|
lynx -> Re: Chiropractic Demonstration Project (March 26, 2005 3:50:00 AM)
|
Are you a chiropractor Jeep? You seem pretty worked up over this.
I can understand why. Subluxation diagnosis is the entire niche for chiropractic. So it is essential that chiropractors try to hide the fact that subluxations are never primary conditions. So chiropractors' portrayals that they treat and correct biomechanics are false. Without subluxations chiropractors are no different than naturopaths in that they do a standard diagnosis but are then are limited to treatments without drugs or surgery- with little discrimination between scientific and quack therapies.
It is a big charge but critical for PTs to understand. Contrary to their false advertising claims, chiropractic manipulation/adjustment is simply a palliative treatment and most chiropractors have a vested interest in making patients dependent on treatment. Further, since that is all they know how to do they don't really have any other choice. After all, if they started treating the real cause of patient complaints they would be practicing medicine not chiropractic.
Anyone who wants to read about the craziness that masquerades as diagnosis in chiropractic can just go to chirobase.org and click on the techniques there.
The following are additional quotations from the appeal. So far I haven't been able to find the 2/3 quote but anyone familiar with class sizes in chiropractic institutions will consider it reasonable. After all, Life University was once the largest chiropractic program in the USA. Further, it makes perfect sense that if these programs want to control chiropractic they should put out as many students as possible. Then they can try to pass off overutilization as just another style of care instead of a scam.
At the very least, these quotations establish that at least half of the chiropractors utilize the subluxation diagnosis scam. For more information just read the state chiropractic licensing acts and see how they talk about subluxations and nerve interference. They allow chiropractors to use debunked quack instruments like neurocalorimeter heat readers, etc, despite evidence showing that they are erroneous and irrelevant.
You could also just read some of the course catalogues online and see how these straight programs create curriculums that don't integrate diagnosis. Like having obstetrics and pediatrics well after clinical practicums start. This is done because differential diagnosis is irrelevant to subluxation overutilization care.
I think you are reaching to be so nitpicky about the exact source. I do remember it was in one of the case documents, probably a response from Life University defending their subluxation diagnosis as a competing style of practice.
However, it is understandable that you could just be misinformed about chiropractic (as opposed to intentionally misinforming people). This is a very specialized subject.
[QUOTE]
For decades, the chiropractic profession has debated the proper role of a
doctor of chiropractic. Views regarding this topic range along a spectrum of
thought. The “liberal” school advocates that chiropractors are primary health care
providers who, in addition to performing spinal analysis and manipulation, should
be able to diagnose other conditions. “They contend the public is better served
when chiropractors can identify possible medical problems and if necessary refer
the patient to another health care provider.” Sherman College of Straight
Chiropractic v. Am. Chiropractic Ass’n, Inc., 654 F. Supp. 716, 718 (N.D. Ga.
1986), aff’d, 813 F.2d 349 (11th Cir. 1987). The “conservative” or “straight”
philosophy advocates that chiropractors should be limited to correcting
misalignments of the spinal vertebrae. Id.
Neither CCE nor its accreditation criteria advocates one philosophy over
another. See R3-11-Ex 29, ¶¶ 7-10; R3-11-Ex 28, ¶¶ 16-21; R3-11-Ex 71, ¶ 16;
R3-11-Ex 5, Pg vi; R3-11-Ex 2, Pg v. Rather, CCE’s Standards seek to “ensure
that chiropractic schools prepare their students to be qualified, competent providers
of quality health care, regardless of any philosophy the school may espouse.” R3-
11-Ex 29, ¶ 7. CCE accredits programs of divergent views. R3-11 -Ex 29, ¶ 10. (Ibid, pp.6-7).[/QUOTE]The following accreditation violations are intentional and typical for a subluxation based program:
[QUOTE]
In measuring LUCC against CCE criteria, the 2001 Team identified twelve
concerns that prompted “recommendations”; fourteen “suggestions”; and four
“commendations.”3 The 2001 Team found serious deficiencies in the quality of
LUCC’s education. It found insufficient evidence that an LUCC degree candidate
“demonstrates proficiency in some competencies sufficient . . . to perform the
professional obligations of a primary care clinician”; insufficient evidence that
candidates understood “clinical indications for and the relative value of diagnostic studies”; and insufficient evidence demonstrating understanding of federal and
state regulatory guidelines governing diagnostic procedures and equipment.
