Vitalism Conference
Life University hosted a conference on vitalism on April 17 and 18. The conference had a well-planned agenda and variety of presenters. While I was not able to listen to all the speakers, those I did hear explained how they see vitalistic principles at work in their fields of expertise.
Monica Greco, PhD, from Goldsmith College, University of London., shared a thought-provoking presentation on “Metaphysical Constructs of Classical and Contemporary Vitalism.” While expressing that metaphysics an important component of chiropractic philosophy, she also cited discussions in medicine that refer to vitalism as an ethic, exemplified through behavior, rather than a theory.
Does that mean a chiropractor, practicing chiropractic, which is founded on vitalistic principles, should be held to standards that reflect the vitalistic rather than the mechanistic nature of life? That would make an interesting discussion in the politics of chiropractic education, licensing and regulation.
Peter Fisher, clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital spoke on “Homeopathy: Reinventing Vitalism.” He referenced the learned Homeopaths that went before him in asking, “What do we mean by vital force”? He says using the term “energy” is too vague because nothing is said about what animates the energy. I thought this appropriate to chiropractic as many DCs refer to energy as a substitute term for the innate intelligence of the body, and while energy may be a component of the mental impulse, it is not equated with it.
“Vitalistic Philosophy – Chiropractic” was the presentation given by David Koch, DC, DPhCS, from Life University (and Sherman College graduate). A major conference theme was Vis Medicatrix Naturae, the healing force of nature. Koch jumped right into explaining that chiropractics approach is more Vis Intelligere Naturae, describing the intelligence that directs the healing force.
The speaker representing western medicine, Molly Roberts, MD, co-director of Lighthearted Medicine Clinic, drew a laugh from the audience in opening her talk by stating “There is no vitalism in medicine.” Her experience, first in psychology, is what attracted her to investigating healing with a perspective beyond mere mechanism.
With so many chiropractors publicly presenting the allopathic approach to health care to the public, this conference on vitalism was a nice switch. Furthermore, I have learned through the dogma of chiropractic education that information isn’t all that bad, so now I can say I have more information.
The information projected by the presenters from the fields of Naturopathy, Ayurveda and Acupuncture did not interest me because, like Homeopathy, they seem to be focused on manipulating the healing force of nature rather than allowing the intelligence of life to direct what needs to take place. The removal of interference to this intelligence being expressed is, of course, the focus of chiropractic, and Koch did a fine job of communicating that.
The exposure to fields other than allopathy was interesting, but to include these fields in the practice of chiropractic would be confusing and incongruent with chiropractic, as is allopathy. So, the challenge remains.
Will we rise to the occasion of teaching people about the above-down-inside-out principle and the effects of subluxation on it? Nobody else is doing this, and no other profession focuses on it.
Recent Comments