Doctors debate rightful role of the World Federation of Chiropractic
Recently, an e-mail
exchange discussed issues involving the World Federation of Chiropractic, an
organization headquartered in Canada which has come under fire for
attempting to regulate and control the chiropractic profession worldwide.
The discussion took
place between Mr. David Chapman-Smith, WFC Secretary General; Dr. Mark J.
Styers DC, President, World Chiropractic Alliance Deutschland. Those
messages are reprinted here, along with commentary by Dr. Terry A Rondberg,
President, World Chiropractic Alliance, CJ Mertz, DC, of the International
Chiropractors Association and Dick Plummer, DC, of the Federation of
Straight Chiropractors and Organizations. An article by the late Fred Barge,
DC, also touches on relevant issues and is included here.
From Mr. David
Chapman‑Smith -- March 26, 2004
Dear Mark,
You will see that I am
copying this to Dr Gerry Clum. That is because he is someone we both trust,
he is on the WFC Executive, and given my responsiblities to the WFC I should
not act secretly -- someone on the Executive should be aware of all that I
do.
My purpose is simply to
pierce the propaganda for a moment, to respond with a few real facts in
answer to the continuing unfounded and severe attacks the WCA and Dr
Rondberg make against the WFC and me -- always without the common courtesy
of copying me with what is being written.
In response to Dr
Rondberg's emails of March 18 and 21:
1. As to the suggestion
that Dr White of the German Chiropractic Association, (GCA) acts under my
direction, with my "fingerprints all over" what she is doing, I have not
been in contact with her or the GCA since the dispute early last year. The
GCA, as your experience will confirm, acts completely independently in
Germany.
2. As to the suggestion
that the WFC, alone or in association with other organisations, acts as a
"hammer to go after individual doctors for practising subluxation‑based
chiropractic", this is the great untruth spread by the WCA, it seems to me,
to support the supposed rationale for its existence and continued division
of the profession.
The WFC, as it must to
fulfil its challenging role, represents all chiropractors rather than one
faction or another. This means it will never be fully satisfying to any
special segment of the profession -‑- including those strongly promoting
straight chiropractic or those, for example, promoting -division of the
profession into chiropractors and chiropractic physicians or asking for
prescription rights for drugs.
To say that this
inclusiveness represents a campaign against subluxation‑based chiropractic
is simplistic and wrong. Most chiropractors are subluxation‑based and, if
the profession is to thrive, it must hold that main focus. The WFC and the
great majority of its members support that position, as shown by the
adoption of the ACC Paradigm. Would colleges like Life, Life West, Palmer,
Parker and Cleveland be long‑term and continuing financial supporters of the
WFC if it was "hammering" and "going after" DCs who are subluxation‑based?
3. Finally, as to Dr
Rondberg's rather pointed comment that I have "intentionally and very
specifically encouraged witchhunts by regulatory boards around the world to
bring charges against chiropractors ouside WFC standards of care":
a. The WFC has no
standards of care.
b. There is not a
single fact to support or justify this further attack on my actions and
character. Feel free to check with the author and see. Ask what "very
specific" steps I have taken. This is reckless fantasy. I have no such
contacts with any regulatory board and have no clue what charges, what
chiropractors and what standards he is referring to.
In normal circumstances
a person would raise these matters with Dr Rondberg directly. You will know
why I don't ‑- there is now considerable history, and I have good cause to
expect that anything I might say would simply be misrepresented. I have a
settled policy of no response. This is my first communication with anyone
affiliated with the WCA for a couple of years.
Thanks for your time
Mark. It is sad that the changed dates at WHO last year meant that we failed
to meet. Feel free to call -‑ I'll be in the office all next week.
Best wishes
David Chapman‑Smith,
WFC Secretary General
********
From Dr. Mark
Styers -- March 29
Dear David;
I appreciate your
contacting me last year to find out exactly what it is I am trying to do
here. As to the actions of the WCA and Terry Rondberg, I support him
completely, as I feel this is the group that is going to carry chiropractic
into the next generation (unsullied, without the use of drugs). I can
appreciate what you are doing, but frankly, we are on opposite sides of the
fence on the issue of what chiropractic is, and where it is going.
