Enjoy.
Is chiropractic going to survive as a
profession? That is an excellent question. A point of view of the ways it would
survive are given in the paper by Yvonne Villanueva-Russell entitled Gynecological Neurologists and Other Lessons
of History. In this paper the author gives an example of another profession
that fell early in its life due to spreading itself to thin and it not truly
creating a viable identity. This is not too different to where Chiropractic is
today as a profession. There are some in the profession that believe we have an
identity crisis, but I think the reality is that they do not want to accept the
inborn identity of what Chiropractic really is, the only profession capable and
qualified to locate analyze and correct vertebral subluxations.
To
understand how chiropractic is to survive we need to talk about cultural
authority. Cultural authority, in current definition, is the authority that society
gives to an idea or being that gives them credibility and a place in the
culture. Chiropractic has struggled with this through the years because of its
“identity crisis.” There are many in the profession that would love to just be
another specialty in medicine, and others that want to be the antagonist to
medicine and paint medical doctors in a negative light like they were Hitler
himself, while there are still others that would simply just like to be
completely separate and distinct as a profession. The latter is the only way we
can gain cultural authority. If we go with the first way we will just become
pawns of the medical doctors. If we choose to be anti medicine then we alienate
ourselves from those that support medicine. The path is clear in my eyes, the
only way to become a sustainable profession is to cut our ties with other
professions and build our own place in society.
Another aspect to gaining cultural
authority is to be able to validate what we do by ways of academia. This has
also been a big struggle for the chiropractic profession because there are many
people in society who claim that what we do is “unscientific.” Lets talk about
what is scientific. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a
method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th
century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and
the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” So what we can see
is that at the basis of the scientific method “truth” can never actually be
achieved only a hypothesis can be modified and tested again. While I was a
researching assistant at the College of Charleston we were taught that a good
hypothesis could never be proven, it can only be tested and enhanced when new
things findings are found. The only people that say that science brings us
facts are the news reporters that love to exaggerate the findings of scientist
to make a good story. This is the only way that the public hears about science
so they make the obvious conclusion of scientific findings equaling true facts.
This is wrong and any researcher that is humble enough will tell you the same.
All through history we have seen this trend. One example would be chemistry.
The “truth” used to be that there were only four elements, earth, wind, water,
and fire, and you could make anything with different combinations of those
elements. Then Dmitri Mendeleev came around and came up with the “truth” of 118
elements that were the building blocks of all things. This became the new
truth, but later we discovered the “truth” that atoms were made up of even
smaller building blocks called electrons, protons, and neutrons. This continues
on and on illustrating the point that science is not the end all definition of
truth. It is just an evolving pool of knowledge that grows and changes directions
like a leaf on the water. It is not the only way to gain knowledge and it
should not be the only way to determine if a profession is valid.
In
order for us to ultimately survive as a profession is to finally nail down what
is our jurisdictional claim. Let me propose what jurisdictional claim we hold
innately within our profession. We restore nerve function by adjusting the
vertebra. Whether someone calls it the curing of back pain, manipulating the
joints, or correcting vertebral subluxations, it makes no difference. We have a
corner on the market of restoring nerve function. We need to own that fact and
tell the world about it. Too many people are living with decreased nerve
function due to vertebral subluxations. We need to narrow our focus to the goal
of increasing nerve function and then we will be able to survive as a wonderful
profession and not step on the feet of other professions.
-Mike E
No comments:
Post a Comment