Chiro.org - Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!

Daily Archives: June 5, 2011

Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion on Expanded Chiropractic Practice Part I

By |June 5, 2011|Editorial, Expanded Practice|

Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion on Expanded Chiropractic Practice Part I;
A Prescription for Professional Disaster

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Dynamic Chiropractic

By Gerard Clum, DC

President Emeritus,
Life Chiropractic College West


There has been a lot of recent traffic to our postings about Alabama [1] and New Mexico’s attempts to gain prescription rights. For that reason, we are featuring 2 articles, both pro and con on the topic of expanding chiropractic practice into the realm of medicine. We hope you will find the following 2 articles of interest.

See also:
Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion Part 2:
Best for the Profession or Best for the Public?

The expansion of the scope of practice of chiropractors to prescribe drugs is an absolute non-starter for me. In recent weeks, this conversation has moved to center stage, as evidenced by activities in the states of New Mexico, South Carolina and Alabama, as well as at the biennial gathering of the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC).

Legislation proposed to expand the authority of chiropractors in New Mexico to prescribe broadly failed; the South Carolina measure appears to be mired in committee; and the Alabama State Chiropractic Association voted down a proposal to seek such an expansion. The WFC, while presenting a forum on this issue, has not changed its policy that the practice of chiropractic is without drugs and surgery.

The battle lines are rather well-drawn and clear. One element within the profession seeks to alter the history, tradition, conceptualization, culture, laws and regulations under which we have existed throughout our entire existence to include prescription authority of various extents. This view is being opposed by members of the profession who object and perceive the very heart of our clinical approach being hijacked and transformed into the practice of medicine.

“Conflicts Clarify!”

A recent legislative hearing in New Mexico did just that: it clarified the intent and extent of the drug lobby in chiropractic. In the past, whenever the question of prescription authority in chiropractic came up, it was always related to injected vitamins and nutritional support, as opposed to the common understanding of prescription medications associated with the practice of medicine.

In Santa Fe, N.M. on March 17, 2011, the veil was pulled back on that charade as representatives of the National University of Health Sciences and University of Western States joined members of the executive committee of the New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners in seeking legislation that would allow the use of “primary care drugs.” Further, these representatives indicated that they were part of the solution for New Mexico’s primary care shortage with their willingness and self-perceived ability to treat patients with hypertension and diabetes, among other maladies. It is now clear and on the record that this is not about nutrition in any shape or form; this is about the practice of primary care medicine under the auspices of a chiropractic license. (more…)

Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion Part II: Best for the Profession or Best for the Public?

By |June 5, 2011|Editorial, Expanded Practice|

Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion Part II:
Best for the Profession or Best for the Public?

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Dynamic Chiropractic

By James Winterstein, DC,

President,
National University of Health Sciences


This is the second in a series of articles about expanding chiropractic practice into the realm of medicine. [1] We hope you will find these 2 articles of interest.

See also:
Point/Counterpoint: Seeking A Second Opinion Part 1″
A Prescription for Professional Disaster

Recently, I had the privilege of testifying for the chiropractic physicians in New Mexico who currently have some prescriptive rights and wished to expand that scope to improve their ability to provide stronger, more complete primary care.

It should be clear that I was asked to appear in behalf of the chiropractic physicians there or I would not have been there. It is not my purpose, as president of National University of Health Sciences, to dictate the direction of the chiropractic profession, but to provide the education that is required by the profession.

In this instance, the request to provide advanced education in pharmacology came to the university several years ago, just as requests to provide education in acupuncture came to the university 41 years ago and requests to provide education in “over-the-counter” medications came from Florida some 20 years ago. Our institutional charter says that we will “provide education,” which is what we have done in New Mexico, and which we intend to continue to do in New Mexico and elsewhere when asked.

Some members of the profession appeared before the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee and testified against the wishes of the New Mexico chiropractors – not as invited guests, but as intruders into state concerns. Some of the senators even received calls from out of the United States urging action against the wishes of the New Mexico DCs. I consider this kind of activity to be completely inappropriate and negative toward the profession. New Mexico DCs see a need that can be met with additional education and an expanded scope of practice. They, it appears, have a concern for the public, while their detractors have a fiercely held belief that the chiropractic profession must always remain what it was when formed by its originators. (more…)