Are We Fighting to Keep Ourselves From Helping Patients? – Mark Gallant, DC Student

Reasons to be in favor of the DCM

There has been a lot of controversy recently about the new Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) Standards, chiropractic colleges offering a Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine (DCM) degree, and the ability for chiropractors to prescribe medication. I don’t understand our reticence to allow doctors to help patients. We all should understand that there is a time and a place for medication. We all probably also understand that medication is overprescribed and sometimes very poorly prescribed. I personally don’t like pharmaceuticals, but if I can save my patient the cost of an office visit to their MD because they really do need an antibiotic, then as long as I know what I’m doing, it will better serve my patient if I have the capability to do so. Or I guess I could send them to their MD who may give them a painkiller on top of the antibiotic and may possibly convince them they don’t need to be wasting their money on a chiropractor.

I understand that some people are scared that this will corrupt the profession, but who better to have the responsibility to hand out medications than the people who really don’t want to? We all know that chiropractors find patients who are on the wrong medications or conflicting medications. There will be patients who come into our offices on medications that are hurting them. As long as they are on those medications, we may not be able to help them.  Also, they may be on a medication for a condition improved due to chiropractic care.  At that point they will be on too much medication. Right now, the best we can do is send them back to their MDs and hope they can or will fix it. We fight so hard to educate our patients about a way of health that utilizes pharmaceuticals only when absolutely necessary, but then we have to refer them to someone who doesn’t operate with that same philosophy. It’s bad enough that our patients are inundated with advertisements for the newest greatest pill, but how much of their education from us is lost in that MD’s office as well? If we have the power to prescribe medications, then we have the power to tell the patient to stop taking medications that are hurting them.

It saddens me and makes me a little ashamed of our profession that there was such opposition to the bill in New Mexico. I would have thought we would want to support our fellow chiropractors for wanting to go the extra mile to better serve their patients, but instead we rallied to fight against them. Now granted, I am still just a student, but it seems that as a profession, we seem to be really good at fighting with our colleagues, and trying to convince everyone else that the other guy is wrong. We currently have the opportunity to change things in a way that would be acceptable to us. I don’t think it will be long before states start to pass laws that allow chiropractors with the proper education to prescribe. At that point, it will become a part of our curriculum or a diplomate type of program. If we are the ones who initiate and develop that education, then we can direct how the subject is taught within our profession. We can have a hand in forming the standard of care, instead of trying to adapt to a standard of care that got developed without us. We should stop fighting so hard to keep ourselves powerless, and we should start working together to elevate our profession.

Want to Prescribe Drugs? Go to Medical School – Alexandra Gerdel, DC Student

Chiropractic is a drugless profession

Chiropractic finds itself in a unique and treacherous position today. Namely, we are in the position of having people who call themselves chiropractors push for prescription rights in states like New Mexico, Colorado and Alabama. The arguments given for the incorporation of drugs into the profession are many. Typically these arguments entail some form of the idea that by earning prescription rights chiropractors will finally be recognized as doctors “equal” to that of medical doctors, or that we can provide more options for our patients as primary care physicians if we have the ability to prescribe drugs and perform other “primary care” procedures such as small surgeries. There’s also the argument that by earning prescription rights, chiropractors will be able to un-prescribe drugs. A question arises however: is the benefit really worth the risk?

The most obvious counterargument to the proposed inclusion of prescription rights into the chiropractic profession is, simply put, chiropractic was created as a profession that heals without the use of drugs or surgery. Chiropractic is not medicine, and in fact our predecessors fought like hell in chiropractic’s infancy to prevent chiropractic from being defined as or absorbed into allopathic medicine. Remember the chiropractors who went to jail, some multiple times, for practicing medicine without a license? The result of all of those battles was chiropractic winning multiple court cases that defined chiropractic as something separate and distinct from medicine. Why are we so eager to join a system we knew wasn’t working 100 years ago, and which tried to destroy us for many years because we posed a threat? (Perhaps the threat of actually healing our patients and not just masking their symptoms.)

Our profession has always maintained the stance that we are a profession that heals without the use of drugs or surgery. In a day and age when death from medical mistakes and drug side effects ranks among the top killers in the country, it appears a portion of the chiropractic profession has decided they would prefer to be a part of the death system, rather than maintaining our position in the HEALTH care business. The business where sick people get well and transform their lives through the new-found ability they have in being responsible for their own health. And for what purpose? What can we possibly stand to gain by joining ranks with medicine and “doing what they do” when our stance has always been that the allopathic approach to health and wellness does not work.

These are just a few ways medication interferes with the overall goals of chiropractors and their quest to naturally restore and maintain the health of their patients:

•  Medication interferes with instrumentation, which is a very important tool with which chiropractors assess the function and health of the nervous system in more than one technique.
•  Earning prescription rights allows pharmaceutical companies to begin monopolizing chiropractors much as they do medical doctors and contributes to their already ludicrously deep pockets, thereby perpetuating the health crisis rather than providing an alternative.

