Re: Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground?

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that Sharron! W. Snell,

D.C. Director, Solutions Sports & Spine, Inc at Hawthorne Wellness Center

3942 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Portland, OR 97214 Ph. 503-235-5484 Fax 503-235-3956

www.fixyourownback.comMember,

American College of Sports MedicineMember, International Society of Clinical Rehabilitation Specialists CC: vsaboe@...From: sharronf@...Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:05:27 -0800Subject: Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565606/

s. fuchs dc

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting this, Sharron. It's a political tactician's scenario: define your opponent narrowly (eg, base chiropractic philosophy, history and practice solely on manipulation, completely ignoring the larger history of empowerment of one's innate healing capacities globally), then show that the narrow definition is unsatisfactory. Note how he dismisses differential diagnosis training of chiros solely in terms of manipulative intervention planning, ignoring our primary care diagnostic triage capacities, for example. But what I see missing in this 2007 analysis is the awareness that a paradigm shift is occurring in American health care, accelerated over the past few years, and continuing to change before us. We are moving collectively away from what we've come to call "sick care" toward "wellness," away from classifications of pathological dysfunction as the defining criteria for health care, toward personal goals of patient responsibility for one's own life-style choices, and an informed understanding of what constitutes healthy well-being. PT has no history of whole-person physiological optimization, or "innate healing" activation, only a reductionist orientation of "fixing" a problem. It's the same as allopathic care generally; PT looks backwards at pathology instead of forward toward activating one's own responsibilities in achieving optimal health goals. Consequently, PT as currently presented will never have options for reducing the costs of chronic disease, but chiropractic has, by history, education and practice. We are open to such reductionist attacks as long as we have the manual adjustment of bony articulations as our professional core definition, as this author accomplishes. That is not to say that MS relief from pain will not continue to be needed, and very helpful to those in need; it will. I immediately recognized the truth in what Dr. Herb Freeman said about the importance of specificity of manipulative corrections via instrumentation. Chiropractors are miles, light-years, ahead of PTs in recognizing the importance of VSC specificity and it's attendant consequences. Even one of the PT letters to the editor on this article dismisses myofascial trigger-points as inconsequential elements in chronic LBP. Furthermore, the chiropractic subluxation is the basis upon which we are known at present by the public. By attacking the subluxation, PTs hope to gain some recognition publicly as our equals. While this article denigrates empirical evidence in support of CSM, at the same time it seeks direct access to that therapeutic ground. It serves the profession well at present that our lobbying defense of the public from less trained skeletal/NS interventions is at the HVLA level. The public and the politicians see chiropractors as the gold standard practitioners of spinal manipulation. We can defend ourselves in the public and political arenas with our specificity of spinal manipulation, but we must continue to push our professional history, training and practices to more actively include the mental and spiritual aspects of wholistic health. If we are to culturally achieve our rightful place in American health care, we must make it easier and easier for patients to take more informed and motivated personal responsibility for their own life choices. We must point toward the future, toward raising the level of health of the public generally. We must not content ourselves with reducing pain levels, but seek ways in which we can enable patients to find their own motivations and capacities for good health. We must find ways to help those with chronic disease get healthier and stay healthier. We may not have to address such chronic needs at the core pathological levels, but at the motivational level by giving them handles to grasp that move them toward greater understanding of their own responsibilities in their own healing.We best defend ourselves from those who would pattern after us by expanding our history, training and practices toward activating each person's innate healing capacities, while understanding that the subluxation has brought us successfully to our present recognition publicly and politically. Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st AvePortland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Feb 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565606/ s. fuchs dc

[Guest guest]

Thursday's Wall St Journal has a very interesting editorial about the " jobs or

professions of the future " . Although he includes medical doctors and lawyers as

among those whose jobs can be replaced by technology (not sure I buy the

argument completely), the interesting conclusion is that professions like

chiropractic will continue to exist because our treatment paradigm is not

prescriptive. That is it's not reductionist. As long as the profession makes

forward progress in the " Wellness Realm " , then we have a reason to exist even if

PTs win the right to adjust. Their adjustments will be prescriptive just as

their exercise programs are. And they will be reduced to some software telling

them to adjust L5 PRI. If that is what the PTs want, let them have it. I know

from experience what happens if you get " too expensive " for the service you

deliver. If PTs want what chiropractic offers they have to shed the reductionist

paradigm and I seriously doubt that they will.

