Chiropractic
Adjustment or Spinal Manipulation?
It’s Not Just
Semantics
By Dr. James Gregg
It is my opinion that chiropractors for too long have not spoken out on our
philosophical approach to health and disease. Beleaguered as chiropractic has
been by orthodox medicine, we have strived to prove our value by defending the
practice of our science and proving it’s clinical validity for the treatment
of musculo-skeletal disorders. Essentially we have won the battle of acceptance,
but have we fought so long that we have forgotten what the battle was for?
To emphasize the importance of bringing forth our philosophy, I quote, in part,
Dr. E. Philo, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, “The present
threat to chiropractic, as I see it, is cultural not social.” Dr. Philo
notes in his writings, that the term spinal manipulation in a public mind has
become synonymous with chiropractic. He points out that at present, chiropractors
are losing their exclusive claim to the practice of spinal manipulation, because
of the increasing use of this technique by allopathic medicine (M.D., D.O.)
and physiotherapists.
How did we as a profession allow this to happen, that the technique of spinal
manipulation would become synonymous in the public mind with chiropractic? What
gives us the right to try and lay claim to a technique that has been used by
many long before our profession was even discovered? Many years prior to the
introduction of our profession to the world by Dr. D.D. Palmer, Dr. A. T. still
introduced the profession of osteopathy and the term spinal manipulation. The
use of this technique can also be traced back to many ancient civilizations.
What then would give us the right to lay exclusive claim to the technique?
What can we lay exclusive claim to? What must we lay exclusive claim to? What
is it that makes our profession uniquely different from all others? The answer,
the philosophy of chiropractic, and within that philosophy the teaching of the
disastrous affect of the vertebral subluxation on the function of the human
body and most especially, the correction of that subluxation with a chiropractic
adjustment. It is this philosophy that is exclusively ours. We can and must
lay claim to this.
Many in our profession would argue that this is just semantics; that the chiropractic
adjustment and spinal manipulation are one in the same. Someone may even make
the point that we are classified by the federal government under the heading
of spinal manipulation and under the sub heading of grade 5 mobilization. In
all my chiropractic education, never once was I taught that a chiropractic adjustment
and spinal manipulation were one in the same. It was presented very clearly
to me that spinal manipulation was a technique of mobilizing joints of the human
body to increase fluid flow and improve range of motion. Whereas the chiropractic
adjustment was a technique that delivered a controlled force to a specific vertebra
to correct vertebral subluxations and eliminate nerve interference. It is this
teaching that is uniquely chiropractic and allows us to exist as a separate
and distinct healing discipline.
Why, then, in the public mind has the term spinal manipulation become synonymous
with chiropractic instead of the term chiropractic adjustment? I believe it
is entirely our own doing. We have been sold a bill of goods by many in our
profession who continue to tell us that in order to gain acceptance we must
become more mainstream in our thinking and in our terminology. Since the term
spinal manipulation is a more mainstream term, why not just use it instead of
imposing upon mainstream medicine and the public a new term—chiropractic
adjustment. Whether it be our old enemy or the enemy within, that wishes to
change the practice of chiropractic, what a simple way to do it. Rather than
fight to pass liberal chiropractic legislation, why not just change the terms
that its practitioners use to describe what they do? More and more as I talk
to chiropractic students, read chiropractic journals, or talk to chiropractors
across this country, I find the terminology of this become clearer to me than
when I began to fight for the rights of chiropractors to have hospital privileges.
Numerous times when speaking to hospitals across the country, the question was
posed “Why do we need you? We already have doctors on staff that provide
spinal manipulation.”
In a time when the buzz word in the health industry is cost containment, they
were very concerned about duplication of service. Once the difference between
spinal manipulation and the chiropractic adjustment was explained to them, they
became much more receptive. If anyone should be concerned about the duplication
of the service issue, it should be the chiropractor. Ask yourself, why would
an insurance company want you to be apart of their health programs if they already
have two doctors (M.D. & D.O.) performing the same service? This is exactly
what has kept many chiropractors out of PPOs and HMOs across the country.
One more reason my concern continues to grow, is that if we are to be an alternate
health system and within that system a primary health care provider, we must
protect and preserve our uniqueness by using terminology that specifically describes
our approach to health care. I truly believe that rather than choose, we were
chosen to be chiropractors. We were given a great responsibility to take the
chiropractic principle and the hope contained within that principle to the sick
and suffering people of this world. Lest us not forsake our mission for mainstream
acceptance.
Dr. James Gregg, D.C., has practiced in Garden City, Mich., for 30 years. During
his career he has held many offices within the Michigan Chiropractic Council
and served as a chiropractic consultant to Medicaid, the Department of Social
Services, the state of Michigan and many other organizations.
Provide your feedback on this
article.
© Copyright 2004 Today's Chiropractic