Subject: Re: food for thought
Date: December 18, 2002
To: chirosci-list
That's because a "manipuable lesion" IS a "Chiropractic Subluxation" by any other name. The baggage doesn't go along WITH it, Dan. Rather, the new and improved "manipuable lesion" is just another chiropractic suitcase to carry any and anything a DC thinks, says, or does. Without the top-hat and bow-tie, you can't tell me "which witch is which" ---can you.
This is what should "concern" you, Dan -- the Subluxationism inherent in the empty descriptor, "Manipuable Lesion." Except in a Chiropractic Byzantium and in Stupidville, words do have meaning--if only as expressions (or "suitcases") of chiropractism. The Chiropractic Subluxation has no meaning because it can be anything a chiropractor says it is. So, too, can the so-called "Manipuable Lesion." Besides, are you going to tell your patients they're Suffering Needlessly from a "Lesion" --"manipuable" or otherwise? What happened to strain and sprain, for example?
Remember the scene in the Bond film, "Never Say Never" --in which the sexy massage therapist palpates James' back and tells him he's got "lesions" in the upper thoracic vertebrae, which she then proceeds to "crack" --or, manipulate, if you like?
Speaking of baloney --students would choke on the tuition of most universities as badly as they would any chiropractic school.
Moreover throwing money at "chiropractic" won't solve anything. It's not going to change any of chiropractic's core values and underlying Spinalism --any more than "Manipuable Lesions" promises. In fact, one might argue that more money available to "chiropractic" and chiropractors would promote the stupidest and self-serving aspects of the profession as much as whatever microscopic reason for its continued existence you might be thinking of.
The only tuition bargain I've heard about was the one I took advantage of at UCSF to get my PharmD. The point is, this was a first-rate education at any cost and had little to do with USCF being subsidized. In other words, where's the bargain if you graduate with a degree in diagnosing and treating "manipuable lesions" --as compared to being trained to "find and fix" Chiropractic Subluxations, that is?
The profession continues to bend and force the rest of the world to fit into "chiropractic," rather than to respect the reverse order of things. In other words, DCs, for obvious reasons, keep attempting to rationalize a "chiropractic" to justify their separate and distinct role as "doctors" of something ---even if it's ANYTHING.
In a society with limited health care resources, the only honest thing to do is to give-up the chiropractic ghost and hit the trail. That's probably too counter-intuitive for most every chiropractor I know, however. So, I'd predict the profession's continued efforts to stress the reasons why they DON'T have what they want instead of taking responsibility for creating exactly the situation they HAVE by insisting on a "chiropractic" --no matter what.
~TEO.
Dan Quatro, DC: The term "subluxation" may be a fine term to describe the manipulable lesion, per Dr. Perle. What concerns me, however, is the baggage that goes along with it.
This is what should "concern" you, Dan -- the Subluxationism inherent in the empty descriptor, "Manipuable Lesion." Except in a Chiropractic Byzantium and in Stupidville, words do have meaning--if only as expressions (or "suitcases") of chiropractism. The Chiropractic Subluxation has no meaning because it can be anything a chiropractor says it is. So, too, can the so-called "Manipuable Lesion." Besides, are you going to tell your patients they're Suffering Needlessly from a "Lesion" --"manipuable" or otherwise? What happened to strain and sprain, for example?
Remember the scene in the Bond film, "Never Say Never" --in which the sexy massage therapist palpates James' back and tells him he's got "lesions" in the upper thoracic vertebrae, which she then proceeds to "crack" --or, manipulate, if you like?
Dan Quatro, DC: Chiropractic is particularly vulnerable because our educational institutions are tuition based as opposed to being part of university systems or having large endowments.
Moreover throwing money at "chiropractic" won't solve anything. It's not going to change any of chiropractic's core values and underlying Spinalism --any more than "Manipuable Lesions" promises. In fact, one might argue that more money available to "chiropractic" and chiropractors would promote the stupidest and self-serving aspects of the profession as much as whatever microscopic reason for its continued existence you might be thinking of.
The only tuition bargain I've heard about was the one I took advantage of at UCSF to get my PharmD. The point is, this was a first-rate education at any cost and had little to do with USCF being subsidized. In other words, where's the bargain if you graduate with a degree in diagnosing and treating "manipuable lesions" --as compared to being trained to "find and fix" Chiropractic Subluxations, that is?
The profession continues to bend and force the rest of the world to fit into "chiropractic," rather than to respect the reverse order of things. In other words, DCs, for obvious reasons, keep attempting to rationalize a "chiropractic" to justify their separate and distinct role as "doctors" of something ---even if it's ANYTHING.
In a society with limited health care resources, the only honest thing to do is to give-up the chiropractic ghost and hit the trail. That's probably too counter-intuitive for most every chiropractor I know, however. So, I'd predict the profession's continued efforts to stress the reasons why they DON'T have what they want instead of taking responsibility for creating exactly the situation they HAVE by insisting on a "chiropractic" --no matter what.
~TEO.