Eileen Machida, DC

503-893-0125

Sent from my iPhone

[Guest guest]

Extremely well said so well I have printed your comments and will soon place them in by ever growing large three ring binder for the Governor’s Health System Transformation Team. Meeting with my US Senator Jeff Merkley tomorrow here in Albany and we will be speaking to these very issues and what true reform of our “sick care” system must include not the least of which is us, on a full equal level playing field with our reductionist allopathic brethren…..Vern Saboe From: Sears [mailto:dm.bones@...] Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:14 AMSharron FuchsCc: ; Verne Saboe DCSubject: Re: Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground? Thanks for posting this, Sharron. It's a political tactician's scenario: define your opponent narrowly (eg, base chiropractic philosophy, history and practice solely on manipulation, completely ignoring the larger history of empowerment of one's innate healing capacities globally), then show that the narrow definition is unsatisfactory. Note how he dismisses differential diagnosis training of chiros solely in terms of manipulative intervention planning, ignoring our primary care diagnostic triage capacities, for example. But what I see missing in this 2007 analysis is the awareness that a paradigm shift is occurring in American health care, accelerated over the past few years, and continuing to change before us. We are moving collectively away from what we've come to call " sick care " toward " wellness, " away from classifications of pathological dysfunction as the defining criteria for health care, toward personal goals of patient responsibility for one's own life-style choices, and an informed understanding of what constitutes healthy well-being. PT has no history of whole-person physiological optimization, or " innate healing " activation, only a reductionist orientation of " fixing " a problem. It's the same as allopathic care generally; PT looks backwards at pathology instead of forward toward activating one's own responsibilities in achieving optimal health goals. Consequently, PT as currently presented will never have options for reducing the costs of chronic disease, but chiropractic has, by history, education and practice. We are open to such reductionist attacks as long as we have the manual adjustment of bony articulations as our professional core definition, as this author accomplishes. That is not to say that MS relief from pain will not continue to be needed, and very helpful to those in need; it will. I immediately recognized the truth in what Dr. Herb Freeman said about the importance of specificity of manipulative corrections via instrumentation. Chiropractors are miles, light-years, ahead of PTs in recognizing the importance of VSC specificity and it's attendant consequences. Even one of the PT letters to the editor on this article dismisses myofascial trigger-points as inconsequential elements in chronic LBP. Furthermore, the chiropractic subluxation is the basis upon which we are known at present by the public. By attacking the subluxation, PTs hope to gain some recognition publicly as our equals. While this article denigrates empirical evidence in support of CSM, at the same time it seeks direct access to that therapeutic ground. It serves the profession well at present that our lobbying defense of the public from less trained skeletal/NS interventions is at the HVLA level. The public and the politicians see chiropractors as the gold standard practitioners of spinal manipulation. We can defend ourselves in the public and political arenas with our specificity of spinal manipulation, but we must continue to push our professional history, training and practices to more actively include the mental and spiritual aspects of wholistic health. If we are to culturally achieve our rightful place in American health care, we must make it easier and easier for patients to take more informed and motivated personal responsibility for their own life choices. We must point toward the future, toward raising the level of health of the public generally. We must not content ourselves with reducing pain levels, but seek ways in which we can enable patients to find their own motivations and capacities for good health. We must find ways to help those with chronic disease get healthier and stay healthier. We may not have to address such chronic needs at the core pathological levels, but at the motivational level by giving them handles to grasp that move them toward greater understanding of their own responsibilities in their own healing. We best defend ourselves from those who would pattern after us by expanding our history, training and practices toward activating each person's innate healing capacities, while understanding that the subluxation has brought us successfully to our present recognition publicly and politically. Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st AvePortland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.com On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565606/ s. fuchs dc No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3453 - Release Date: 02/19/11

[Guest guest]

Bravo !  You have spoken for many of us with your well thought out response to the PT article posted by Joan.  I too bristled as I read the PT talking about us Chiropractors as though we were all mere technicians who crack bones-technicians with little diagnostic skills who have eyes only for bones and muscles alone.  Our rich philosophy of natural healing anchored in the concept that the body is endowed with an innate healing force is completely foreign to PT profession as  a whole.

