May 2004

Who's really to blame for chiropractic disunity?

by Dr. Terry A. Rondberg

I'll bet there isn't a chiropractor alive who remembers a time when chiropractic "disunity" wasn't an issue. From BJ Palmer's time, there has been intra professional conflict. Different factions and organizations rose and fell, loyalties shifted, and disagreements flared.

Yet, despite it all, we've grown as a profession and managed to maintain a degree of diversity that's healthy and beneficial to both DCs and patients.

Some of us might think it would be better if the chiropractic profession consisted ONLY of subluxation based doctors. Others would like a profession that licensed broad‑scope chiropractic physicians exclusively.

Still, most agree that having different types of practices included in the profession provides patients with more choices about their health care, and protects the rights of DCs to practice as their hearts and minds dictate.

That's why, regardless of the differences in viewpoints and strategies, most organizations strive to at least maintain lines of communication with the others. They don't want to merge into a homogenized chiropractic mush and they definitely don't want to be dominated or controlled by another group. But their leaders are willing to sit down at the table and discuss ways that they can work together in the best interests of the profession and the public.

All, that is, except Dr. Jim Edwards, former chairman of the American Chiropractic Association, who is almost solely responsible for ending any hope for a cooperative atmosphere between various chiropractic organizations.

It was Dr. Edwards, after all, who wrote an article entitled: "Refusing to Take 'No' for an Answer," which stated that the ACA will "forego further joint legislative efforts," with the ICA, WCA and other chiropractic groups.

When asked in an e mail for the official ACA statement on this policy, he said his announcement in the article was the official organization position. As far as anyone can tell, there was no Board vote on this position, just Dr. Edwards' unilateral dictate that he wouldn't work with other groups. Yet, the Board must have gone along with it, since no one ever said or did anything about it.

Dr. Edwards said the policy was put into effect because the ICA and WCA refused to back the ACA's list of nominees for the VA Committee. He tried to convince everyone that we had "promised" to do so, although no such promise was ever made (why in the world would the ICA and the WCA promise to back the ACA's handpicked panel?!).

It's interesting to note that, in the same article, Dr. Edwards stated the ACA would continue to force the issue of merger with the ICA.

"The ACA will not accept ICA rejections (of a proposal to merge with the ACA) nor quit until that goal is ultimately achieved," he wrote. The title of the article referred to the ACA's refusal to take 'no' for an answer, on the merger issue. Dr. Edwards made it clear that the ACA would not allow the ICA to be a free and independent organization. It would become part of the ACA whether they liked it or not. That's Dr. Edwards' idea of "unity." One profession ruled and dominated by the ACA. All others eliminated. All in the name of "unity."

Dr. Edwards' non cooperation announcement came on the heels of his dismantling of the National Chiropractic Leadership Forum, formed in 1998 by the Congress of Chiropractic State Organizations.

The ACA, ICA, WCA and numerous other organizations were working together on joint projects as part of the NCLF. It was often a tense alliance and arguments erupted, but we sat down and worked things out. Things looked hopeful.

Dr. Edwards even said he would get the ACA to promote the chiropractic postage stamp project that the WCA started ‑‑ if I agreed to donate nearly $10,000 to the ACA's "Save our Subluxation" campaign. I took the money out of my own pocket and made what was then the single largest personal contribution. Then I waited for him to fulfill his side of the deal. I'm still waiting.

When the WCA, ICA and FSCO gathered in Washington, DC, to discuss the possibility of putting together a joint legislative group, the ACA was invited. But they refused to join us. Dr. Edwards' "policy" of refusing to work with other groups gave them the perfect excuse to walk away from a sincere effort at unity. The three groups went on to form the Chiropractic Coalition, which has become a model for cooperation between independent and autonomous organizations.

Dr. Edwards' unwillingness to work with other chiropractors and chiropractic organizations no doubt played a role in the disaster with the Veterans Affairs department. Although not a member of the VA Chiropractic Advisory Committee, he nominated Dr. Cindy Vaughn, his business partner and now his wife. He attended every VA meeting and had frequent whispered conversations with her.

In the end, Dr. Vaughn (who, with the other ACA members on the Committee had just finished pledging each other their support for the direct access recommendation) walked into the meeting and voted against direct access ‑‑ the recommendation supported by the ICA and WCA Committee members.

I don't know what he whispered in his wife's ear during the meeting, but I'm sure it wasn't encouragement to work cooperatively with the WCA and ICA members.

The fact is, when Dr. Edwards talks about "unity," he's really talking about domination. It isn't just that he wants the ACA to be the dominant ‑‑ better yet, the ONLY ‑‑ organization in chiropractic, he lets his personal animosities rule not only his own actions but those of the ACA. He has repeatedly written articles (appearing most often, of course, in Dynamic Chiropractic) that have made personal attacks on me and my family and spread lies about the WCA, CBS and The Chiropractic Journal. He's even flown to Washington, DC, in order to tell these lies to legislators and oppose bills the Chiropractic Coalition supported.

If this is Dr. Edwards' idea of "unity," no wonder the chiropractic profession has rejected it for more than a century. Thank goodness the WCA, ICA, FSCO and more than a dozen other affiliate groups know that true unity of purpose doesn't mean following the dictates of one person or one organization. It means the respectful exchange of ideas and assistance and a firm dedication to the shared ideal of advancing the chiropractic profession.