Is the Orthopractic Manipulation Society Trying to Deceive, or Is There Just "a Lot of Enthusiasm?"
After hearing Dr. Murray Katz testimony for three days, the New Zealand Commission came to this conclusion regarding Dr. Murray Katz: "It is disappointing to find that a practicing medical practitioner could think it right to indulge in a deliberate course of lies and deceit of that kind." If the New Zealand Commission were to examine Dr. Katz actions today as they relate to orthopractic, would they come to similar conclusions?
In this third and final part of our exclusive interview with Dr. Katz, we examine a number of occasions where there appear to be dramatic inconsistencies. This part of the interview begins with the issue of the New Zealand Commission's findings on Dr. Katz:
"DC": When we initially spoke, you wanted to clarify some issues regarding the conclusions of the New Zealand commission report on chiropractic. Would you like to do that now?
Dr. Katz: I think that when people start attacking the messenger rather than the message you have to wonder how strong their arguments are. People have only said one thing about me, never what I said, but always quoting from the New Zealand Commission of Inquiry. What the people should know is that a lot of what the New Zealand Commission had to say was based on false letters, misleading letters obtained by the chiropractors, submitted to the commission, regarding my professional claims to have worked with consultants for various governments. The truth of the matter was that I did work for those consultants, and the truth was that the chiropractors admitted this in legal negotiations which concluded January 21, 1980, in which they agreed that the letters that they had were wrong and that I had "certainly functioned as a consultant at the very least with the administrations of Ontario and Manitoba," which I had said I did. So if people want to continue quoting the New Zealand commission, if they do so, and I have lawyers telling me this too, anybody who does in the future I'm not really interested in lawsuits, I don't think they solve anything. But the truth of the matter is that the New Zealand Commission was presented with information which was false, and was subsequently corrected by the chiropractic group themselves, which obtained the initial information.
"DC": When you spoke before the Ontario Medical Association in Toronto, you made a statement, "The truth of the matter is that in 1980 the Canadian Chiropractic Association formally apologized to me in a successful, not unsuccessful lawsuit, by admitting completely and fully that everything I said in New Zealand was 100 percent correct." Where is a copy of that?
Dr. Katz: I sent to you a statement from Mr. Fefergrad of his negotiations (with the Canadian Chiropractic Assoc.). Now there was a confusion here because the Canadian Chiropractic Association was the group that solicited the initial letters* that were not true, it was the Ontario Chiropractic Association which publicized those letters and the apology came from the Ontario Chiropractic Association.
(* Editor's note: Dr. Katz is referring to chiropractors attacking his credibility to the New Zealand Commission by claiming that statements made in his curriculum vitae about working as a consultant on chiropractic for the governments of Ontario and Manitoba Zealand Commission were false.)
"DC": So what you stated before the Ontario Medical Association was not quite correct?
Dr. Katz: Well, it's only incorrect in that the apology came from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, but the letters were solicited from the Canadian Chiropractic Association, so I think it is basically correct. You have a letter dated January 21, 1980 from Mr. Fefergrad regarding the Ontario Chiropractic Association, which they agreed to provide me with a statutory declaration as to names of all the institutions and people who were communicated with the contents of the letter. (Editor's note: Dr. Katz is referring to a letter chiropractors gave the New Zealand Commission signed by Frank Miller, Minister of Health of the Province of Ontario that stated Dr. Katz had never worked for them as a consultant).
"DC": Is Mr. Fefergrad your attorney?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": So there was supposed to be some kind of a letter going out?
Dr. Katz: They offered the letter and I just said that's fine, forget it. They offered it and they said, "Mr. Marx said we will provide you with the statutory declaration." And I said basically, do what you like, send it if you like, do what you like...
"DC": Did they send it to you?
Dr. Katz: I didn't ask for it in the end, I just said do what you like with it. I don't believe legal fights solve anything. I think that they admitted they were wrong, they met with my lawyer, they offered the statutory declaration, and that was the end of it.
"DC": Please correct me if I'm not understanding this. You went to the extent to hire an attorney, you went to the extent of filing a lawsuit or at least threatening to file a lawsuit, and you got all the way up to the (bargaining) table to the point where, according to your attorney, they were giving in to everything you wanted, and you turned them down.
