July 2005

Canadian leaders take issue with Ontario association president's criticism

Background: A recent organization newsletter article by Dr. Dean Wright, president of the Ontario Chiropractors Association, inflamed DCs around the world, generating angry rebuttals from other chiropractic leaders as well as field doctors. Although supposedly explaining why his group chose not to sue the Ontario government for its decision to drop funding of chiropractic in his health care program, Dr. Wright used the column to denigrate a large segment of the profession, including those who view chiropractic as a non‑medical discipline focusing on the detection and correction of vertebral subluxation.

In the article, Wright stated: "In the past, I have spoken to you of how our profession must progress as a unified and confident coalition. While I believe this to be true for the vast majority of chiropractors, there are individuals who situate themselves outside this core group and in doing so place the profession at risk." One such group, he noted, consisted of "charismatic zealots ... (who) claim to treat no specific conditions but take credit for curing all of a patient's 'health issues' while exacting a heavy financial toll on these individuals. It is these so‑called leaders who have the potential to set chiropractic back to the dark ages. Members of this 'Flat Earth Society' claim to love and care for their patients yet this transparent veil is soon washed away by their greedy, non‑patient centered actions. Propaganda from these individuals to chiropractors in the field speaks of more money, less work and greater well‑being. We live in a world where the hook seems to be 'have it all today with no significant energy/effort or intellectual output.' Practice requires work, commitment and time. Yes, we should do our best to strive towards efficiency, but this must never be at the cost of what is in the best interest of the patient. As most of us realize, it is these self‑serving actions that compromise the credibility and standing of our profession in the public eye."

He added, "Left to the zealots our profession will regress into isolation and most likely become but a footnote in the history of healthcare. They are afraid, ignorant and insecure; unwilling to allow chiropractic care to be fairly challenged and improved upon. They feel there is no room for evolution and most certainly integration with other providers is tantamount to a mortal sin."

The following are just two of the responses sent to Wright.

>>> From Dr. Michael Reid, President of the WCA Canada

I am corresponding with you in response to your president's message, dated April, 2005. I am sure that you have received a lot of correspondence regarding the tone of your letter. My concerns lay in your slanderous remarks of "charismatic zealots, heavy financial toll, propaganda, more money, less work, greater well‑being, serving themselves, monetary gain." The tone of your letter smacks of desperation, fear, and ignorance of many in the field who are investing considerable amount of time and money to raise up a profession that is hemorrhaging at an alarming rate. I take great offence to attacks on myself from those within my own profession who denigrate those of us who understand what chiropractic truly is, and are investing our resources to rescue doctors from mediocrity, poverty, and apathy. Your words only fuel the fear mongering and apathy that already stems from our detractors such as Katz and Polevoy. BJ Palmer once said, "That it is easier to light a candle than it is to curse the darkness."

It is my opinion that in order to advance our profession forward we must cease from turning the wagons in and eating our own, and focus on a vision of serving the public through public education campaigns, while protecting each other from outside in forces. As the WCA Canada president, coach and active practitioner, my vision is for a greater chiropractic community of brothers and sisters supporting each other regardless of their style of practice. I believe that it is the OCA's mandate to support and protect the chiropractors in Ontario. Your letter proposes exactly the opposite.

‑‑‑‑‑

>>> From Steven J. Silk, DC, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chiropractic Awareness Council

I have just had the opportunity to read your very passionate "President's Message" in the April 2005 OCA News. Bravo on letting your membership see the fire in your belly. It is refreshing to see others taking a stand for their beliefs, rather than trying to be all things to all people. If you will indulge me, I have a few comments and a question from the CAC Board of Directors.

We are in total agreement with you regarding your concerns for the ultra‑mechanists, who focus on, as you state, "1 or 2 specific condition‑based areas." While these people comprise less than 13% of the profession (JCCA 1997; 41(3):145‑154), they would appear to make up a very large percentage of our researchers. It would also appear that they heavily influence the marketing decisions of both OCA and CCA.

We are also in total agreement with you regarding your concerns for the so‑called "charismatic zealots." I must assume you are discussing certain management and marketing firms that heavily promote religious implications as a leverage tool for long‑term care contracts. This sort of "moral manipulation" is of great concern to CAC as well. We believe that a basic orientation to chiropractic tenets, a thorough assessment for neural function and spinal integrity and an honest description of a how chiropractic can improve their well‑being is all that is necessary for anyone to begin a chiropractic interaction. This is what took our profession from one man in Davenport, Iowa to the largest non‑allopathic healing art in the world in under 100 years!

CAC is in full support of the OCA position that we need to question the ethics of an extremely small percentage of practitioners who put princiPAL ahead of princiPLE. As you are aware, these are turbulent times for a lot of DCs, and many will grasp at anything to keep themselves afloat. These misguided but often well‑meaning people really need to examine the impact they have not only on their own practice in the long‑term, but on how the public will look at the entire profession.

However, if we must look at who poses the bigger danger to the profession, then I would argue that it is the first group. They have surreptitiously directed our educational and professional leadership organizations for over 50 years. They have taken us from standing as a proud, distinct and unique health care system to kneeling at the feet of the medical monopoly and the government for handouts. From leaders of the alternative health movement to spinal pain technicians. I am most certain that those who went to jail for their beliefs in the early years of our development did not do it to ensure $150/year from OHIP.

Finally, the Board of Directors of CAC would like some clarification on exactly where your consternation is directed. Is it the marginal few who put short‑term income above the long‑term needs of their community? Or is it those who practice in a traditional values model? I anticipate that it is the former, as the unscrupulous among us run the entire philosophical gamut. If you are inferring that it is the latter, might I point out that it was determined in a 2003 study by the Institute of Social Research that from 81% to upwards of 90% of the profession have an affinity for such a practice style. This would make US the "quiet majority" you speak of. Please clarify your position for our membership and the profession at large.