•  Any chiropractor who feels a need to prescribe medication to their patients has lost all faith in and understanding of what they do, have no concept of chiropractic philosophy, and are desperately seeking an alternative way to make money and feel accepted by the medical profession. In other words, they are no longer practicing chiropractic.

Chiropractic was, is and always will be a profession devoid of drugs and surgery. Those who have become lost and forgotten the roots of where they come from or the purpose they serve for their patients have two options: 1. Find a chiropractor practicing chiropracTIC and learn the philosophy that makes this profession the beautiful thing it is, or 2. Give up the title chiropractor and go to medical/osteopathic school. There’s a time and a place for the use of drugs. There are already multiple professions that fulfill that need. Let’s not attempt to make a profession that is separate and distinct into something it was never designed to be.

The Circumcision Debate – Carley Edwards, DC Student

The Benefits of keeping males intact

New parents have a lot of decisions to make when it comes to what’s best for the health of their child. A few decades ago the question of whether or not to circumcise male infants was not a question for most parents living in the US. The majority of infants were put under the knife with parents under the belief that it was healthier and cleaner. Times have changed, and so have circumcision rates.

The history of circumcision dates back to cave paintings and ancient Egyptian tombs. Muslims consider circumcision to be sunnah (routine) and Jews consider it to be a Mitzvah (commandment).  In the late 19^th century, people feared that a male’s foreskin would lead a boy to masturbate, and that would lead to insanity, and therefore it was cut off. In 1981, the US circumcision rate was 81 percent. Today, parents are becoming more aware of the physical and emotional effects of circumcision and the rates are dropping. Circumcised boys are actually the minority with over 80 percent of males worldwide intact. As of 2009, the US rate of male circumcision was 32.5 percent. This was a huge drop from 56 percent in 2006. Circumcision in the US costs between $150 and $270 million dollars. It is a major surgery that has many risks including, infection, hemorrhage, septicemia, gangrene, and even loss of the penis. Fifty-one infants died after the procedure in 1999 according to The National Center for Health Statistics. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) website, “circumcision is not essential to a child’s health,” and “data are not sufficient enough to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

Infants are circumcised with no anesthesia at all. A Canadian study showed that infants who were circumcised were more sensitive, crankier, and cried more often. According to the AAP, “there is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiological stress,” and “physiological responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and cortisol levels.” It also has been shown to disrupt the mother-baby bond. After the procedure, babies had trouble nursing and would not look into their mother’s eyes.

A male’s foreskin makes up 80 percent of the skin on a males penis and contains antibodies, antibacterial and antiviral proteins, and an enzyme called lysozyme that helps kill pathogens. This may explain why intact men have a lower risk of contracting STD’s. The glans (head) of the penis is anatomically equivalent to the female clitoris. A woman’s clitoris is protected, and therefore so should the glans. This covering protects it from abrasion, drying and callusing. It is not just skin that is removed during the surgery, but nerves and blood vessels as well. The penile frenulum is an area of the foreskin that is covered with nerves and is considered to be the male g-spot for most intact men. Intact men seem to have better sex lives and the sensitivity of the foreskin has been compared to the lips of the mouth, but this area is partially or completely destroyed during circumcision. The foreskin and the glans work in unison to increase pleasure response. The foreskin also serves as lubricant for females, and without it can cause drying out of the vaginal canal. Foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels that are removed during circumcision. Removing the foreskin removes the most sensitive part of the penis. It was believed that it was harder to keep an intact penis clean, however the opposite has actually been proven.

Another false belief is that those who are circumcised have less chance contracting HIV and other STD’s, when the exact opposite is true. Thirty-five studies have been conducted and was concluded that circumcised men were more at risk for contracting HIV than those who were not. This may be because the lysozymes in the foreskin have anti-viral properties. The AAP says, “behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors in the acquisition of HIV infection than circumcision status.”

There are social reasons surrounding a parent’s decision of whether or not to circumcise their child. A father may be worried that his son will look different than him or that he may be picked on. Circumcision rates have dropped dramatically as stated above and more boys are being kept intact which means less chance of them being a minority. It is believed that fathers feel their sons will be different because they have past regret about their own circumcision. According to The Circumcision Resource Center, it may be helpful to explain to ones child that other children have had a part of them removed and that you wanted to keep him natural and whole and then list the reasons why. Overall, an adult can choose to be circumcised later in life if he feels unhappy, but the rate of this is very rare perhaps indicating that intact men are very happy indeed.

As with every birth decision, parents are advised to make an informed choice about their future bundle of joy. For more information, visit www.circumcision.org and www.intactamerica.org.