On the contrary, the
WCA has offered its full support in what I am doing here. Last year, the WCA
sent a delegate here on a fact-finding mission, because I believe they
wanted to make sure I was doing what I say I am doing.
They were more than
surprised to find out that what I am doing is working extremely well, and
with their support, we will build the first chiropractic school to be in a
German speaking country in history. Combining Austria and Switzerland, we
are talking about over 100 million people.
As I said before, I am
not in agreement with what your goals are, but that does not mean that we
cannot have an open line of communication.
As far as Ingrid White
and the GCA go, I had expected you to talk with her, and get her to stop
spreading propaganda about me. Not only has it not stopped, but it has
gotten worse. I am in the process of bringing legal action against her
personally.
The GCA is an ally of
the WFC, the ECU and the ACA. I have received nasty personal attacks from
all of these groups, and frankly, they matter little to me. We talked about
this liability issue on the phone last year. Like I stated to you before, I
have no problems with suing all of these organizations if they are involved
in this propaganda.
As to my school, I
explained exactly what it is I'm trying to do here. I was sent the WFC
policy statement in regard to introduction of chiropractic education. Under
"Staged Program development," and regional and international impact, you may
be surprised to know that I am following all of the rules relating to an
educational program being introduced into a country where no laws exist,
with one exception.
That one exception is
not working with the GCA. As a professional trying to further my profession,
I hope you can understand why I am not doing this. One cannot work within
the framework of an organization that is not interested in anything other
than control.
I think the leadership
of the GCA has shown time and time again to you and to everyone else that is
following what is happening here, that they are not a group I would be able
to get anything accomplished with.
However, the WCA
Germany, in just one year has been able to achieve more for chiropractic
than the GCA has done in over 30 years. Why is that? It has to do with our
motivation. Our motivation is not self interest, but in the interest in the
betterment of the profession we hold so dear.
I believe I can get
along with anyone in my profession, as long as their motivation is
chiropractic, and not control. I even respect the diversity of our
profession. In all of the attacks Ingrid White has made on me, I have not
yet let the profession know what it is she does in her office, although the
time of exposure for the lies she has been promoting is almost here.
If you want me to
believe your motivation is pure and you really want to represent
chiropractic, then let me see some real action. Send out a letter chastising
Ingrid White for asking all of the WFC affiliate organizations presidents
not to attend a Family Practice Symposium I am hosting this summer in
Austria. (www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/summit04/global.htm#Germany/Austria)
If I see you do this
David, then we will have a better relationship with each other. If your
organization does not want to be labeled as supporting the GCA and Ingrid
White, then please step up and take a leadership position, let everyone in
Europe know it is not the WFC misbehaving here, but the GCA acting on its
own.
As far as sending
copies of the e‑mail to Dr. Clum, you are right -- he is someone I do
respect. He is also one of the few people who I have shared the details of
my plans with in conversation. He is understands what's happening here,
although I have been disappointed that I have not seen him chastising WFC
President Paul Carey for his personal attacks towards me.
I am proud to say, that
things are moving along rapidly, even with the road blocks that WFC, the ECU
and the GCA have placed before me. I would not be far along without the help
of Dr. Rondberg. His diligence and passion for the profession, are to be
respected and admired. I understand you may have a personal dislike for him;
these personal matters do not pertain to me. I am President of an affiliate
organization of the WCA and a member of their International Board of
Governors I am accountable to the WCA not the WFC.
I want to state again,
I am very hopeful you will do the right thing and set the record straight
concerning the relationship between WFC the GCA and Ingrid White. When she
is no longer in power in the GCA, I hope someone may influence the GCA to
work together with me rather than against me.
There is going to be a
Chiropractic School University in Germany soon, with a University Doctor of
Chiropractic Degree offered. I am working closely with a chiropractic school
in the states which will help lay the ground work for the education here. I
would hate to think that with this marvelous accomplishment, that there
would is another WFC affiliate group in Germany who have been kept in the
dark regarding what has happened here. Please let me know what if any action
you decide to take.
Yours in chiropractic,
Mark J. Styers DC,
FICPA President, World Chiropractic Alliance Deutschland, WCA International
Board of Governors
********
From Dr. Terry A
Rondberg, President, World Chiropractic Alliance
Mr. David
Chapman-Smith, Scretary General of the World Federation of Chiropractic,
states: "As to the suggestion that the WFC, alone or in association with
other organizations, acts as a 'hammer to go after individual doctors for
practicing subluxation‑based chiropractic,' this is the great untruth spread
by the WCA, it seems to me, to support the supposed rationale for its
existence and continued division of the profession."
