By Dr. Walter R. Rhodes
Published by Texas Chiropractic Association, 303 International Life Building, Austin, TX 78701.As authorized by the various Boards of Directors of the Texas Chiropractic Association from 1958 to 1977, the idea first being presented to the board by E. L. Bauknight in 1958.
These excerpts are presented for educational purposes.
The antagonism between traditional medicine and chiropractic deserves some explanation. It has been so consistent, and so hurtful to certain individuals, it needs all the understanding available.
Medical doctors have always cast themselves in the rule of public protectors and their actions have assumed scientific correctness as they went about all their business, including that of trying to destroy the “chiropractic threat,” which, from their point of view, was a menace to the public health.
They traditionally had the considerable advantage of legal precedent, usually having written the laws which they then correctly accused their disagreeing competitors of breaking.
Describing themselves as “seekers of truth” they insisted they would use all science to their patients’ benefit, at any cost to themselves personally.
But such underlying assumptions will not bear close scrutiny. If truths are presented to them by enemies, or, even presented by friends at the expense of pride, the medical doctors are only as likely to accept those truths as they are to seek oaths of perpetual poverty.
The beneficial value, for example, of chiropractic spinal adjustments has been brought to them repeatedly by their own patient’s testimonies, by scientific literature in several languages, by independent medical researchers, by osteopaths and, occasionally, their own colleagues. This truth is so readily accepted by them that they reject it, do not practice it, do not teach it and will not accept it as factual even when someone else is successful in its use.
Another difficult truism for them is that they do not contribute mightily to advances in their own field. The history of advancements in medicine falls into several categories but the two largest are rejection and persecution. Physiologists, chemists, mathematicians, bacteriologists, pathologists and others in the scientific world have contributed much more to the advancement of medicine than medical doctors have.
Nearly every major new advance in treatment has been bitterly resisted by the medical profession – even to the point of persecution. The introduction of anesthesia, maintenance of sterile operating fields, discovery of blood flow use of instruments aiding difficult births, the role of infectious organisms, and the introducing of the works of I. P. Pavlov and A. D. Speransky into medical practice serve as outstanding examples.
It therefore becomes a reasonable thing if we doubt the willingness of the medical profession to objectively appraise new truths and take them lovingly to their bosoms. History is not kind to them in this regard.
Another favorite myth the medical doctors would love to perpetuate concerns their sole possession of science, the scientific method, of being the guardian of the public against those who would corrupt or misuse science at the public expense.
The following are very painful truths to those whose pride is high in the medical field. The nervous system has been paid only lip service. Its functions, functional abilities and functional importance has persistently been downgraded in both medical texts and practice.
Medical progress has been virtually confined to traumatic injuries to acute and infectious processes, childbirth and surgery. While this covers a host of problems, all of them worthwhile, it also leaves the chronic disease field untouched. Medicine has been and yet remains an empirical profession.
The point may be sharply drawn by this illustration: If one suffers from a chronic disease in 1978 he stands about the same chance of being cured or substantially relieved of his burden by the medical profession today as on who had that disease 125 years ago.
In this category are pulmonary emphysema, and the nine classifications of arthritis, especially osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Sarcoma, melanoma and many other forms of malignancy have not been touched in a substantial way. Others such as some carcinomas and leukemia are still in empirical or surgical hit-or-miss stages. Even some diseases which can occasionally be well treated are wide open in the matter of understanding, etiology and predictable treatment. When they admit not knowing the mechanism by which aspirin achieves its effectiveness, it becomes difficult to become filled with awe.
The mental and emotional illness fields are so ill defined, so varied in treatment, understanding and care that they, too, can fall in the same categories. The lowly chronic headache, the low grade backache, the chronic subluxation, acute tortillas (wry neck), the localized toxemias of synaptic junctions (pioneered as Chromatin Synaptic Therapy), migraine headaches and vagrant headaches are all examples of conditions largely ignored by the medical profession in the sense of treating their underlying cause. But woe to the one who works in “their” area, though neglected and unclaimed it may be. It reminds one of the man who hadn’t kissed his wife in 18 years but got upset at the fellow who did.
Chiropractic, therefore, is not the only neglected field. In the same category will be the works of I. P. Pavlov and A. D. Speransky, both Russian physiologists, who pioneered the conditioned response and the role of the nervous system in the etiology, course and outcome of chronic and subacute diseases. Neither are paid more than a semi courteous lip service by modern medicine. Yet they are undeniably scientific works of the highest order, lying unused, unexplored on dusty library shelves along with other ignored scientific works not currently in vogue.
