quote:

In 1886, when Daniel David (“D.D.”) Palmer first hung his shingle as a magnetic practitioner in Burlington, Iowa (Gielow 1981, pp. 43, 105), the licensing of doctors was still a novelty in the Hawkeye State. Encouraged by the belief that he had a personal excess of vital magnetic energy, he offered his services to the many patients who were wary of orthodox medicine. As was the custom of the day, Palmer adopted the title “Doctor,” and conducted his clinic with little concern about interference from his allopathic competitors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rwillcott

Between the Yarn Barn and Cracker Barrel, hiliarious!  What a great analogy.  Great post TexasOrtho.  The fact the PT schools are part of highly prestigous universities is the reason why we are well respected.  The Chiros recognize this as well.  In fact they made an attempt to become part of a University in western Canada during the late 1990s.  Fortunately the university declined the request after meeting with chiro offiicials and touring their 'college' and recognizing they had no research to support their claims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: proud

Bonez,

The problem( and you could speak to the issue) is that although CMCC has made strides towards evidence based practice, the underlying pseudo-scientific themes and theories persist.

Unsupported by science, chiropractors must either fall back upon Palmer's views or admit that the "subluxation" theory is erroneous. As such, without the subluxation theory, chiropractors are reduced to manipulative therapists practicing a very limited modality shared by osteopaths, physiatrists, sports trainers, physical therapists and others. Without the theory, chiropractic's claim that it is a unique and comprehensive "alternative" to standard medicine is lost.
 
Essentially, without the theory, Chiropractic becomes redundant in the eyes of acedemic institutions. Why bother with chiropractic if it has nothing unique to offer the health care system. PT's have become entrenched in the health care field as experts in that arena anyway. That is why it is pointless for acedademic insistutions to affiliate with Chiropractic. That and the fact that the pseudo-science called the subluxation persists( it's still in there CMCC........). So it remains embarrassing for universities to align with it.
 
Perhaps?

quote:



Once you take away the so-called specificity of manipulation, the lack of palpatory accuracy, the contentions that manipulation cures all ills (or at least very many), what is chiropractic left with? Being excellent therapists - many of whom I worked with - but is it really distinct as a scientific profession? Or can it only be distinct when it hangs on to more outlandish claims?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasOrtho

Bonez you really seem like a good egg. Your post had me look up the origin of the words doctor and physician.  The etymology is interesting.  The term doctor is indeed derived from the Latin word doctre, meaning "to teach".  It was first used in the English language in the 14th century to refer to learned men of scripture or doctors of the church.  The term medical doctor came to be known in the late 14th century.  The word physician comes from the Greek noun physis meaning "nature".  

So in a literal sense, the qualifier "medical", "chiropractic", "physical therapy", or "academic" would be necessary to determine if the use of the term doctor is appropriate for an individual.  Regrettably, I have to admit the term "doctor of chiropractic" is justified.  The problem is, quite frankly, one of public perception and ignorance. 

My solution would be transparency as proposed by many in our profession.  Saying "I am a doctor of physical therapy/chiropractic" is as appropriate as saying "I am a doctor of medicine".  Ok the English lesson is over, I'm going to watch the Celtics win a championship.