There is ample evidence
that this statement is false and that Mr. Chapman‑Smith in fact encourages
regulatory Boards to go after subluxation‑based chiropractors. Case in
point: After some arm twisting, the World Federation of Chiropractic put its
signature on the ACC Paradigm Statement, yet the spirit of the ACC Paradigm
seems wholly lost in the following quote from Mr. Chapman‑Smith, that
recently appeared in his publication The Chiropractic Report:
"There is a public and
medical perception that chiropractic treatment is endless. [T]he perception
is fueled by and is consistent with some practices and practice management
schemes that boast lifetime care, promote unreasonable frequency of care,
and press patients for large advance payments for future treatments. As has
been the case in Australia recently, licensing boards need to deal
aggressively with unprofessional behavior in these areas."
This really isn't
something new as Mr. Chapman‑Smith wrote about this in his book "The
Chiropractic Profession," which was published by the National Chiropractic
Mutual Insurance Company.
In his chapter on Scope
of Practice, Chapman‑Smith discusses Frequency and Duration of Care and
poses the question: "What is an appropriate number and frequency of
treatments for a patient with acute, uncomplicated low back pain, another
with chronic headaches and a third wanting preventive care?"
He supplies the answer
to his own question:
"At one end of the
scale there are horror stories of patients consulting a chiropractor who
says that 100 treatments will be necessary to solve the complex problems of
their spines, and that they can open up lump sum trust accounts at the
office to cover payment. If this happens, refuse treatment, warn your
friends and then call the state regulatory board."
In his book
Chapman‑Smith also attacks the Council on Chiropractic Practice's Guidelines
on Vertebral Subluxation in Chiropractic Practice, calling them "unreal"
guidelines created by a "splinter group not representative of the
profession."
Chapman‑Smith further
denigrates subluxation‑based practitioners in his book by stating that the
conflict between straights and mixers "has been largely resolved" and that
straight chiropractors would not refer a patient in need of medical care.
He also states that
there is no separate education, practice or professional organization for
straight chiropractors. Apparently, he has never heard of Sherman College of
Straight Chiropractic or of the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and
Organizations.
Chapman‑Smith's refusal
to acknowledge or even tolerate subluxation‑based chiropractors pours from
the pages of his book.
Chapman‑Smith's
righteous indignation and denial of "intentionally and very specifically
encouraging witch hunts by regulatory boards around the world to bring
charges against chiropractors outside WFC standards of care" seems
ridiculous in light of the evidence against him.
In his letter to Dr.
Styers, Chapman-Smith states that the WFC "represents all chiropractors
rather than one faction or another."
How absurd considering
how he has denigrated subluxation‑based practitioners, their organizations,
guidelines and practitioners! He is insulting the intelligence of anyone who
can read and follows what is really going on politically within the
profession.
Chapman‑Smith then goes
on to write that "most chiropractors are subluxation‑based and, if the
profession is to thrive, it must hold that main focus."
This statement is in
complete contradiction to previous statements he has made, as well as his
advice to give up the very word "subluxation" in order to better sell
chiropractic to the public.
He asks: "Would
colleges like Life, Life West, Palmer, Parker and Cleveland be long‑term and
continuing financial supporters of the WFC if it was 'hammering' and 'going
after' DCs who are subluxation‑based?"
Actually, yes, they
would, although not for the reasons Chapman-Smith would have us believe.
Simply because a
college that is supposedly more subluxation oriented than another supports
the WFC doesn't means the WFC is acting in their best interests, or the best
interests of the profession.
One cannot ignore the
deep political issues and struggles facing the college presidents. The
recent accreditation crisis in the profession has reinforced the fear that
the long-term political power struggle has generated.
We also cannot ignore
the political clout that certain members of the profession have within
national organizations and schools. Many of these people have their own
agendas and seek to manipulate others to remain supportive of the WFC ‑ even
when it is not in the best interest of subluxation‑centered chiropractic.
