With only nine months remaining of studies at my chiropractic college, one thing has become clear: a myriad of philosophies (and even more application techniques) exist within our profession. All things being equal, the fundamental principles of "chiropractic" withstand the plethora of our profession's subjectivities. Only in the last decade have we had funding to begin the complex scientific endeavor in the world of research and hard scientific validation. Many of us watch with anticipation as increasingly more compelling research favors chiropractic as a valid and (often) superior means of achieving optimal health. However, quietly paralleling the research aspect, chiropractors are struggling among themselves for a unity that may need to be achieved prior to global public acceptance and awareness of what we have to offer.
One may wonder why this is the case. Why are we (chiropractors) our own worst enemies? For lack of a better explanation, I can say that although the practice of chiropractic (in fact) has been dated for thousands of years in Eastern medicine, "westernized" chiropractic has only been around for approximately one hundred years. Perhaps we are still neonates in comparison to our counterpart CAM health care disciplines. This does not mean the ideologies of chiropractic are any less valid; rather, we may be in a state of explosive educational awareness - a health care revision, if you will. A famous proverb says that, "disorder always precedes order." We have only had a hundred years (a short period in this regard) to collate and put to practice much information that follows more of an "alternative" route.
"Alternative" is a word associated with chiropractic and other "non-allopathic" (medical) health care disciplines, and may have been utilized in order to place some order in our already confusing health care paradigm. Keep in mind that most of today's incredible technological breakthroughs have, at one time, been considered alternative and unconventional.
The chiropractic philosophy differs from that of the allopathic model with remarkable distance. For example:
#1. Traditional allopaths believe in the "germ theory," where we are in a constant struggle with our external environment to maintain the health and well being of our system (body). External, exogenous (outside of body) "remedies" (pharmaceuticals) are essential to maintain the health of our system.
#2. Chiropractic, on the other hand, idealizes that our body strives, internally, to maintain a state of health and we (humans, or more specifically our immune systems) are capable (beyond nearly any exogenous source) of maintaining this state of "homeostasis" (balance) only if our neuromusculoskeletal system is functioning properly. Our musculoskeletal system is related to our nervous system (both central and peripheral), and the integrity of one is intimately related to the other. When we consider that our nervous system provides 'life' to every cell in our body, and that these cells form our organs, muscles and tissues of all sorts, we can understand logically that the integrity of our body as a whole is critical to our overall health.
An analogy often used by chiropractors to explain the nervous system is that of crimping a garden hose to restrict water flow. This crude concept, in my opinion, describes chiropractic in its elemental basics. Nervous tissue irritation (whether physical, chemical or psychological) negatively affects our system to deviate away from homeostasis. M.L. Mennkenin, a great scientific philosopher, believed that "the simplest explanation is usually the most reasonable one and is often correct." Put another way, "first look for hay in a hay stack, then look for the needle." (This is also known as Occam's Razor, or KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid.) It is unfortunate that many highly educated individuals lose site of 'simplicity' as a rational explanation and often gravitate toward elaborate theories of grandeur. Anatomy, physiology and most importantly, common sense, should never be overlooked when considering even the simplest diagnostic possibility.
The chiropractic model is one I believe, trust and respect. The purpose of this paper is not to "convert" the public into strict chiropractic followers and skeptics of traditional allopathic practices. Rather, I encourage one to support an open mind concerning how health and quality of life can be maintained or improved by resisting the tendancy for health care options to be narrowed by biases, dogma and social conformity. For my fellow colleagues-to-be, I ask only that we remember that the sum is greater than its parts. The unity of chiropractors' philosophy and practical techniques may very well be the strongest force to propel the acceptance and utilization of chiropractic to an incredible degree.
Nevin M. Rosenberg,
T-8 chiropractic intern,
Northwestern College of Chiropractic