Dr. Katz: Yes, well I didn't really turn them down, I just said do what you like, and that was the end of it. I also felt after that I didn't know if they would continue to honor their agreement, and there was more legal expense involved in finally getting a printed paper and giving them a list of all the people that it had been sent to, and I just said, look, I don't know where they sent this. They could have sent it everywhere.
"DC": Do you have a copy of an agreement with them?
Dr. Katz: The copy is in what I sent you.
"DC": The only thing I see is a couple letters from your attorney.
Dr. Katz: If you read #2 it says, "You will be provided with a statutory declaration."
"DC": Right, but I don't see any signatures on it except those of your attorney.
Dr. Katz: Then ask Charles Mark of Manning Bruce in Ontario. It's listed at the top.
"DC": So your attorney and you don't have a copy of the agreement but he does?
Dr. Katz: We never asked for anything more. Once they agreed ... It says here that they were in agreement that they certainly functioned as a consultant at the very least with the Ministry of Health in Ontario and Manitoba. And whatever they said in the end you have the letters from the government, from the Ministry of Health in Ontario saying, "You are a consultant."
"DC": But getting back to this apology. The only thing I see here is a letter from your attorney to you, which frankly, I can hire an attorney to tell me that pigs can fly.
Dr. Katz: Check it out with the other side and see if they offered a statutory declaration or not. Go ahead.
"DC": Getting to some of the other issues the New Zealand commission brought up of you apparently pretending to be a chiropractor, a graduate from Palmer?
Dr. Katz: No, I never said I was a graduate from Palmer. I pretended to be a chiropractor. Excuse me, I might be wrong, I might have mentioned a school.
"DC": In the (New Zealand Commission Report) transcript on page 2,433 it does suggest that you did state that you were a Palmer graduate.
Dr. Katz: I might have said Palmer, yes. I don't remember that, but it certainly might be the case, yes.
"DC": So then in your dealings you did use a pseudonym and did act as if you were a chiropractor?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": Do you feel that the conclusion that the New Zealand commission arrived at regarding this activity was unfair?
Dr. Katz: Absolutely, and when they published it, I was quoted in the largest Canadian newspaper as calling them "cowardly." He said that and then walked out the the room.
"DC": But why would you think it unfair if you had pretended to be a chiropractor?
Dr. Katz: Because I don't think that constitutes fraud, lies and deceit. I think that that constitutes a valid way, and objective way of gaining information that was not available saying that I was a doctor. And I also would point out to you that that information was accepted in two courts of law, in federal law and in provincial law, which qualified me to be recognized as an expert witness both in the Tartiff case and in the Lyons case. I'll also tell you that as a journalist in the past this is a commonly used method of gathering information, by journalists, by many, many people to call up and if you wanted to buy a car or something, you might call up and pretend you want to buy one when you really didn't or whatever. It's governments, journalists, people getting information ... Consumer Reports called up 400 people and pretended they were patients.
"DC": But there is a difference, and I've worked with various government agencies in the United States enough to know that pretending to be a patient or a potential purchaser of goods is very much different than pretending to be someone who's got some sort of degree or qualifications.
Dr. Katz: It's only different in the sense that if I pretended to treat somebody as a chiropractor, which I certainly never did. So if I put myself in the position of saying, "I am a doctor," and I am not, then that is totally different. I never did that.
"DC": The federal and state agencies I've worked with won't do that. Moving on, you've made quite a few remarks about the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. What is your opinion of the college, the education, the ability of its graduates, etc.?
Dr. Katz: I think that it is one of the best chiropractic colleges in North America, that it is moving reasonably fast towards trying to adopt some scientific principles. I think there are people within their faculty who very much want to adopt a more scientific approach, and by and large the students I've met and have contact with there seem to be very sincere and very concerned about what their role will be in the future.
"DC": This is a shocking difference from what you wrote in the Medical Post article, where you said, "Allowing graduates of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College to have automatic access to OHIP (i.e., Canadian workers' comp.), the right to use x-ray machines, as well as complete examinations of patients gives the public the false impression that these graduates are qualified to know what they are doing."
