chiropractic thread

[layton]

I'm going to clear some stuff up raised in the poison ivy thread. This is my opinion. My school, any organization, or physican has nothing to do with this.

 

Anyone who practices under a "philosophy" vs "clinical experience and evidence based medicine" certainly is a quak. Plenty of all in each profession that does that, and they tend to be the most outspoken too. That said, only about 1/3 of all medical practices have had any clinical RCT, nof1's, ect.. trials.

 

 

You cannot legally practice chiropractic without a D.C. license, and that is not a doctoral degree like a PhD, but a license to practice under their scope.

 

Physical therapists are now starting to get a doctoral degree (like a Phd) and are legally allowed to diagnose and treat without a doctor's prescription...so some PT's while not technically "doctors" are in fact fulfilling the same roll.

 

ND's have the same claim to "doctor" as M.D.'s D.O's or D.C.'s, whether you like any of those or not.

 

The reason this is a heated and confusing topic is because Washington State has the smallest scope of practice of any state in the union for D.C.'s...mainly because the political loby is built mainly of old-school antiquated "Straight chiropractors" who do indeed think spinal adjusting will cure all from cancer to hangnails and I really wish they were out of the profession...but they were licenced 20 years ago before chiropractors took a very strong medical model standpoint. There are one or two schools that probably should be closed down, and one came very close. But ya know what, those "doctors" have been getting results regardless of how religious their philosophy is, and in my opinoin...whatever works.

...and most of you guys see chiros in washington. Which sucks for me, b/c i plan on practicing in WA. Things are changing though...so those old docs might need to take some after work classes!

 

BUT, i think these "straight" Doc's have a small percentage of patients misdiagnosed (like they have leukemia, not low back pain). Chiropractic students in my school are trained in all aspects of physical assesment from opthamosopic exams to neurological testing to YES! lab tests.

 

Our "philosophy" is to 1st rule out disease, and if so, refer to a specialist...but properly diagnose the disease...but if either the disease, pathoanatomical, or biomechanical is not progressive or malignant (i.e. they're getting worse fast and Need surgery or drugs ASAP) THEN our choice of treatment is to try the least invase conservate clinical trial of treatments (be it adjusting, muscle work, diet, exercise, etc etc etc) and see if they are getting better... If so, then this patient is being properly managed and treated by their chiropractic physican...the exact same way your M.D. would treat.

 

And if anyone tells you different then they are either being lazy, ignorant, limited by their states stupid laws, or totally caught up in their own personal/spiritual/religious belief at the cost of the patient...or they know what gets them paid lots of money-patients be damned.

 

So that's the scoop. If you come into my office b/c your fingers and toes are tingling, you can be sure I'm going to rule out diabetes before I rule in radiculopathy from a nerve root irritation. On a physical I'm certainly going to obtain your blood pressure, check your reflexes, ect etc, as well as check your muscles nerves and joints. And if you ask your D.C. to do a physical, they would too.

 

A big problem is also with insurance companies. Even though they know that they could save BILLIONS from conservative care doctors like chiropractors, most still won't re-imburse for chiropractic physicals, or treatment in general for that matter. To get all paranoid, i will wager there is a connection with money being the tie, between the AMA, insurance companies, hospitals, and drug companies.

[layton]

oh, and like I said I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL D.C.'s

and i have the highest respect for M.D.'s and think they have a positive impact on health and do some amazing things that chiropractors don't.

And to clear up some more I mostly addressing general practice physicians, not folks who are in any sort of sub-specialty within their profession. you certainly can't do it all and expect to be the best at it. i think folks not in the medical profession would be very very surprised to learn just how much guessing and unknown there really is when it comes to diagnosing and treating. heck, a cancer patient could not respond at all to chemo, and be totally cured by having a crystal dangled over them and eating newt tails.

[Norman_Clyde]

I agree with what you said in the other thread. The practitioner is probably more important than the practice. There are chiropractors with a lot of good common sense, and M.D.s who are intelligent but clueless. That is, there is a range from sensible to clueless in all healing professions, so if you're looking for a provider, be careful and go with a reference from someone you trust.

