J. Keith Simpson, DC Ph.D wrote an op-ed and published in the journal Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. The full article can be found here. It starts out as a very comprehensive chiropractic history lesson but continues into a rant about "subluxation-based" chiropractors. I found his approach unprofessional and unscientific. I am dissappointed in CMT for publishishing this opinion piece. Unfortunatley, I have come to expect such "research" from CMT. Simpson has full right to his opinon but a research journal is not the appropriate form for condemnation.
My email to Dr. Simpson is below.
Dear Dr. Simpson,
I read your article in ChiroMT. I would like to thank you for the comprehensive historical presentation of chiropractic and the challenges it has faced. I would also like to express my perspective of the problem in our profession. You have stated that the division is between "evidence-based" and "subluxation-based." You asserted that the "evidence-based" side espouses science and progress while the "subluxation-based" side espouses dogma and mythological constructs. In effect your division separates your perspective into good and bad, right and wrong, sane and less than sane.
My perspective is that the division is between therapeutic providers and non-therapeutic providers. The therapeutic side tends to be more medical in the approach of treating musculoskeletal symptoms and conditions while the non-therapeutic side uses other objective criteria to determine the need for and adjustment that is not intended to treat a negative but to improve a positive. Both sides of this division use scientific analysis and both sides have dogmatic practitioners. The distinction I make is one of intent, not condemnation. To ignore the scientific approach that "subluxation-based" chiropractors take would be deluding yourself and your profession. It is the intent and application of the science that differentiates, not the use or non-use of scientific understanding.
I also believe you have omitted other options from your list of three, but that is of little concern since your division of the profession is not congruent with the reality of modern practitioners.
I invite you to reconsider your perspective and consider the situation objectively and scientifically without condemnation. I think you will discover that there is a more accurate way to differentiate chiropractic professionals.
I suggest that the profession take a path similar to the third option you proposed. I think it would benefit the therapeutic side to join the therapeutic professions like medicine, physiotherapy, osteopathy, and orthopedists under whatever other title would be appropriate and acceptable. This would allow you to practice the way you want without the "checkered past" of chiropractic. The non-therapeutic side would maintain the term "chiropractic" since the profession was developed as non-therapeutic after D. D. Palmer's initial experiences.
I will appreciate reading your response as soon as it is available.
Regards,
Jonathan Holloway, DC
Holloway Family Chiropractic
1738 East Main St. Easley, South Carolina, USA
864-855-1380
HollowayFamilyChiropractic.com
Comments