The Trial

Lately I've been reading a lot about the usual chiropractic confrontations in the courts. To our professional misfortune the antagonists have usually been from the looney fringes of the profession -- the chiropriests and the pseudomedics. It's hard to decide which group does the most professional harm as they parade their inane rhetoric before the judicial system of the country.

After reading a recent editorial about a trial in which the straights and the rounds (I'm an oval) went at each other, I got to thinking about the usual confrontation -- this time before a very wise judge.

Judge: I'd like to have Dr. Pseudomed and Dr. Straight approach the bench. Gentlemen, maybe we should go into my chambers and discuss your mutual grievances rather than exhibiting your hostility toward each other before an open court.

Pseudomed: Under other circumstances I might agree, your honor, but I want the world to know that not all chiropractors are a bunch of religious kooks. I want them to know that there is a group of dedicated scientific chiropractic physicians ready to serve their needs.

Straight: See -- see? He makes me so mad. If only B.J. were here he'd know what to do with him. In the meantime, it's my duty to do battle against this scourge upon the profession.

Pseudomed: Will you listen to him. That's all these nuts can do -- intone the name of some dead chiropractor named B.J. and call on their fellow nuts to do battle against us. They're crazy.

Judge: What makes you believe that he's wrong in his approach to chiropractic?

Pseudomed: In the first place, these super straights believe that all they have to do is adjust some bones and it will affect the function of the organs of the body.

Judge: And you don't believe that structure can affect function?

Pseudomed: Of course not.

Judge: Hmm. Some years ago I had a friend who was studying to become an osteopathic physician. He told me that he believed that something called an osteopathic lesion could cause a diminution of blood supply to various organs which in turn might compromise the function of organs specific to the blood supply. I believe he called it the rule of the artery. Later he sent me osteopathic literature and research material that expanded that hypothesis to include aberrant pressure upon neural structures as well.

Pseudomed: That must have been some pretty old material.

Judge: No. What he sent me was relatively recent. Now, I'm a layman in such matters, but it made sense to me to believe that too much of anything -- in this case mechanical pressure -- on sensitive structures might affect other sensitive structures. It's my understanding that the body works as a unit so that trouble in one part of that unit could, and usually would, affect other parts of it. At least that makes sense to me.

Pseudomed: You're right about one thing, your honor -- you're a layman in this field. What you postulate has no scientific basic.

Judge: And your contention that structure does not affect function is scientific?

Pseudomed: Absolutely.

Judge: Prove it.

Pseudomed: What?

Judge: I said prove it. You might be right, but I want to see all the research material that proves that your hypothesis that structure doesn't affect function is correct.

Pseudomed: Well, I naturally don't have it on me but---

Judge: It really doesn't matter. For every bit of negative research material you might present -- my friend the osteopath could give more supporting his belief. So you should get off the "scientific" bit and admit that you can't prove anything any more than anyone else can. You believe as you do for your own personal unprovable reasons.

Straight: Bravo, your honor!

Judge: Don't be so happy, Straight. In your own way you're about as unfortunate as he is.

Straight: What do you mean?

Judge: Well -- I've taken the trouble to examine the curriculum of most of your CCE accredited schools and they apparently teach extensive courses in such things as physical therapy, therapeutic nutrition, and even minor surgery.

Straight: But that's not chiropractic.

Judge: Says who?

Straight: What?

Judge: Who annointed you -- and others like you -- as the spokesmen for what I understand is the majority in the middle? It comes to me that the best interest of the public is served when its health professionals are versed in as many skills as needed within the legal scope of their practice. Since most states allow the use of the broader scope of chiropractic, it's a good idea to have your people adequately trained.

Straight: But chiropractic is the adjustment of the spine with the hands only.

Judge: And surgery is the invasion of tissue with a scalpel, but I certainly would want the surgeon to know about all the other aspects of medical practice before he cuts on me, even if he didn't plan on using them. After some thought, I feel that Dr. Pseudomed is little more than a craven opportunist willing to sacrifice integrity for the approbation of the medical professional he worships, and a part of whose profession he would like to be. Dr. Straight, on the other hand, seems like a simple-minded person who worships the incantations of a long-dead icon in the place of reason. For these reasons I find you both in contempt of common sense and sentence you to hard labor in the pits of integrity.

Well, it was just a thought -- but would't that be nice?