 

Having said that, I should elaborate that the models of disease and treatment do vary quite a bit between professions, as do the abilities of each profession to police its own members. My impression is that most MD's are competent, but that too many are unpleasant individuals with no people skills who see human beings as "cases" or interesting intellectual exercises. And I've spoken to a few chiropractors who question germ theory. But I've also had excellent care from members of each profession.

Edited November 24, 2005 by Norman_Clyde

[chirp]

Any Chiro that utilizes TCM, trigger, and TfH is the bomb.

[tlinn]

This is an interesting thread because I`ve been talking with chiropractors lately to decide if I would like to go to chiropractic school next August. So far every chiropractor I`ve talked to has brought up the whole "straight" versus science based chiropractor argument. It`s too bad because chiropractic is a very effective treatment and it`s the small percentage of "holistic, chiropractic will cure all" kind of chiropractors which are giving it less credibility and less funding for studies. No matter what, chiropractic has been proven to be an extremely effective method of reducing back pain and I will keep on going to mine.

[EWolfe]

I'm going to clear some stuff up raised in the poison ivy thread. This is my opinion. My school, any organization, or physican has nothing to do with this.

 

Anyone who practices under a "philosophy" vs "clinical experience and evidence based medicine" certainly is a quak. Plenty of all in each profession that does that, and they tend to be the most outspoken too. That said, only about 1/3 of all medical practices have had any clinical RCT, nof1's, ect.. trials.

 

 

You cannot legally practice chiropractic without a D.C. license, and that is not a doctoral degree like a PhD, but a license to practice under their scope.

 

Physical therapists are now starting to get a doctoral degree (like a Phd) and are legally allowed to diagnose and treat without a doctor's prescription...so some PT's while not technically "doctors" are in fact fulfilling the same roll.

 

ND's have the same claim to "doctor" as M.D.'s D.O's or D.C.'s, whether you like any of those or not.

 

The reason this is a heated and confusing topic is because Washington State has the smallest scope of practice of any state in the union for D.C.'s...mainly because the political loby is built mainly of old-school antiquated "Straight chiropractors" who do indeed think spinal adjusting will cure all from cancer to hangnails and I really wish they were out of the profession...but they were licenced 20 years ago before chiropractors took a very strong medical model standpoint. There are one or two schools that probably should be closed down, and one came very close. But ya know what, those "doctors" have been getting results regardless of how religious their philosophy is, and in my opinoin...whatever works.

...and most of you guys see chiros in washington. Which sucks for me, b/c i plan on practicing in WA. Things are changing though...so those old docs might need to take some after work classes!

 

BUT, i think these "straight" Doc's have a small percentage of patients misdiagnosed (like they have leukemia, not low back pain). Chiropractic students in my school are trained in all aspects of physical assesment from opthamosopic exams to neurological testing to YES! lab tests.

 

Our "philosophy" is to 1st rule out disease, and if so, refer to a specialist...but properly diagnose the disease...but if either the disease, pathoanatomical, or biomechanical is not progressive or malignant (i.e. they're getting worse fast and Need surgery or drugs ASAP) THEN our choice of treatment is to try the least invase conservate clinical trial of treatments (be it adjusting, muscle work, diet, exercise, etc etc etc) and see if they are getting better... If so, then this patient is being properly managed and treated by their chiropractic physican...the exact same way your M.D. would treat.

 

And if anyone tells you different then they are either being lazy, ignorant, limited by their states stupid laws, or totally caught up in their own personal/spiritual/religious belief at the cost of the patient...or they know what gets them paid lots of money-patients be damned.

 

So that's the scoop. If you come into my office b/c your fingers and toes are tingling, you can be sure I'm going to rule out diabetes before I rule in radiculopathy from a nerve root irritation. On a physical I'm certainly going to obtain your blood pressure, check your reflexes, ect etc, as well as check your muscles nerves and joints. And if you ask your D.C. to do a physical, they would too.

 

A big problem is also with insurance companies. Even though they know that they could save BILLIONS from conservative care doctors like chiropractors, most still won't re-imburse for chiropractic physicals, or treatment in general for that matter. To get all paranoid, i will wager there is a connection with money being the tie, between the AMA, insurance companies, hospitals, and drug companies.

 

Glad we cleared that up!