In truth, the history of medicine is far too often the history of routine rejection of facts combined with a self-righteeous attitude than one would expect of a sincere seeker of truth whose interests lies in protecting the public.
When alternative methods of treatment for a particular condition are available – which is another way of saying that if a condition may be successfully treated either by drugs (which have known side-effects) or by chiropractic adjustments (which have no side-effects) – the medical doctors are never guilty of suggesting the safer method of treatment. As a matter of fact to do so has been against their professional code of ethics until a revision was made in early 1977.
The medical professions’ dedication to patients never includes an effort to select the best and safest treatment available unless they supply it – which is exactly the attitude expected from men who think they have it all.
Chiropractors, on the other hand, have always referred patients who needed medical services to medical practitioners. This fact is totally lost on the medical world. Even in time of intense persecutions, in the 1920s and 1930s, the chiropractors made referrals, were taught to do so, and still are today.
Judge E. B. Simmons never lost a case defending a Texas chiropractor – even when the facts of practicing medicine without a license were stacked solidly against him. His opponents were amazed at how effective he was at “playing the underdog” and getting the “sympathy” vote out of juries. And he was undoubtedly effective, but his record will stand on facts. The chiropractors were being unjustly accused, improperly maligned, and their rights violated. The medical profession was not the protector of the public’s interests, but their own; and they were not in possession of the bulk of scientific facts. If Simmons could only prove that, then the jury would find for his client; they always did.
But we would not analyze the animosity and bitterness and find fault with only one side. The chiropractors had faults needing criticism if one was so inclined.
It’s true that exaggerated claims were made by a few. The limits of chiropractic have not yet been established, even after 82 years of experience, but, in those early days, too much was expected and too much was often claimed. And the claims aroused resentment – as such claims always shall.
It must be soundly emphasized that the bulk of chiropractors were quiet men, solid citizens who went their way with an efficiency and dispatch with contributed mightily to the public opinion which, in the end, would give such victories to the profession in the legislatures and courts.
Chiropractors have, in defense, gone to great lengths to keep their practice pure – that is, non-medical and unmixed with exotic machinery. Their use has always been frowned on and when the official representatives of the profession appeared before legislatures and the courts they have always opposed them. Chiropractors are just now (1977) pushing for the legal use of physiotherapy instruments – but only after their basic mode of practice and right to practice has been accepted.
Much is made of the lax chiropractic educational standards of the 1920s and 1930s. It’s true, but what would one expect? The profession was, in 1930, only 35 years from the dates of its birth. The first college was established in 1898; its first substantial class – of 21 students – was in 1906. It taught all it knew or thought it knew in 12 months.
With experience, more material was added. The course was 12 to 24 months from the beginning to the 1930s. It was 36 months to four years in the 1940s. By 1949 the law in Texas required four years of chiropractic college with the basic science courses added – which meant an added two years in liberal arts college or professional schools. Chiropractors in Texas, since 1957, have been required to take a two-day refresher course each year for license renewal; and the Texas Chiropractic College now requires two or more years of college before entry into professional studies.
Chiropractic has come into its own with a six-year college requirement and a two-day yearly renewal seminar in 62 years (1895-1957). It’s only fair to compare that to medicine which has been in existence approximately 200 years in America, and they still don’t have an annual license renewal system tied to an educational seminar. Their hourly requirements in college are about the same as chiropractors, although they spend many of those hours in bacteriology, chemistry, surgery and pharmacology – subjects peculiar to their work – while the chiropractor spends those hours in anatomy, neurology, nutrition, adjusting techniques and the like – which are peculiar to his work.
But for ultimate fairness contemporaries must be compared. After all, the medicine of 1895 was barely opening the door of scientific procedures and, according to the book Medical Education in the United States and Canada written by Abraham Flexner in 1910, the medical profession was a terrible example to follow.
Many medical practitioners were untrained or almost untrained; great numbers of them had never seen the inside of a medical school Mail order medical diplomas were common and “on the job training,” that is a young man being trained by making rounds with an older, practicing doctor until he was judged “competent,” was even more common. By those standards the early chiropractors were well trained practitioners.
And medicine had more systems and branches than can be conveniently named. Homeopaths, eclectics, magnetic healers, osteopaths, allopaths and assorted other divisions of though were very common. All were unscientific according to today’s standards and men of inquiring minds didn’t necessarily hold the practice of medicine in high regard.