The Immunization Debate – Michelle Allgeyer, Casey Carter, Jonathan Fonke, Joseph Fonke and Mike Rullo, DC Students

A Chiropractic Philosophy Perspective

Staying within the context and limits of chiropractic philosophy, how can a chiropractor respond to his/her patient’s question of whether the patient should or shouldn’t get his/her child vaccinated? What role will chiropractic care play in either answer (“Yes, I will get my child vaccinated.” or “No, I won’t get my child vaccinated.”) the patient chooses for the child?

*All quotations in this text came from Modern Chiropractic Principles, a CPAP 1605 powerpoint presentation by Dr. David Koch*

Doctor, by definition, means teacher. So as doctors of chiropractic, we are teachers to the unlearned community about chiropractic, and to some extent, overall health. Our main job is to present unbiased, scientific information to patients, give them a recommendation based on facts, not any prejudice, and then allow the patient to decide what they feel is best for their child’s overall health. It is the current belief within the chiropractic community that we should not directly tell a patient whether or not they should choose to vaccinate their children, but only present both sides of the issue and have the patient decide on their own.

In terms of philosophy, the issue of vaccination brings to discussion some of the chiropractic principles. First, drawing on a biological principle, “Each and every living organism has the self-organizational consciousness of the universe inherent to and active within it, which is its unital consciousness,” or innate intelligence if you will, chiropractic philosophy starts by saying that we humans,  living organisms, have an innate intelligence inside of us. A patient who would be willing to accept this biological principle may inquire as to what innate intelligence is.

This offers the chiropractor the opportunity to open dialogue with the patient and further define innate intelligence for them as, “A living organism’s innate intelligence is expressed by the higher order interactive processes that characterize life itself, including self-assembly, self-maintenance, self-transformation, species-perpetuation and self-directed matter/energy exchanges with the environment”. With that foundation, it would be an optimal time for a chiropractor to discuss the purpose behind immunization. From the scientific perspective, the purpose of immunizations are to expose a child (or an adult) to a given pathogen (in some form, whether it is dead or weakened), in order for the body to be able to create antibodies and an overall immune response to defend against it if the pathogen were to expose itself to that person at a later date.  The difference between this approach and choosing not to immunize your child is that you are not exposing them to this pathogen in its vaccinated form, but instead relying on the body’s ability to defend itself against a foreign pathogen without antibodies being present prior to infection. Thus, not creating an immune response at the time of vaccination, but taking into consideration the possibility of never getting exposed to the pathogen, and if exposed, allowing the body to create its own immune response. What we then relay to a patient is according to another of the chiropractic principles, “A living organism’s innate intelligence is the source of the information necessary to reorganize the matter and energy it assimilates from its environment into patterns of structural relationships (forms), and energetic interactions (internal biological forces) that maintain the identity of the organism and thus are constructive to the organism.” This principle is saying that what the body does through innate intelligence would always work toward good aspects of health for the body, including self preservation and healing. This does not mean however, that the body is impermeable to sickness and disease because of the bodies self maintaining capabilities. What a chiropractor should tell the patient here is that our bodies do the best they can at the time of infection, given their current physical condition and influences from the environment around them. This statement leads into what chiropractors call interference.  “For any specific structure to express its unital consciousness (or innate intelligence) to its fullest, all the matter necessary to create it must be present, and all the energy-mediated interactions necessary to give it its specific form must occur without interference….If the distortion of the message does distort the organizational relationship, the distortion of the message is interference.”  What we then tell a patient is that a distortion of organization, in theory, changes the body’s capacity to adapt to outside stimuli, such as a strong pathogen. If interference is removed from the body through regular chiropractic care, according to the chiropractic principles, the body will be able to fight off foreign pathogens that it encounters, and in fact it does so every day. However, if interference is present in the body, then its potential to fight off any pathogen will be greatly diminished and thus an increased necessity for vaccination.

It is also the chiropractor’s duty to inform their patients of the potential toxins that many vaccinations contain. These toxins have demonstrated dangerous effects on the bodies of children through their interference with not only the nervous system, but many other body systems as well. The question of being vaccinated or not is a “double-edged sword”. Being vaccinated causes interference and increases one’s chance of being adversely affected by a toxin or the pathogen itself, but at the same time allowing the body to build antibodies for the specific pathogen being vaccinated for. By not vaccinating, but instead keeping the body interference-free through chiropractic adjustments, the child’s immune system is not weakened from the toxins and pathogen/s in the vaccination, and their own body’s innate ability to maintain health is trusted. Basically it boils down to a parents’ individual beliefs and ideals which will become the determining factors for them to decide on whether or not to vaccinate their children.

In today’s society, childhood immunizations are common medical practice in the United States. The more information that is being spread to the American population through various media, whether or not it’s accurate, the more important it is for chiropractors to get the correct, unbiased, chiropractic principled and scientific information to their patients so that they can make their own informed decision concerning vaccinating their children. Patients are asking questions – that’s good. As trained health professionals and primary care providers, chiropractors should be ready to help patients with the answers they seek. The above gives a basic glimpse into how chiropractic philosophy can be applied to the immunization debate.