Chiropractic: Profession or Modality?
|AND FROM: HuffPost ~ 11-19-2015
Are you a thing or are you a human?
If someone wishes to assess your potential contributions to this life we live, what is the best starting assumption: thing or human?
The questions may seem silly. But a recent report from the RAND Corporation bores in on how regular medicine reduced complementary and alternative medicine professionals to “thing” status — as “modalities” — in the first years of the integrative medicine era.
The title of the report is “Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Professions or Modalities?”. The discussions among policy makers, practitioners and delivery system leaders synthesized in the 75-page document beg a more significant question: Does the emergence of values-based medicine urge a major re-think regarding the potential contributions of these professionals?
The case statement by RAND’s Patricia Herman, ND, PhD and Ian Coulter, PhD begins with a blunt irony. “One of the hallmarks of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is treatment of the whole person.” Yet in the fee-for-service procedure and production orientation of the medical industry, licensed practitioners of chiropractic, acupuncture and Oriental medicine, and naturopathic medicine were typically stripped of this core value — treating the whole person — before being put to any use.
New RAND report examines the policy implications.
Is chiropractic a profession or a modality?
That’s the thought-provoking question explored in a new RAND report funded by the NCMIC Foundation.
“a problem that confronts the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) professions whereby a profession is defined politically not by its full professional scope but by its treatment modalities.”
Authored by Patricia Herman, ND, PhD, and Ian Coulter, PhD, the RAND report highlights chiropractic and four other major CAM disciplines: acupuncture and Oriental medicine, massage therapy and naturopathic medicine, examining how the “profession vs. modalities” issue affects “policy implications for coverage, licensure, scope of practice, institutional privileges, and research.”