Making excuses isn't good enough

Over the past couple of months, I've found myself in a very difficult situation. I'm a member of the International Chiropractors Association and serve on its legislative committee. For many years, I have supported the group and helped with its recruitment campaign. I have the utmost respect for its noble history, its subluxation-based principles, and most of its leaders.

When I felt the organization's board made a bad decision by overturning an earlier vote and choosing to continue giving money to the World Federation of Chiropractic, I had two choices.

I could play the role of a loyal party member and shut my eyes -- and my mouth. I could ignore the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach whenever I recalled that part of my dues was going into the pockets of people like David Chapman-Smith and Dr. Louis Sportelli. I could sit back and figure that since the fine men on the ICA board made the decision, it must be right.

Or, I could speak out.

If you know anything about me, you know which choice I made.

The response has been overwhelming. I've received hundreds of e-mails from doctors around the world who were equally shocked by the ICA Board's decision and were asking -- no, demanding -- that the ICA pull out of the WFC.

They expressed their concerns to the ICA and usually received the same response (or a variation of it) from one of the board members.

Unfortunately, too many of these letters contained lame excuses rather than good reasons for the ICA's position. My concern is that a few of the ICA leaders will continue to use these excuses to explain away why they are giving monetary and moral support to the WFC, an organization that is diametrically opposed to subluxation-based chiropractic.

My other concern is that some chiropractors -- ICA members and non-members -- might fall for those excuses.

Let's take a look at some of the excuses.

The major one as that since the WFC is influential, the ICA has no choice but to work with them.

This is what Thomas M. Klapp, D.C., a member of the ICA Board argues in a letter he sent to several doctors. Although he admits that "the WFC isn't what anyone would call a 'traditional, principled chiropractic' organization," he says,

"... the WFC has skillfully positioned itself throughout the world as the leader, arbiter and clearinghouse of chiropractic legislation and practice issues internationally... That influence is why the ICA, despite the often vast philosophical differences we have with much of the WFC, continues to pay dues to the WFC."

That reasoning doesn't hold water. The American Medical Association has great influence as well, but that doesn't mean we should be supporting it with our money!

If a group which clearly doesn't share even our most fundamental principles has managed to insinuate itself into a position of power, the last thing we want to do is validate that position and further it. Yet, by lending its name and funds to the WFC, that's exactly what the ICA is doing.

The next excuse is that the ICA needs to be "inside" the WFC in order to influence it.

"If the ICA doesn't act as the conscience of the WFC, then who will?," Klapp asks. With all due respect to the ICA, it's been a member of the WFC for years and hasn't been able to have any noticeable effect on WFC policies or actions.

The ICA's role in the WFC is the worst example of ICA tokenism we've seen since the inclusion of a couple of subluxation-based doctors at the Mercy Conference. Does anyone think for a moment that the WFC will bend to the wishes of the ICA on any real issue or objective?

Did the ICA's presence in the WFC make any difference at all when that organization was developing its plan to regulate global educational standards? Was the ICA consulted when Mr. Chapman-Smith and Dr. Sportelli decided to publish the book "The Chiropractic Profession," which was filled with misinformation about our profession and about the role of the WFC in it?

Was Dr. Gerald Clum, the ICA representative to the WFC, even informed that the WFC was going to contact the United Nations Public Information Department and complain about the World Chiropractic Alliance having been granted NGO status?

Apparently, even Dr. Clum was out of the loop on that one. In a letter he wrote to Mr. Chapman-Smith on Dec. 6, 1999, Dr. Clum tells the WFC leader that "The tone of your letter (to the U.N.) seems to suggest that the world has been ceded to the WFC and the WFC will be the sole worldwide arbiter of things chiropractic. I find no such role as I review the founding documents of the WFC."

Dr. Clum went on to say, "Your request for reconsideration of the WCA status by the DPI was inappropriate and unprofessional. On behalf of the International Chiropractors Association, I demand the retraction of your letter of November 18, 1999 to Mr. Hoeffel and an apology to the World Chiropractic Alliance."

