|
How do you KNOW this ... beyond your chiropractic say-so and enthusiasm, that is. Can you tell me what C1's treatment plan is for this patient … or any patient would be, for that matter ... other than that s/he might do something "chiropractic" ... maybe ... whatever that is?
Would you recommend NUCCA, SOT, Chiropractic BioPhysics, B.E.S.T., Gonstead, or Activator, let's say or some other particular chiropractic "approaches" for this patient? Or is your professional opinion that C1 should just "apply some chiropractic?" What is the clinical basis FOR your recommendation given this presentation?
While I have some incredibly vague idea about what some of you might or might not do with some of your patients some of the time, in general, very few of you have ever been specific about your management of any particular patient. Since you are all chiropractors, the inference is that you all do something called "chiropractic" ... even as none of you can say with any consistency what that "chiropractic" is.
Still, your chiropractic assurance and confidence that chiropractor, C1, will "improve the biomechanical dysfunctions" (whatever you could mean by this) is ... well ... noted 
|
Like I said, I doubt you know what chiropractor, C1, would do to any patient beyond possibly something "chiropractic"; so, I'm really not sure why you would refer this patient to C1 for treatment. But, pretending for the moment that any of what you listed above has any meaning at all, how would YOU "treat" ... ahem ... muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, balance dysfunction ... and, "etc?"
At what point to chiropractors realize that they're talking to themselves when they see patients for ... "balance dysfunction?"
|
Well, of course, you're just talking through your chiropractic hat and touching your own chiropractic nose when you say any of this. Again, though, your chiropractic assurance and confidence are duly noted ... for all this assurance and confidence is worth, of course.
|
Well, yes ... "chips falling," and all.
That said, your best clinical recommendation for this presentation is to have C1 get his or her "chiropractic" (no matter and whatever that could ever be) all over the patient to treat their "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction?"
What is the clinical basis for this recommendation, Doctor L? Or are you just trying to support the team ... no matter?
~TEO.
Should I go with the MD recommendation? 11-22-12
|
You know, SC, the questions I posed in my single post here couldn't be more straightforward for anyone who can (BOTH) think their way out of a paper bag _and_ be honest about what they think, say, and do professionally as chiropractors. If you believe the responses here have the least bit to do with HOW I've framed the question rather than (at best) an expression of a reticence to talk about the implications of providing a substantive answer, then you're not any smarter about any of this chiropractic stuff than your meatball colleagues consistently appear to be.
Of course, if YOU are treating "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction" (for example), then it's no wonder you MUST reframe the question I asked Doctor L ... which was, "What is the clinical basis for [his] recommendation" and referral to C1 given this particular patient presentation. Doctor L's answer is (so far) that the application of "chiropractic" is enough (for anyone, no matter), even as he has no idea what specific version of "chiropractic" would be used. Nor does he seem to notice or care that any particular chiropractic effort happens locally and that these "dysfunctions" are being personally defined office to office. Subluxationism at its finest. The chiropractor diagnoses something "chiropractic" and then treats with "chiropractic." May the circle be unbroken, donchano
Since you're worried about the framing of my questions, how would you frame the question of chiropractors talking to themselves and touching their own chiropractic noses? Do YOUR patients suffer (presumably "needlessly") from "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, and balance dysfunction?" If so, in your practice, are these diagnostic inferences obtained by "checking the legs," manual and/or "instrument" spinal dowsing, shapes and shadows you see on x-ray ... or what? What specific treatment to YOU use to "fix" any of these "dysfunctions" you've inferred from whatever chiropractic diagnostic methods you employ? Is this a purely personal interpretive thing where both diagnosis and related treatment are local? Or, do C1 and extreme buster diagnose and treat the same as you do? What are the implications for you professionally, chiropractors generally, and for any given patient if you don't know what other chiropractors manage the same patient?
In other words, tell me what this so-called "forum" would ... ahem ... "appreciate" about me REframing my already straightforward set of questions to Doctor L and now, to you. While reframing an issue by changing a question sometimes has merit, this is not one of those times. All you need to do is explain how it is that chiropractors are not talking to themselves when they diagnose and treat "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction." You're going to do this by telling the "forum" how YOU first diagnose "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction" and then explain how your treatment(s) directly treats what you've diagnosed.
Right ... big shot?
~TEO.
