The Wellness Paradigm: Is It Effective?
Dear Editor:
If Dr. Gatterman's wellness paradigm is embraced by the collective mind of the chiropractic profession, we will continue to struggle for survival. The pursuit of the wellness paradigm has not improved our credibility or legitimacy; in fact, it has stifled our growth and utilization. We exist because of public mandate and the types of conditions they are willing to present to our offices. For the most part, they are willing to accept treatment from a chiropractor for neck and back complaints. Yet we aggressively pursue a wellness paradigm at the expense of filling this much-need niche. Our continued reluctance to fill this void has only confused the public.
Do we really need a wellness practitioner to advise us that smoking, alcohol and drugs are bad, or that exercise is good? There are no credible studies suggesting the public seeks out chiropractic care for smoking, alcohol, drug, exercise or diet advice. The vast majority of patients seeking out counseling for these lifestyle issues consult their family physicians.
In my experience, the promoters of the wellness paradigm generally do not maintain a full-time private practice. For the most part, it seems educators, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs drive this paradigm, leaving many field practitioners wondering why their offices are out of sync with the wellness paradigm. Perhaps it's the educators, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs who are out of sync with the public.
Robert Falco, DC
Weehawken, New Jersey
Is Unity the Only Way?
We have cries of unity constantly now. Dynamic Chiropractic almost always has stories on it. There are and have been attempts to unify state chiropractic organizations. The ACA wants to unify all the national groups. On the surface, it sounds good: "Let's get together and do something great, as one. We will be more focused, powerful, effective, etc." This all sounds wonderful. So what is the problem?
Not everyone wants unity. Not everyone thinks unity is a good idea. How can this be? Many are not just ambivalent, but are actually against unity. Who could be against unity ... why would someone be against unity? This is not just about who will or won't be in charge or politics as usual. The bottom line is a question that I do not see being asked: "Is unity best for chiropractic and for the public/patients?"
It is assumed by many, and stated by some, that unity is to benefit the chiropractors. And what do chiropractors want? More money. There is nothing wrong with money, but the truth is, it is not the thing that should be first and it should not be what unites us.
What is best for the profession? There is no consensus on this. There are probably as many answers/opinions to this as there are chiropractors. Do we each put aside what we think is best for the profession - its future, its reputation and what is best for the public - so we can come together to try and make a few more dollars? While some would say yes and are doing that, I do not think it is right or realistic. There are fundamental differences that cannot be patched over; that cannot be combined under unity. Frankly, unity is absurd. Do we think Democrats and Republicans could unify? It is outrageous to even think it. (However, there is an exception: when they vote on giving themselves a raise.) Why would anyone think chiropractors could really unite? Is our greed, and the assumption of our greediness as a profession, so great, that we would be expected to compromise on fundamental principles and ignore basic differences? I think it is insulting.
Wake up. This is a noble profession with much to offer humanity; we have a long and bright future. Should we sell out? Never. Sure, it would be great if we were all of one mind, but the truth is we are not even close. Do we throw in the towel? No. We recognize our differences and focus on them. We should divide, not unite. If we must change things, and I am all for change, let's not have unity - let's have division. We must become two, three or four different professions, not remain one.
Jason Meyerson, DC
Ellicott City, Maryland
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em?
Dear Editor:
Why can't we, or better yet, why don't we join the American Medical Association for survival purposes like the osteopaths did in 1960?
Joseph Refkin, DC
Merrillville, Indiana
