AMA Calls on Government to Prevent DCs Harming Patients

During the national conference of the Australian Medical Assoc. (AMA) in 1991, the AMA called for a review of the role of chiropractors. The result was a position paper on "Chiropractic in Australia" released in September 1992, which calls for limiting DCs to the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions and restricting spinal manipulation for visceral disorders.

In a letter to the Australian Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services, Bruce Sheperd, MD, president of the AMA, expressed "grave concern at the potential for patients to suffer severe ill-effects as a result of chiropractic manipulation."

In the AMA's news release heralding its own position paper on chiropractic, the AMA boasted of lifting "the lid on a number of that occupation's spurious claims concerning treatment." In the release, Dr. Sheperd calls on the Health Ministers' Advisory Council to prevent chiropractors from "harming patients by inappropriate spinal manipulations in cases where this (sic) has no ability to improve their medical conditions."

Michael McKibbin, DC, of Attadale, Australia gave one man's opinion of chiropractic's current position in health care in Australia:

"The restraints that exile chiropractors beyond the periphery of taxpayer-funded mainstream health care throughout Australia are still working effectively. The national ethics-based boycott remains officially unchallenged by the Chiropractors' Assoc. of Australia (CAA), and the development of counterfeit chiropractors to supplant us is now having considerable effect upon the place of chiropractic.

"It is a tragedy that the boycott was not challenged in the mid-'60s and its supplanting was not countered by a demand for minimum standards in the late '70s. The response by CAA may well prove to be far little far too late."

The AMA's position paper warned of DCs who "extend spinal manipulation beyond safe limits" and that "such manipulation has been linked with a number of severe complications, including sudden death and stroke."

The AMA's postion paper provided other gems:

• Chiropractic represents only an unnecessary duplication of existing, competent services; "physiotherapists or physical medicine practitioners might easily provide equally effective treatment of back pain and would be likely to do so more safely than chiropractors. ... In the AMA's view, treatment by these practitioners (medical, physiotherapy) is always to be preferred to chiropractic."

   

• "As increasing numbers of patients choose to consult a chiropractor for initial assessment and treatment, the safeguard of a preliminary medical consultation and diagnosis is unavailable to them."

   

• Chiropractic patients who report relief of symptoms "should not be interpreted as confirmation that chiropractic manipulation constitutes effective treatment."

   

• "The nature of chiropractic philosophy and practice makes it unsuitable for public or private health insurance funding."

The CAA has responded by compiling a 60-page, referenced document to rebut the AMA's allegations. The association also has underway a "fightback" campaign involving press conferences, seminars, interviews, and press releases.