Should I go with the MD recommendation? 11-27-12
|
I know how these ChiroWeb "conversations" can (and consistently do) degenerate, so it's probably a hopeless effort to tease from the ChiroWeb woodwork a straightforward answer from the ChiroWeb peanut gallery to my straightforward question above; but, I'll remind you-all that chiropractic karmawon't resolve until any of you can do more than say, "Well, I do what I do and those other chiropractors do what they do." In other words, your answers here to date add still more pixels to an already detailed picture of the chiropractic free-for-all in which (I REPEAT), "The chiropractor diagnoses something "chiropractic" and then treats with "chiropractic."
|
And, who could really fault you for this approach -- one which might be a notch above the final answer of beauty pageant contestant who says that all she really, really, REALLY wants for everyone is "World Peace." In case you hadn't noticed, you haven't said a word about what you would do for any given patient presentation (never mind one who presented with "foot drop"), on what basis would you refer this SAME patient to C1 (for "chiropractic," donchano) as Doctor EB would, and how YOU would (I REPEAT) "diagnose and treat "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction" in ANY patient.
If you don't believe "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction" exist as diagnosable and treatable clinical entities, that's fine, of course; but, then we're back to square one my the question to Doctor EB and to a whole lot more than a bunch of chiropractors who are willy-nilly diagnosing, treating, and billing for whatever "chiropractic" they happen to be selling -- to manage, ahem, this "muscle dysfunction, hypomobilities establishing hypermobility, [and] balance dysfunction" ... as they see it, of course. At the very least, you should be asking Doctor EB the same questions I did if you don't know what he's talking about.
|
Not exactly. I suppose you could say that it both hurts AND helps. It "hurts," for example, because without a diagnosis, (even a fictitious one) you have to wonder what it is you're treating. And, without a diagnosis (even a fictitious one), it's impossible to create and implement a coherent treatment plan (even a fictitious one) that treats what you've diagnosed. It "helps" because it explains (in real ChiroWeb time) that old time chiropractism, "Anything can cause anything" and the less advertised inference that logically follows that "Anything can treat anything."
|
hehehe ... the only thing you've settled is that you are no better at answering a straightforward question about what you think and do professionally than Doctor EB and your other colleagues here are. I mean, really, SC
As to YOUR question about a "lesion," I'm afraid you're going to have to tell me -- what you mean by "lesion." Otherwise, it's impossible to say whether or not the chiropractic profession can survive and thrive based on diagnosing and treating it. In any case, chiropractors would need to demonstrate that this "lesion" is both real AND a problem AND that chiropractors can do something to fix it ... if they're going to have their "chiropractic" cake and eat it too. If you mean by "lesion," an umbrella diagnosis of a Chiropractic Subluxation from which a patient is Needlessly Suffering -- which can (I REPEAT) be anything a chiropractor says it is -- then, given the ineptitude and failure of the profession to do any of this relevant work since its inception, I have more than doubts about its future.
Personally and professionally, I think the Chiropractic Subluxation is the central stupidity of The Chiropractic Enterprise ... for all the reasons I'm getting at in this and other threads that involve the application of "chiropractic" to patients. It's an empty diagnosis and to the extent a treatment is related to that diagnosis, we should conclude that those treatments are themselves fictitious and empty. In other words, all that the chiropractic profession needs to do with regards to the "lesions" they diagnose and treat is demonstrate that subluxation fairies really are dancing on chiropractic pintips, that they do indeed cause "health problems," and that all this can be remedied by something the chiropractor does to treat. Since only your chiropractor can tell you if you're Suffering Needlessly from any of these Spinal Gremlins, I don't think any of this will ever get beyond the chiropractic nose on the profession's face.
But, since you asked about surviving without a proprietary chiropractic "lesion," I don't see anything wrong with the diagnoses already in place that are used by doctors, physical therapists, and some chiropractors who actually use them to inform and guide their therapy and management. While considerably more boring for the chiropractor than the imaginative panoply of Chiropractic Dysfunctions, Chiropractic Lesions and Chiropractic Subluxations (all Chiropractic Roses, to be sure), I tend to think medical diagnoses like glaucoma, sprain, strain, diabetes, "athlete's foot," for example, are substantive, descriptive, reproducible, and workable. If chiropractors can demonstrate a better treatment for any of these sorts of medical diagnoses, then they should, by all means, do their best to treat what they've diagnosed.
That's not even complicated, is it. The complication starts when chiropractors try to force their "chiropractic" into and onto any and all of these medical diagnoses, no matter -- rather than vice versa, in which a medical diagnosis is first made based on the specific patient presentation and then an appropriate therapy is chosen. The more indirect the rationale for the application of "chiropractic," the stupider it seems to get. It's true for all the so-called alternative medicines, by the way. The paradigm comes first ... THEN the patient. As a chiropractic college clinic director once explained to me, "Chiropractic works ... it might not work for you."
You know what I'm talking about?
~TEO.