D. D. Palmer had been practicing a form of healing two years before Iowa licensed medical doctors. On that basis he could have had his M.D. degree merely by applying for it under what is called the “grandfather clause,” since anyone practicing a form of medicine at the time could receive on that basis their medical license regardless of their schooling or qualifications. But D. D. Palmer did not choose to do so.
For chiropractic there were no public funds of any consequence until the aftermath of WWII when the educational benefits to returning soldiers were made available to chiropractic colleges, which was a boon only to the college enrollments.
There were no other funds or taxes available to help chiropractors build schools, conduct research, administer training programs or do other useful things until the middle 1970s when a limited – very limited – amount was set by the federal government for research.
It becomes current events rather than history for chiropractors to discuss their inclusion in the medicare, medicaid and federal insurance programs and these, it would be quickly noted, are not grants, gifts or financial aids to research but are payments to individual doctors for services rendered.
When we compare the educational programs of the chiropractic and medical professions and consider what each has done with available means, the chiropractors present a miraculous case of self-advancement and owe no apologies to anyone.
There is one other item contributing to the hostility between the professions. It is complex but it probably contributes more to the problem than all the other factors combined.
The medical profession approaches the role of the nervous system in the production and maintenance of disease with a jaundiced eye. Discussions about the internal healing powers of the body and the part played by spinal mechanics in the disease process are of no value to them. This attitude permeates the whole of medical practice and surgery, they having developed various theories which regard these things as insignificant.
The chiropractic profession on the other hand, while fully recognizing the importance of medicine and surgery, also insists on a substantial role for the person’s own nervous system in the beginning, the course and the outcome of a particular disease and they have adopted as their peculiar field the influencing of the nervous system, especially via the spine, in the effort to reduce pain, suffering and disease.
They have rejected the use of medicine and surgery for their own practice – yet approving of its use by the medical profession – and have developed techniques and processes designed to influence the nervous system. This is, and always has been, the central core of the practice of chiropractic. The medical profession does not understand this. But the defect in comprehension is fully theirs and is philosophical rather than factual.
The evidences for an important, perhaps dominant role for the various system in the study of chronic diseases are mounting. Pathological functioning of the nervous system, for the first time, is being seriously considered in the etiology and course of chronic diseases. These studies are begin pursued by chiropractors, of course, since the medical profession has persistently discounted the nervous system’s importance.
Their vastly different approaches to the study of disease almost prohibit respectful conversation between chiropractic and medicine. And this basic disagreement finds itself interwoven, usually subtly and imperceptibly, into the relationships between the two professions. Being so different, they become hostile, based on the old and reliable principle, “What a man isn’t up on, he’s down on."
It is often said that the two professions compete – but this isn’t true.
The chiropractors have always acknowledged the role of medicine and surgery – a few hot-heads excepted – while they pursued their own goals, but the medical fraternity by and large has never yielded the thought that the truth may be bigger than their personal beliefs. Chiropractors observe their results, compare them with scientific studies which endorse neurology findings, and then hear arguments presented against their licensure and practice which never acknowledge facts favorable to the chiropractor; and bitterness comes. It should be expected under the circumstances.
Historically, medicine has been utterly shameless. Their background is full of errant persecution, but largely lacking in apology or acknowledgement of ever being mistaken. And as blind as the man who stands on a mountain denying the reality of sunrise.
This selective blindness may not be self-acknowledged but legislators and other responsible civic leaders recognize it and they are responsible for the health of Texas’ citizens in a more benevolent sense than the medical profession. They frequently intervene to protect their own citizens from the medical profession’s personalized “public interest.” These remarks, of course, have their application in the history of chiropractic vs. medicine – but also apply to legislation in the insurance and hospitalization industries, in the pursuit of welfare reforms, and in research and development programs of first one kind and then another. Medicine, most unfortunately, pursues its own interests, thereby forcing the public’s interest to be protected by politicians. That’s probably the best way.
Under that system the chiropractors have grown large in numbers and accomplished great things.
It makes one want to eat right and drive carefully – and stay well adjusted by the local chiropractor – until the passage of another 72 years when another history will surely be written.
As a matter of fact we can write the beginning of the new history now, and it will begin with actions by the old antagonists, the American Medical Association, in their policy meetings held in Chicago, March 12, 1977.