Exhibit Envelope-Doc 12-Pogrelis Supp. Aff.-Ex 10, Pgs 23-24. The 2001 Team
“observed substantial evidence of care plans that were not consistent with the
diagnosis and the pathophysiology and/or natural history of the disorder.” Id. at
26. LUCC students were unprepared for and experienced failure rates on national
board exams that were greater than the national average. Id. at 27. The 2001
Team noted that “basic, clinical and chiropractic science course work is not
presented in a manner conducive to the adequate training of primary care
clinicians” and “recommended” that LUCC review its curriculum, course
sequencing and academic policies. Id. at 32. The 2001 Team also found that some
of LUCC’s faculty lacked proper academic credentials and others had no valid
chiropractic license. Id. at 43-44. The 2001 Team further detailed deficiencies in
the students’ clinical training. Id. at 48-50.4 (Ibid, pp.11-12).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]On January 2, 2003, Life filed suit against CCE, COA and Dr. Paul Walker,
CCE’s Executive Vice President. Life demanded a “correction” of CCE’s actions
including its allegedly improper (1) amendment of its Bylaws; (2) application of
procedures that purportedly conflict with CCE’s Bylaws; and (3) adoption of
accrediting Standards that supposedly favor one branch of chiropractic philosophy over another. Life also alleged CCE had violated its due process rights by
conducting a “flawed and biased process” that was “calculated to cause the
wrongful denial” of LUCC’s reaffirmation of accreditation. Life asserted that CCE
“compounded the problem” by refusing to reconsider LUCC for accreditation in a
timely manner. See R1-1-2, ¶ 1. Life’s complaint contained four counts:
(1) violation of the common law right of due process; (2) tortious interference with
contract; (3) breach of contract; and (4) violation of CCE’s Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws. Life sought a declaration that CCE’s actions since 1999
were ultra vires and that all CCE actions that purportedly favored one chiropractic
philosophy over another were null and void. Life sought a preliminary and
permanent injunction requiring reinstatement of LUCC’s accreditation, restoration
of prior versions of CCE’s Standards and other corporate documents and renewal
of the reaffirmation process. Life further sought compensatory and punitive
damages.
Life simultaneously sought injunctive relief. The parties briefed that motion
and submitted documents and affidavits to the District Court. On February 10,
2003, the District Court heard oral argument but took no testimony. The District
Court granted Life’s motion from the bench and issued a written order on
February 12, 2003. R5-27-9; R4-28-4.
In its order, the District Court opined that Life satisfied the requirements for
a preliminary injunction on the ground that Life would be irreparably harmed by
the loss of accreditation and that the balance of equities weighed in Life’s favor.
The District Court further stated that Life was substantially likely to prevail due to
purported conflicting economic interests of LUCC’s “competitors” who were
involved in the decisionmaking and the District Court’s legal conclusion that
“[a]ctions which would violate the antitrust laws if incorporated in an accreditation
procedure, per se, indicate a lack of due process.” R4-28-34. The District Court
further stated that because of Life’s conservative philosophy, it had been the victim
of a liberal conspiracy, as manifested by purported “corporate manipulations” by
CCE’s Board. R4-28-3. Finally, the District Court stated that the danger to the
public would be not be as great as the harm of the “destruction” of LUCC, in light
of the willingness of one state to continue to permit licensure of LUCC students.
R4-28-4. [ibid, pp.22-24]
[/QUOTE]
|
|
|
|