Editor’s note: July-August 2010
By Maria DiDanieli
By Maria DiDanieli
I see a worldwide challenge afoot for chiropractic, and since this is
our annual Global Chiropractic issue, I feel this is an appropriate
venue to address it.
I see a worldwide challenge afoot for chiropractic, and since this is our annual Global Chiropractic issue, I feel this is an appropriate venue to address it.
It stems from the fact that certain DCs are taking on some extended practices – such as dispensing pharmaceutical medications and performing manipulation under anesthesia – that are being questioned for their appropriateness, even ethics, and possible blurring of the profession’s scope of practice and compromise of its fundamental tenets.
There has been increasing mention, among chiropractors, of respecting intraprofessional diversity, along with recognition that, if managed properly, it could serve as a tool to enrich the profession’s depth and/or expand its current boundaries. This, in turn, implies that each practitioner has the obligation to be vigilant but also the right to speak clearly and frankly without fear of vitriolic reprisal, or worse. In other words, any dialogue should be internal, open and profession-wide, encompassing a variety of considerations, to arrive at a chiro-centric, patient-oriented consensus.
Granted, this is not always easy to accomplish smoothly or in ways that are comfortable for everybody involved. Also, it can become tempting, when frustrated with one’s profession, to vent by opposing colleagues’ actions on platforms outside of chiropractic circles. So, unfortunately, while chiropractors talk about respecting divergent practice directions, controversial developments still elicit statements (from all sides) that do little to consider the issues in a broader analytical manner and/or saddening attacks in forms (and forums) that detract from the profession. This helter-skelter lashing out cannot result in meaningful solutions and, furthermore, leaks into public awareness and contributes to confusion regarding chiropractic.
The resolution of a controversy, whatever that resolution is, must be arrived at internally, through appropriate channels, and then publically put forth in one official policy statement. If any DC then feels an appeal is required, the issue can be revisited – but, again, in house!
So, the challenge to which I refer above lies in whether the profession, and its individual members, can harness these new and controversial developments to begin truly demonstrating a commitment to unity and clarity through more thoughtful approaches. The goal should be the greater good of chiropractic, chiropractors, and its patients. If you do disagree with certain practices – or with an objection to a practice direction – that’s fine, and yes, you should absolutely say so. But consider carefully when and where you raise the discussion – especially vis-a-vis the Internet – and the methods and reasoning you adopt to construct your argument.
Every step counts, now – step thoughtfully, step for chiropractic, and always step with your patients foremost in your heart.
Bien à vous,