WFC attacks WCA for its international outreach effort

In a blatant example of intraprofessional animosity, Mr. David Chapman-Smith, Secretary-General of the World Federation of Chiropractic, has asked the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) to withdraw its recognition of the World Chiropractic Alliance as a non-governmental organization (NGO).

Mr. Chapman-Smith's action came just weeks after the WCA introduced subluxation-based chiropractic to a world-wide audience at the annual NGO conference in Seoul, Korea.

In a letter to the head of the NGO section of the DPI, Chapman-Smith -- who was involved in the founding of the WFC and runs its operations out of his Toronto office -- claimed that the WCA is "not an eligible organization," and that it was "founded as a reaction to the formation of the Federation."

However, planning and legal preparations for the WCA was begun in 1988 -- the same year as the WFC -- and The Chiropractic Journal, the WCA's official publication, was started in 1986, two years before Chapman-Smith announced his organization.

Chapman-Smith also makes the claim that the WCA "appears to have sought status with the DPI of the United Nations solely in response to the Federation being granted official relations with WHO."

WCA founder and President, Dr. Terry A. Rondberg, noted the absurdity of this argument stating: "The WCA applied for and was granted NGO status with the DPI in order to help inform the profession and the public about the U.N.'s health mission, and to ensure that subluxation-based chiropractic was represented in the world arena."

Dr. Rondberg added, "As it turns out, it's a good thing the WFC is not the only chiropractic group involved in U.N. activities. The WCA is needed to counter the WFC efforts to distort the purpose and character of our profession."

In particular, Rondberg pointed to the WFC's efforts to develop what it calls its "WHO Policy on Chiropractic." The WFC and the WHO's Office of Occupational Health had initially collaborated on a text called, "Chiropractic Methods in the Prevention and Management of Neuromusculoskeletal Disorders."

In September 1999, the WFC newsletter announced that the WHO had refused to endorse or publish the text. Despite this setback, the WFC is still hoping to work with the WHO to "undertake a study of chiropractic to develop WHO policy on the profession."

However, the study, which the WFC says will be funded by the WHO, "will be completed by an interdisciplinary committee of chiropractic and medical experts, agreed upon by both WHO and the WFC."

Most chiropractic observers expect any such policy to reflect the overly medical, "low back pain" model supported by Chapman-Smith and members of the WFC executive board, including Louis Sportelli, D.C., Scott Haldeman, D.C., Reed Phillips, D.C., John Triano, D.C., and other developers of the Mercy Guidelines.

Although Rondberg has been urged to file a similar complaint with the U.N. against the WFC, he says he prefers for the profession to handle this situation internally, rather than involve the world organization in what he sees as a "turf battle."

Christopher Kent, D.C., WCA's NGO representative, agrees with this decision. In a letter to the DPI's NGO representative, he apologized for "those in my profession who seek to involve you in differences of opinion. The World Federation of Chiropractic represents a different point of view than the World Chiropractic Alliance. It represents a minority of practicing chiropractors worldwide. Despite this, WCA has never attempted to demean the WFC in the U.N. system. Nor have we engaged in ad hominem attacks on WFC officials. To do so would be inappropriate and unprofessional."

Dr. Kent added, "We feel that there is room for professional disagreement and that open discussion of differing points of view is healthy and necessary for the growth of any profession. It is our position that neither the WFC nor the WCA has the sole 'authority' to represent chiropractic internationally."

It appears to many, however, that the WFC is attempting to position itself as the sole arbiter of chiropractic world-wide, particularly through its "Tokyo Charter," developed in 1997. The Charter calls for all chiropractic schools throughout the world to abide by standards set by the WFC.

The Charter specifically sets a goal of establishing "one minimum international standard in chiropractic education," and proclaims the WFC the sole arbiter of that standard.

According to the Charter, educational programs could be conducted only with "prior consultation with and approval by the national association or other chiropractic organization recognized by the World Federation of Chiropractic as representing chiropractors in that country..."

In addition, only WFC member associations could be allowed to invite people to teach in their countries. In nations with two or more organizations, those not recognized by the WFC would be barred from providing educational programs.

To strengthen its stranglehold on the global chiropractic educational system, the Charter includes the notation, "In this Charter, the word 'should' is used with the meaning 'must.'"

Although the majority of chiropractic field doctors are not aware of the existence or work of the WFC, Chapman-Smith continues to claim that the group is "a democratic organization representing national associations of chiropractors in over 70 nations." Among these associations include such groups as the Chiropractic Association of the Cayman Islands, the Croatian Chiropractic Association, the Chiropractic Association of St. Kitts & Nevis, and the Chiropractors Association of Zimbabwe.

"While chiropractic and chiropractors in all these nations are important," stated Rondberg, "the fact is, the WFC does not derive any authority from field doctors. Even in the U.S., many D.C.s who are members of the ICA have no idea their dues is going to support Chapman-Smith and the WFC."

The ICA board itself is divided over the issue of continuing its financial support of the WFC. Although the board recently voted to renew its support, several members dissented.

Kent, the ICA's Northeastern Regional Director, argued that Chapman-Smith's "view of chiropractic is a grotesque caricature of our noble profession," and stated that the ICA's status as a WFC "Constituent Member" was nothing more than "ICA tokenism."

In a note to ICA President Robert Hoffman, D.C., Kent stated "It is obvious that WFC, through Chapman-Smith, wishes to be 'the sole worldwide arbiter of things chiropractic.'" For this reason, he added, he is "passionate about the ICA withdrawing its support of WFC."

Upon hearing of the internal dispute, Rondberg stated, "As the president of the World Chiropractic Alliance, I will not presume to tell the ICA board members how to vote. However, as an ICA member myself, I feel free to voice my opinion that as long as the ICA gives even symbolic support to the WFC, it will continue to represent itself as the primary authority figure in chiropractic around the world. And, it will go on setting medically oriented standards in an attempt to lock subluxation-based chiropractic out of the world community."