For more than a hundred years, the chiropractic profession has shown a willingness to cooperate with the medical profession. Yet, inter-professional unity has been impossible to achieve because the medical establishment does not want unity. Instead, it wants to dominate the health care landscape.

Any cooperation the medical community does seek will always be on its terms. It will work with chiropractic and other health care disciplines ONLY if it calls the shots and makes the rules. Under such conditions, it may tolerate other professions but it will not give them the respect they deserve.

Various groups within chiropractic have spent almost as long trying to find a way to cooperate with each other. When one segment mimics the medical profession by demanding dominance over the others, the results are equally dismal.

Chiropractic unity must be based on equality and mutual respect and support in order to succeed. The National Chiropractic Leadership Forum (NCLF) came into being as a vehicle for all chiropractic organizations to work together as equals on issues for the betterment of the whole profession.

The recent situation with the chiropractic VA bill showed that this strategy of united effort can work. Despite some differences of opinion about the absolute necessity of making direct reference to subluxation correction, the organizations managed to work in unison. Together, we achieved something we had not been able to do separately – make chiropractic part of the Veterans' health system.

The promise of great progress for our profession was evident in that accomplishment.

Unfortunately, a few people are now trying to imply – to borrow from George Orwell – that some organizations are "more equal" than others.

On the surface, the dispute is over the interpretation of an agreement the WCA, ACA, ICA and ACC signed concerning the VA chiropractic oversight committee.

In retrospect, I wish the agreement had been more carefully written so this entire discussion would have been unnecessary. Still, no one even slightly familiar with the policies and positions of either the ICA or WCA could have reasonably assumed they had agreed – or would ever agree – to have the current Department of Defense (DoD) Demonstration Project committee serve in that same capacity for the VA.

First of all, the DoD committee is made up entirely of ACA-aligned doctors, many of whom worked closely on the Mercy guidelines. They are the same individuals who acquiesced to DoD demonstration project rules stating that chiropractic could not be provided to pregnant women or to children.

Further, the DoD committee members were all Clinton appointees. Our legislative advisors warned us it would be unlikely for the Bush administration to merely rubber stamp these choices, that other possible candidates would be sought instead.

These other candidates include people nominated by the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine – definitely not the D.C.s we want to oversee chiropractic participation in the VA health system. Therefore, it was imperative that we, as a profession, provide alternative suggestions.

The solution seemed simple and logical. Have all interested doctors submit their names and credentials to the DVA Secretary. Let each chiropractic organization contribute to the pool of talent from which the committee would be chosen.

In a profession as large, diverse and gifted as ours, does anyone really think the five DoD committee members – Drs. Reed Phillips, George Goodman, Ronald Evans, Peter Ferguson, and Rick McMichael – are the only people capable of doing a good job on the VA committee?

Unfortunately, those who feel the ACA is "more equal" than the ICA and WCA also apparently feel the men chosen for the DoD committee are "more equal" than the rest of the profession.

It's easy to see the similarity to the medical-chiropractic conflict here. Some in our profession will accept "unity" solely on their terms and only if they call all the shots. That has absolutely nothing to do with unity. It's all about control.

To make matters worse, Mr. Don Petersen – publisher of Dynamic Chiropractic and a member of the NCLF – felt it necessary to accuse the ICA and WCA of being dishonest and untrustworthy because these two groups did not yield to the will of the ACA in such an important matter.

Actually, he did the ACA a great disservice since he painted that organization the "odd man out" in this issue. According to his report, the ACA is right and everyone else is wrong. Their interpretation of the agreement must be correct because they say it is and everyone is conspiring against them. It appears that Mr. Petersen is bent on categorizing the ACA not only as dictatorial, but paranoid as well.

Ironically, in publishing his diatribe against the WCA and ICA, he broke another agreement, one which was very clear and not open to mis-interpretation.

All members of the NCLF, including Mr. Petersen, agreed not to publish attacks against one another but, instead, allow the group an opportunity to work things out among themselves. Since the NCLF is due to meet shortly, this issue would have been brought up and hopefully resolved amicably. Yet, rather than exercise a little patience and wait for that meeting, Mr. Petersen's Dynamic Chiropractic article and editorial have only fanned the flames of a fire than could have been extinguished by reasonable discussion.

However, as I said earlier, the problem of the VA committee is only the surface issue. Underlying it is the more basic point of whether chiropractic unity can work.

While it's not going to happen instantaneously or without setbacks, for it's inevitable that we'll hit bumps in the road, my answer is, yes, it can. The VA bill itself is proof enough.

So, a more appropriate question might be, does everyone really want unity to work?

Those who truly want chiropractic unity – a unity of equals – will not attempt to turn those temporary bumps into permanent roadblocks. They will not make a practice of trying to sabotage the best efforts of well-meaning and dedicated doctors by posturing in a cloak of righteous indignation. They will not take actions that can only hurt the cause of unity but will work diligently to champion that cause.

In his editorial, Mr. Petersen railed against the "lack of trust and lack of honor" in others, yet the ancient precept teaches us that "what we see in others is a reflection of what we see in ourselves."

Let's set aside the "he said, she said, they said" rhetoric and come back to the table to discuss these matters. We are not each other's enemies and only those who thrive in an environment of conflict and controversy will keep pitting one against the other in a attempt to destroy what may be our profession's last, best hope for cooperative efforts.