're going to be held accountable by the
scientific community for our efforts in these areas. And
even if no one else worried about such things, we should.
Responsibility, honesty, integrity, character ‑‑ these
are qualities always to be fostered and developed, both individually
and as a profession.
But, here's the problem. In my practice,
I regularly have experiences with cases in which the patient's
organ or immune systems are impacted in a positive way by
chiropractic care. A recent example would be the 13 year‑old female athlete
who was brought in for bilateral knee pain. I had not explained
anything about chiropractic philosophy to anyone in the family,
yet after the second adjustment, the mother reported that
her daughter's lifelong history of exercise‑induced
asthma had apparently completely resolved, and she was able
to play an entire basketball game for the first time in her
life. Since no one had even reported this problem during
the initial consultation, I wasn't "treating" the
girl for it, but was simply analyzing and reducing subluxations. "Do
you realize how many nights I've sat up with this girl, watching
helplessly as she fought for breath?" the mother asked
in disbelief.
Surely, every chiropractor reading this column
has had similar cases. I do take a lot of seminars, and try
my best to be technically proficient in my work, but I honestly
don't think I'm a particularly exceptional chiropractor,
and I think the application of the principle, in the vast
majority of patients, is really pretty simple. My old college
president, an upper cervical practitioner, used to say, only
half jokingly, "There's
only one bone, and there are only two sides: if they're not
getting better, just turn 'em over!"
I've read about groups of chiropractors taking "outreach" trips
into underdeveloped countries, where they apparently line
up and adjust thousands of people in just a few days. These
excursions seem generally to be composed of doctors who,
in their own practices, take precision, three‑dimensional
x‑rays, do careful analyses on these films, make careful,
specific adjustments, and require the patients to lie down
for several minutes afterward.
On these "mission" trips, however, standard procedure
seems to be a bit simpler: a quick scan with a skin temperature
instrument, a quick placement of the patient on a knee‑chest
table with the head turned left or right, a quick P/A thrust
to the upper cervical area, and... "Next!" And
what invariably happens? A handful of those thousands returns
the next day with reports of miraculous results. The blind
see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk.
I'm being somewhat facetious,
of course, and have perhaps now successfully upset people
at both ends of the chiropractic spectrum. But my point is,
what are the "back pain only" chiropractors
doing in their offices? Aren't they adjusting the spine?
If so, aren't they having any experiences like the one I
described above? If they are (and surely they must be), how
can they take the position they take? Regardless of whether
we can explain how these things happen scientifically, with "double‑blind,
controlled studies" beyond a shadow of doubt, don't
we have an obligation to talk about them, while simultaneously
doing our best to fill the void in research?
How many people
must suffer or die needlessly while we sit back timidly in
silence, waiting for irrefutable proof for what we all know
from personal experience to be true? Where's the honesty,
where's the integrity, where's the character in that?