The schools,
organizations, and individuals who send hundreds of thousands of dollars to
the WFC every year need to be held accountable for their continued financial
support and the subsidizing of Chapman‑Smith's salary.
This financial support
implies support of the WFC policies, actions and statements. Considering its
record and the toll it is taking on individual chiropractors and the
profession as a whole, one wonders how anyone would want to be associated
with the WFC.
They can no longer use
the argument that "we are going to change WFC from within." As long as you
pump money into the WFC machine, it will not change. It will merely run over
you in its headlong rush to dominate the profession.
********
Position on WFC by
CJ Mertz, D.C., current president of International Chiropractors Association
"The World Federation
of Chiropractic has, for years, attempted to dominate the chiropractic
profession in the United States and around the world. Although it possesses
absolutely no authority to do so, the WFC has continually tried to set
academic and professional standards for the profession. Yet, its leader ‑
David Chapman‑Smith ‑ has repeatedly voiced his opposition to the basic
concepts and terminology of subluxation‑based chiropractic and encouraged
doctors to distance themselves from the philosophical tenets upon which our
profession was founded. His statements ‑ and the organization's actions ‑
completely contradict the definition of chiropractic set forth in the
Association of Chiropractic College's "paradigm" which the WFC went on
record as endorsing.
Further, the WFC and
Chapman‑Smith have used unethical tactics to intimidate and attack those
individuals and organizations choosing to follow traditional chiropractic
tenets. I find this reprehensible and unacceptable and call upon the WFC and
Chapman‑Smith to put an end to their campaign to control chiropractic and
shape it into their own vision of a medical therapy.
The chiropractic
profession cannot and should not continue to support an organization that
claims for itself authority it does not have, and tries to wield that power
in a malicious and destructive manner."
********
Position on WFC by
Dick Plummer, DC, FSCO leader
“The World Federation
of Chiropractic (WFC) is a self‑appointed organization with an agenda to
dictate to and have dominion over the practice of chiropractic and
chiropractic education throughout the world. They and their cohorts
represent a viewpoint that is allopathic in nature and far removed from a
subluxation focus for a practice and educational foundation. Unless and
until they truly demonstrate a willingness and the actions to accomplish a
representative viewpoint of our profession they should not be supported by
schools, professional organizations and certainly not receive funds from the
National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) (that continues to charge
the students ever increasing fees)."
********
“Why I joined the
WCA" by Fred H. Barge, D.C., PhC, (Hon) FICA, FPAC, SCS
Reprinted from The
Chiropractic Journal, August 2000
In a 1999 address given
in New Zealand to the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC), entitled,
"Chiropractic in the 21st Century, the WFC's Secretary General David
Chapman‑Smith made the following statements referring to the time when
osteopathy changed its terminology:
"Chiropractors must do
something similar with chiropractic subluxation ‑‑ use the term internally
because of its 'rich history' but use another externally. I would recommend
joint dysfunction. They must acknowledge that adjustment is manipulation,
albeit precise and skilled, and that they do not do anything unique ‑‑ they
just do an interesting blend of things better."
Egads, fellow
chiropractors! Adjustment is manipulation? Drop the use of our own lexicon,
our beloved subluxation? Change subluxation to "joint dysfunction?" Proclaim
that we have nothing UNIQUE?
Without subluxation,
analysis, control, reduction and correction we will have nothing unique and
no reason to exist!
In this address, Mr.
Chapman‑Smith refers to chiropractic as "manipulative care" and calls our
care, "treatment approaches." His total view of chiropractic care is
basically manipulative "neuromusculoskeletal treatment."
Egads, once more!
Shades of the ACA's "S.M.T." (Spinal Manipulative Therapy) ‑‑ the very term
that I and thousands of other chiropractors have steadfastly fought to
prevent from becoming our standard vernacular, our preferred lexicon.
Both the ICA and the
ACA support the WFC and, unfortunately, so do most of our ACC (Association
of Chiropractic Colleges) schools. I have spoken out before the board of the
ICA for more than a decade now in respect to the ICA's funding of the WFC. I
do believe it is morally corrupt for the ICA to do continue this funding.
Perhaps, this is the
major reason I lost out in the last board election. So be it. I did not
campaign for the job and I went down running on three major issues:
1) To stop funding the
WFC.