They reluctantly made three major changes which will undoubtedly have great effect in the healing arts. The first change will allow the referral of patients between chiropractors and medical doctors; the second change will allow specialists within both professions to consult with each other concerning a particular patient; and the third allows medical doctors to engage in any teaching for which they are qualified which, translated properly, means they can be employed as teachers in chiropractic colleges.
These changes were not as whole-hearted and voluntary as would be ideal, coming as a result of the anti-trust litigation filed by chiropractors against the American Medical Association on October 12, 1976; but regardless of the reasons, the American Medical Association will soon discover, as have millions of Americans, that to start using chiropractic services is to continue that use, with gratitude and surprised mixed in equal parts.
| Source List |
1. A Brief History of Chiropractic in New York State, 1902-1963, New York State Chiropractic Association, Sol Goldschmidt, D.C.
2. Willard Carver scrapbooks, each containing letters, articles and memorabilia. Material ranges from 1895 to mid 1930s, Willard Carver, D.C.
3. Portions of Universal Chiropractic Association Directory for 1921, 1923, 1925.
4. Texas State Chiropractic Association Directory for Texas Chiropractors in 1937. Texas State Chiropractic Association.
5. History of Chiropractic in Oklahoma, 4 parts, Dr. Harry Gallaher; Dr. Goldia B. Young.
6. The Texas Chiropractor, published by Texas State Chiropractic Association, selected segments of issues dating from April 1940. And The Chiropractic Flash, its predecessor, dating from 1934.
7. Letter to Author: Ralph E. Perkins, D.C., May 3, 1977.
8. Letter to Author: Galen R. Price, D.C., May 4, 1977.
9. Letter to A. F. Brugge from Dr. L. K. Griffin, June 17, 1944.
10. Letter to Author from Dr. F. Lee Lemly, 1977.
11. Letter to Dr. H. M. Anderson from State Senator Dorsey B. Hardeman, March 28, 1949.
12. History of Medicine in Texas, Texas Medical Association, selected references, especially on pages 320, 321, 326, 327, 335, 336, 339.
13. Legal Brief of Judgment; March 3, 1946; Texas Board of Examiners vs. Texas State Treasurer.
14. Letter from E. L. Bauknight to Dr. Walter Fischer; November 10, 1948.
15. Letter Judge Richard Critz to Dr. Walter Fischer; December 20, 1948.
16. Statement of history by Dr. Joe E. Busby, undated, with supporting letters and statements from selected other doctors.
17. Letter to Author, Dr. L. K. Griffin, April 22, 1976.
18. Letter to Author, Dr. J. M. Halstead, April 15, 1976.
19. Historical Committee of Texas State Chiropractic Association notes and letters accumulated prior to 1975.
20. The History of Chiropractic in North Carolina 1917-1967.
21. The Evolution of Chiropractic, A. Aug. Dye, 1939.
22. Healing Hands, Joseph E. Maynard, 1977.
23. The History of Chiropractic, Willard Carver, Unpublished manuscript.
24. Letter to Author from Dr. H. E. Turley, September 11, 1973.
25. Letter to Author from Dr. V. C. Stanphill, July 18, 1974.
26. Selected excerpts from Texas Chiropractic College newsletters and magazines.
27. Fort Worth Start Telegram articlere H. C. Allison, April 25, 1976.
28. Fifty years of chiropractic in Texas, Martha Metz, 1965.
29. Plus several thousand letters, articles, periodicals and notes considered to be of lesser importance.
30. Tape recorded interviews:
Dr. Harold Lynch
Dr. Golda Young
Dr. Orville Witt
Dr. Lorna Langmore
Dr. Roy Carver
Dr. J. M. Halstead
Dr. J. Lamoine DeRusha
Dr. Ruby Perkins
Dr. S. M. Elliott
Dr. Ray Nimmo
Dr. Harvey Watkins
Mrs. T. O. Davis
Dr. Devere Biser
Dr. Earl F. Craton
Dr. Charlie E. Walker
Dr. Paul L. Myers
Mrs. Llizzie Frazzell
Dr. S. T. McMurrain (4)
Dr. H. E. Turley
Mona Myers
Dr. Frank Elliott
Dr. S. T. Dodd
Dr. H. H. Kennedy
Dr. Walter Fischer
Dr. H. E. Weiser
Dr. H. O. Green
Dr. W. A. Kelm
Dr. Sam Daniel
Dr. D. G. McDonald
Elizabeth Bauknight
Dr. T. O Whittle
Dr. Re. E. Capshaw
Dr. L. C. Renken
Dr. George Cotton
Dr. Clyde Bennett