I thank you again for articulating a comprehensive response to a  most degrading perspective on chiropractic as a profession.   I am so glad Vern is on our team here and on top of the truth with regard to Chiropractic and its full value to the health care system-both now and in the future.

Schneider DCPDXOn Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM, vsaboe <vsaboe@...> wrote:

 

Extremely well said so well I have printed your comments and will soon place them in by ever growing large three ring binder for the Governor’s Health System Transformation Team.  Meeting with my US Senator Jeff Merkley tomorrow here in Albany and we will be speaking to these very issues and what true reform of our “sick care” system must include not the least of which is us, on a full equal level playing field with our reductionist allopathic brethren…..Vern Saboe

 From: Sears [mailto:dm.bones@...]

Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:14 AMSharron FuchsCc: ; Verne Saboe DCSubject: Re: Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground?

 Thanks for posting this, Sharron.  It's a political tactician's scenario: define your opponent narrowly (eg, base chiropractic philosophy, history and practice solely on manipulation, completely ignoring the larger history of empowerment of one's innate healing capacities globally), then show that the narrow definition is unsatisfactory.  Note how he dismisses differential diagnosis training of chiros solely in terms of manipulative intervention planning, ignoring our primary care diagnostic triage capacities, for example.  

 But what I see missing in this 2007 analysis is the awareness that a paradigm shift is occurring in American health care, accelerated over the past few years, and continuing to change before us.  We are moving collectively away from what we've come to call " sick care " toward " wellness, " away from classifications of pathological dysfunction as the defining criteria for health care, toward personal goals of patient responsibility for one's own life-style choices, and an informed understanding of what constitutes healthy well-being.  PT has no history of whole-person physiological optimization, or " innate healing " activation, only a reductionist orientation of " fixing " a problem.  It's the same as allopathic care generally; PT looks backwards at pathology instead of forward toward activating one's own responsibilities in achieving optimal health goals.  Consequently, PT as currently presented will never have options for reducing the costs of chronic disease, but chiropractic has, by history, education and practice.  

 We are open to such reductionist attacks as long as we have the manual adjustment of bony articulations as our professional core definition, as this author accomplishes.  That is not to say that MS relief from pain will not continue to be needed, and very helpful to those in need; it will.  I immediately recognized the truth in what Dr. Herb Freeman said about the importance of specificity of manipulative corrections via instrumentation.  Chiropractors are miles, light-years, ahead of PTs in recognizing the importance of VSC specificity and it's attendant consequences.  Even one of the PT letters to the editor on this article dismisses myofascial trigger-points as inconsequential elements in chronic LBP.  

 Furthermore, the chiropractic subluxation is the basis upon which we are known at present by the public.  By attacking the subluxation, PTs hope to gain some recognition publicly as our equals.  While this article denigrates empirical evidence in support of CSM, at the same time it seeks direct access to that therapeutic ground.  It serves the profession well at present that our lobbying defense of the public from less trained skeletal/NS interventions is at the HVLA level.  The public and the politicians see chiropractors as the gold standard practitioners of spinal manipulation.  

 We can defend ourselves in the public and political arenas with our specificity of spinal manipulation, but we must continue to push our professional history, training and practices to more actively include the mental and spiritual aspects of wholistic health.  If we are to culturally achieve our rightful place in American health care, we must make it easier and easier for patients to take more informed and motivated personal responsibility for their own life choices.  We must point toward the future, toward raising the level of health of the public generally.  We must not content ourselves with reducing pain levels, but seek ways in which we can enable patients to find their own motivations and capacities for good health.  We must find ways to help those with chronic disease get healthier and stay healthier.  We may not have to address such chronic needs at the core pathological levels, but at the motivational level by giving them handles to grasp that move them toward greater understanding of their own responsibilities in their own healing.

 We best defend ourselves from those who would pattern after us by expanding our history, training and practices toward activating each person's innate healing capacities, while understanding that the subluxation has brought us successfully to our present recognition publicly and politically.

