ARGUMENTS against CCE proposal

World Chiropractic Alliance

Home | Join the WCA | Contact

See also: Sample letter to send to the CCE

Detailed information on the proposed revisions and arguments against them:

Section G -- Control continuing education by providing accreditation requirements for use by the FCLB for certification of CE courses.

ARGUMENTS against the proposal:

	a) Approval of CE programs is within the discretion of the individual states – not the CCE.
	b). The CCE/FCLB proposal could potentially increase the costs of CE programs for doctors.
	c) Content requirements are based on the needs of each state’s chiropractic community and vary from state to state.
	d) The proposal could impinge on academic freedom by imposing content restrictions.
	e) The proposal extends the authority of the CCE without the consent and approval of the profession.

Section C -- Refer to doctors of chiropractic as “physicians” in CCE. Such designation would be interpreted as an “official” chiropractic designation and as a mandate to chiropractic colleges.

Arguments against the revision:

	a) Several state statutes prohibit the use of the word “physician” by chiropractors.
	b) The terminology has no relevance to educational standards and is not therefore an issue to be decided by the CCE.
	c) Use of the term would confuse the public and blur the distinction between medical physicians and chiropractic doctors.

Section H -- Requires that ALL chiropractic colleges include physiotherapy in the D.C. degree requirement and in clinical competencies.

ARGUMENTS against the proposal:

	a) Use of physiotherapy is prohibited in some jurisdictions. Where permitted, its use is discretionary, not mandatory.
	b) The proposal denies autonomy to the colleges and could interfere with their mission.
	c) The mandatory inclusion of physiotherapy could change the basic character of a college’s educational direction, shifting the emphasis from subluxation correction to treatment therapy.