Dr. Katz: I think that that probably was a little exaggerated in what I wrote there. I certainly feel that they are perfectly qualified to practice chiropractic, but I think that the term "know what they are doing" would mean that if they felt when they graduated that they could use manipulation to treat asthma and bedwetting, and this is going to be publicly funded, I didn't think that was right. But I think that by and large if we look at all the chiropractic schools, I think that the graduates of that school have more of a concern from what I've seen of trying to practice in a scientific way than some other schools, without trying to put any school down in particular.
"DC": How did you feel about the retraction that the Medical Post made of your comments?
Dr. Katz: I had no hesitation in agreeing with it. I felt that that particular section was overstated and I feel that the school certainly does teach people how to practice chiropractic properly.
"DC": In the same article you claim that "The three largest groups of manual therapists have representation on the editorial board, these include the Canadian Orthopedic Manipulation Physiotherapists, the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists, and the McKenzie Institute." Is this correct?
Dr. Katz: Yes, but the term representation is not correct because it implies that these three groups appointed a representative and in fact they did not appoint a representative. The way it would be better said is that the editorial board includes people who are members of these groups.
"DC": It's been suggested that the use of the term orthopractor by a chiropractor would mislead or deceive the public by giving the false impression of added qualifications or training (please see "Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards Takes Stance Against Use of Term 'Orthopractic'" in the August 12, 1994 issue). It has also been suggested that the use of the term by a DC may be, in fact, a violation of state or provincial statutes. Would you agree?
Dr. Katz: No, because all the chiropractor is doing by using the term orthopractic is deciding to limit his practice to musculoskeletal conditions. If a pediatrician limits himself to pediatrics, or a surgeon limits himself to surgery, they are not violating any medical laws. They're still doctors, and any chiropractor who decides to limit himself is still a chiropractor.
"DC": Right, but you're encouraging your members to use that as official titles in advertising, in communication with insurance companies ...
Dr. Katz: It would not replace the term chiropractor, though. They would always say "chiropractor orthopractic." This is the same way we might say "physician, practice limited to children." We've never asked anybody to remove the name chiropractor.
"DC": In the June 19, 1994 "News Highlights for the Week" which is sent by fax to all of your members, it states, "President of Saskatchewan Chiropractic Association asked for speaker towards entire association joining movement." What does that mean?
Dr. Katz: I've never received it.
"DC": It's being sent out down the (orthopractic) fax tree to all of your members.
Dr. Katz: From?
"DC": I assume from you guys.
Dr. Katz: I've never seen it. What does it say?
"DC": It says, "President of Saskatchewan Chiropractic Association asked for speaker towards the entire association joining movement."
Dr. Katz: Good.
"DC": What do you take that to mean?
Dr. Katz: Well, I guess it means that they want someone from the Orthopractic Society to talk to them.
"DC": With what end in mind?
Dr. Katz: To explain what orthopractic is, and see how interested they are. I think that's a very positive development.
"DC": When we inquired with the executive director of the Saskatchewan Chiropractic Association, his statement was, "That's just crap."
Dr. Katz: I guess you'd have to find out again who is the fax tree referring to. I mean, it might be the association, it might be the registrar group, it might be a local city group. I have no idea, but you'd have to make sure you're talking to the same person, so you'd have to find out who wrote the fax, and find out who they communicated with, and talk to the same person. I'm not surprised to hear that, though, because I know that there have been requests that come from other provinces in Canada for people from the Orthopractic Society to speak to them.
"DC": In addition, your organization has suggested the involvement of various prominent members of the chiropractic profession including John Triano and David Cassidy, when neither of them are members or intend on becoming members.
Dr. Katz: No, we've never suggested that. I have never suggested that. I've never, I don't know who else has.
"DC": Then you may want to check with some of your members because it's going down your fax tree.
Dr. Katz: I think there have been inquiries, but until people decide what they want to do, there's a lot of enthusiasm in the Orthopractic Society and sometimes people get carried away a little bit and might jump to conclusions which are not yet true. I think those should be limited as greatly as possible because I don't think it's fair that people's names are used improperly.
"DC": You've been quoted as using Dr. Triano's name at the (American) Back Society meeting.
Dr. Katz: I have not used Dr. Triano's name at the Back Society meeting that I am aware of. I didn't make any speech there ...
"DC": No, in talking with individuals at your booth.