  Sears, DC, IAYT1218 NW 21st Ave

Portland, Oregon 97209v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902

www.docbones.com 

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Sharron Fuchs wrote:   

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565606/ 

 s. fuchs dc 

   

 No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3453 - Release Date: 02/19/11

-- Schneider DC PDX

[Guest guest]

Drs. Will, and Vern,

Remember that there has been a dichotomy within our profession as to whether philosophy should or shouldn't be taught which started in the early 1900's, it is a schism that continues in a number of our schools up to the present time.

It is only in recent years that scientific research has started to substantiate many of the concepts that at one time were taught and accepted based on a belief system and empiricism that a change has begun. Our recent state convention was further evidence of that shift with Dr's Clum and Chestnut presenting powerful evidence validating the core beliefs of our profession, as a result you are no longer looked upon as a radical when you discuss our philosophy. It is the rationale that allows us to say "Yes we are a separate and unique healing art"!

Herb Freeman D.C.

Re: Chiropractic Legal Challenges to the Physical Therapy Scope of Practice: Anybody Else Taking the Ethical High Ground?

Thanks for posting this, Sharron. It's a political tactician's scenario: define your opponent narrowly (eg, base chiropractic philosophy, history and practice solely on manipulation, completely ignoring the larger history of empowerment of one's innate healing capacities globally), then show that the narrow definition is unsatisfactory. Note how he dismisses differential diagnosis training of chiros solely in terms of manipulative intervention planning, ignoring our primary care diagnostic triage capacities, for example.

But what I see missing in this 2007 analysis is the awareness that a paradigm shift is occurring in American health care, accelerated over the past few years, and continuing to change before us. We are moving collectively away from what we've come to call "sick care" toward "wellness," away from classifications of pathological dysfunction as the defining criteria for health care, toward personal goals of patient responsibility for one's own life-style choices, and an informed understanding of what constitutes healthy well-being. PT has no history of whole-person physiological optimization, or "innate healing" activation, only a reductionist orientation of "fixing" a problem. It's the same as allopathic care generally; PT looks backwards at pathology instead of forward toward activating one's own responsibilities in achieving optimal health goals. Consequently, PT as currently presented will never have options for reducing the costs of chronic disease, but chiropractic has, by history, education and practice.

We are open to such reductionist attacks as long as we have the manual adjustment of bony articulations as our professional core definition, as this author accomplishes. That is not to say that MS relief from pain will not continue to be needed, and very helpful to those in need; it will. I immediately recognized the truth in what Dr. Herb Freeman said about the importance of specificity of manipulative corrections via instrumentation. Chiropractors are miles, light-years, ahead of PTs in recognizing the importance of VSC specificity and it's attendant consequences. Even one of the PT letters to the editor on this article dismisses myofascial trigger-points as inconsequential elements in chronic LBP.

Furthermore, the chiropractic subluxation is the basis upon which we are known at present by the public. By attacking the subluxation, PTs hope to gain some recognition publicly as our equals. While this article denigrates empirical evidence in support of CSM, at the same time it seeks direct access to that therapeutic ground. It serves the profession well at present that our lobbying defense of the public from less trained skeletal/NS interventions is at the HVLA level. The public and the politicians see chiropractors as the gold standard practitioners of spinal manipulation.

We can defend ourselves in the public and political arenas with our specificity of spinal manipulation, but we must continue to push our professional history, training and practices to more actively include the mental and spiritual aspects of wholistic health. If we are to culturally achieve our rightful place in American health care, we must make it easier and easier for patients to take more informed and motivated personal responsibility for their own life choices. We must point toward the future, toward raising the level of health of the public generally. We must not content ourselves with reducing pain levels, but seek ways in which we can enable patients to find their own motivations and capacities for good health. We must find ways to help those with chronic disease get healthier and stay healthier. We may not have to address such chronic needs at the core pathological levels, but at the motivational level by giving them handles to grasp that move them toward greater understanding of their own responsibilities in their own healing.

We best defend ourselves from those who would pattern after us by expanding our history, training and practices toward activating each person's innate healing capacities, while understanding that the subluxation has brought us successfully to our present recognition publicly and politically.

Sears, DC, IAYT

1218 NW 21st Ave

Portland, Oregon 97209

v: 503-225-0255

f: 503-525-6902

www.docbones.com

On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Sharron Fuchs wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565606/

s. fuchs dc

No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3453 - Release Date: 02/19/11

-- Schneider DC PDX