2) Hearing ALL
insurance proposals for ICA malpractice. Dr. Rondberg was invited to present
the WCA's malpractice insurance to the ICA Board at the June board meeting,
but he sat two days and was denied a hearing ‑‑ a discourtesy I found
intolerable.
3) I spoke out before
the assembly on term limits in respect to the ICA Board.
Be that as it may, the
fact is that for 12 years now the ICA has supported the WFC only to have
voice as the minority opinion. Such a position merely aggrandizes the
majority, as they proudly attest to the fact that they do allow a minority
opinion to exist.
The minority opinion
serves little purpose in an autocratic organization. This was one of the
major reasons I took the helm of the last merger battle between the ICA and
the ACA. In the merger, the new board would have been made up of seven ACA
members and three ICA members ‑‑ hardly a merger, my friends. The ICA's
opinion would never have prevailed.
Such is the case here.
To pay the WFC $20,000 per year just to have a voice is to assume the
ostrich posture. We "good guys," the guys for freedom of choice and fair
play, play the fool ‑‑ again. "Enuf" said on that matter.
When I spoke with Dr.
Christopher Kent, who actually resigned from the ICA Board and the ICA over
the WFC issue, and when Dr. Patrick Gentempo gave me a call, I was told that
Dr. Rondberg was opening the WCA to the concept of a broad‑based Board of
Directors and an international body of representatives. They asked me to
serve on the WCA Board of Directors and I said, yes!
I decided to serve an
organization that would actively oppose the WFC's therapeutic stance and
fight for the principles that I, throughout my career, have dedicated my
life to. I saw the need for a second organization to represent chiropractic
internationally!
I believe in the
two‑party system, as whenever one party stands alone, totalitarianism
exists.
"Nothing is worse than
the practice of totalitarianism because nothing that free men do is half so
dangerous as the evils which inevitably follow in totalitarianism's wake."
‑‑ K.F. Pople
I have clearly seen
this in the WFC. They are autocratically endeavoring to create chiropractic
into a musculoskeletal treatment discipline and bastardize chiropractic's
unique non‑therapeutic stance. They are endeavoring to establish
chiropractic in the international arena as a "primary contact specialty" in
the conservative management of neuromusculoskeletal disorders! Egads again!
This would automatically relegate us to the "aches, pains, cricks and
strains" domain.
I ask you, fellow
chiropractors, where would that place my own personal practice that was
built on caring for conditions such as epilepsy, high blood pressure,
asthma, heart arrhythmias and infectious disorders? Where would such a
dictum today place B.J. Palmer and his Research Clinic? I never saw a
backache case enter in my term as an intern.
Where would this place
your practice fellow chiropractors? Those of you who care for children's
problems and the elderly with chronic "diseases?" Those of you who accept
ALL cases regardless of the condition, knowing that if the patient is
subluxated, we can be of help?
No, no, no, no. Not in
the twilight of my years!
Not after we have
endured all of the indignities organized medicine could cast upon us ‑‑
including jail! Not now at the dawn of the new millennium when the public is
crying for anything other than allopathic designed health care. Not now when
we have reached a level of acceptance that will allow us to step into our
rightful place as the doctors of the future!
So, I say to you, one
and all, brothers and sisters of the principle, join the WCA, the
international organization that will dedicate its efforts to counter the
opinions of attorney David Chapman‑Smith and allow CHIROPRACTORS to speak
for chiropractic! We are not ‑‑ and will not be ‑‑ a competitive
organization to the ICA, ACA or FSCO, nor do we solicit you of those
organizations to quit and join us. We say, join us, TOO ... for the reasons
I have explained.
I'm sure you realize by
now that the WFC is asking for individual D.C.s to join that organization.
We are simply saying that no chiropractor whose basic frame of reference in
care is the detection, location, analysis, control, reduction and correction
of the vertebral subluxation should be caught dead supporting the WFC. WE
offer you the alternative ‑‑ the WCA ‑‑ and pledge our efforts to guard the
principle. And, allow me to personally assure you (as B.J. said) we shall
"guard it well!"
That, my friends, is
WHY I joined the WCA. I will not quit the ICA, but I will remain a member
and work for this association as I have all my professional life. BUT, I
have joined the WCA, too, the organization pledged to the international
effort to establish chiropractic for chiropractors worldwide!
"Enuf" said.