Dr. Katz: People might have said, "Has he written to you?" or I don't know. I mean in private conversation. He has requested, on several occasions, information and has initiated all of those requests for information, and we've replied.
"DC": So you're suggesting that you have made comments suggesting his involvement in private conversation?
Dr. Katz: I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that he has inquired and we've answered his inquiries. If he joins, that's up to him. It doesn't really matter. It's not a big issue with us at this point in time. We don't need any prominent chiropractors to join our group. The idea is spreading with what we have, and with the people we have. If there are prominent chiropractors who wish to join, that's really up to them at this point in time. I don't think there are many crucial issues left, I think the idea has taken hold, I think it will slowly develop, and I think that it affords the opportunity of any chiropractor who wants to move into the mainstream of scientific medicine, to be accepted. I think it's remarkable that a person like myself, who is known so much as being anti-chiropractic and against everything chiropractors have been doing, has turned about, has extended myself personally, and works within the medical establishment to convince my colleagues to do the same, to accept those chiropractors who wish to practice a good therapy in a safe and scientific way. I think that's a remarkable turnabout for someone who 10 years ago, had really nothing good to say about chiropractors.
"DC": Your executive secretary Jill Hawkins, she sends each member a welcome letter that lists certain membership benefits, does she not?
Dr. Katz: Yes.
"DC": Isn't one of those benefits, "The Society will provide you with personal letters of reference which can be sent to physicians in your community. A sample from Dr. Murray Katz is enclosed. Feel free to duplicate it and distribute it, along with a copy of the green orthopractic pamphlet to physicians in your community."
Dr. Katz: Yes. You have a personal letter from me, being sent to my medical colleagues, saying I personally think that a chiropractor who wishes to limit themselves is acceptable. I think that is a remarkable endorsement of support for someone who is supposedly anti-chiropractic.
"DC": But isn't this just a bit misleading in the fact that you've never met this person. You don't even know how many eyes they have, or what color they are, let alone how they practice.
Dr. Katz: That's right, but I also respect the fact that they are willing to give every patient this pamphlet. If they betray my trust in them, that's up to them. We, in fact, have had some people who had the pamphlet, went to chiropractic offices, none of members so far, and showed the chiropractor the green pamphlet, and the chiropractor then has done something and the person has said, "Thank you very much, I'm leaving." We've also had chiropractors write to us and say, "I saw this pamphlet, my patient brought it in, and I'm very impressed with it. I don't treat infants and babies, I don't take total body x-rays. Where do I join?"
The Orthopractic Manipulation Society International has gone far beyond anything the NACM ever did or was because the OMSI is an international group, we're a multidiscipline group involving orthopedic specialists, osteopaths, physiatrists, PhDs, chiropractors, physical therapists, so it's an entirely new thing. Plus the Orthopractic Society has made the first clear delineation, as Paul Shekelle did, between manipulation as a therapy, and chiropractic as a philosophy. Those two ideas are instantly understood by politicians, by government, by insurance, by news media. They instantly understand that.
"DC": As you know, the New Zealand Commission dedicated all of chapter 23 of their report to reviewing your testimony and your conclusions. On page 112, paragraph 12 of that chapter, they referred to you stating, "It is disappointing to find that a practicing medical practitioner could think it right to indulge in a deliberate course of lies and deceit of that kind." Do you feel that this statement could also include some of the misleading statements that have been made to the public, to the PTs, and to other people regarding orthopractic?
Dr. Katz: No. No, I think we're operating openly and honestly. I don't think any misleading statements are being made in any way. I speak for myself in that regard and, I think, for most of the people I've been associated with. I think there have been little misunderstandings and turnings of phrases, but I think by and large, we are being as open and as honest and as frank as we can.
Most organizations within the chiropractic profession are in the process of examining the "orthopractic" concept. Every organization to take a position on orthopractic, has been very negative, with the obvious exception of the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine (NACM), which has an extremely small membership. The NACM has changed its name to the "Orthopractic Manipulation Society of North America." Some of its officers include: Drs. Ron Slaughter, Charles DuVall Jr., Dan Futch, and Kenneth Edington.
This interview is presented to allow you to draw your own conclusions. Is orthopractic the "scientific" way to practice manipulation, or is it an effort by a long-time enemy of chiropractic to destroy this profession?