No such letter was ever written. No such apology was ever given. So much for the ICA's ability to act as the conscience for the WFC or for its leaders. When the ICA representative isn't included in the decision making process, it's time to accept the fact that their "involvement" is ineffectual.

There are rumors that, in order to deflect some of the criticism being leveled against it, the WFC will make some cosmetic changes. Since Dr. Sportelli's term is up soon, he will be replaced as president and, no doubt, the WFC will say they did this as a response to the ICA's input. But even if that or something similar happens, it's not going to fool anyone.

When we read the WFC's positions, listen to David-Chapman Smith talk about chiropractic, or read his "definitive" book on our profession, we'll know that the ICA has never had any meaningful input into WFC policies -- nor is it at all likely to in the future.

We've also heard some WFC apologists within the ICA state that since the WFC will likely sign the ACC position paper, it can't be all bad. The position paper developed by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges is a profound document and could well serve as a basic model for our profession. But, it doesn't matter how many ACC documents the WFC signs. Agreements and contracts are only as good as the integrity of the people who sign them.

Mr. Chapman-Smith has already shown himself willing to lie.

He lied to the profession when he said he acted on order of "the executive" when lodging his complaint with the U.N. against the WCA, and was forced to admit this during the recent Chiropractic Town Hall meeting in New Jersey.

He lied to the world in his book, which Dr. Christopher Kent has called "a veritable encyclopedia of misinformation." Even Dr. Clum complained that in the book, "Mr. Chapman-Smith advances certain ideas and responsibilities in the name of the WFC that I believe are 'overreaching' the role and authority of the WFC." That's putting it mildly.

The point is, Mr. Chapman-Smith and the WFC have voiced their opinions on chiropractic loud and clear. We know what they think of our profession and what they would like for its future. Does the fact that the WFC might sign the ACC position paper change any of that? This is simply window dressing.

The other excuse we've been hearing is that the ICA doesn't have the money to fight the WFC.

In a letter to one angry ICA member, Dr. Klapp wrote: "The ICA, if it had the numbers of members and financial wherewithal that would support the kind of 'global leadership and authority' you refer to, we would indeed take dead aim at the WFC and simply compete with them."

What kind of message is this sending to our profession? To me, Dr. Klapp is saying that if we don't have a lot of money we need to climb into bed with anyone who has power.

If newly licensed doctors used this same reasoning, they would all feel it necessary to work with the local MD/DC chain. After all, if they had the money, they would simply compete with them. But since they don't, they might as well just give up on their principles and let the other guys win.

The ICA may not have the financial resources of the ACA, but it has something which that group, and the WFC, never had -- a strong grounding in chiropractic principles and philosophy. I happen to believe that will win out in the end. If the ICA will take a firm stand on those principles -- without compromise or excuses -- it will have the members and the money needed to be a true international leader.

These aren't just empty words. I know this from experience.

The World Chiropractic Alliance doesn't have the numbers or the financial wherewithal of the ICA, let alone the ACA. We don't have a fancy office in Washington, D.C., or a big staff. Instead of holding a big convention each year in Maui or London, we exchange ideas via e-mails and faxes.

Rather than spend money on a slick magazine for members, we publish The Chiropractic Journal and send it around the world to members and non-members alike. Calls aren't answered by a million-dollar voice mail system, but by a real live person who is dedicated to subluxation-based chiropractic.

And yet, we've managed -- among other things -- to: win status as an NGO with the U.N. Department of Public Information; hold presentations on subluxation-based chiropractic around the world; provide help and support to field doctors and organizations who are being squeezed out by the WFC; distribute the CCP Guidelines to doctors in Canada as well as other nations, and built an advisory board filled with representatives from nearly every continent on the globe.

You can't tell me you can't do it because you don't have money or a big membership! If the World Chiropractic Alliance can "compete" with the WFC (and apparently threaten their dominance, considering their hostile reaction to our presence), the ICA can as well.

It's going to take a leap of faith, though. It means the ICA Board members will have to believe that subluxation-based chiropractic is the future of our profession, as well as its history. They have to have confidence that they can continue to stand on their own without leaning on the unreliable arm of the ACA or WFC.

You and I know they can do it.