endurance chiropractic

[Guest guest]

Colleagues:

I am quite fond of this term as it brings to mind another term

" subsistence farmer " ....one who in the midst of an otherwise plentiful

bounty manages to only glean bare survival from this good

earth....generally by holding to inefficient, improper or otherwise

inadequate means of productive efforts....

I empathize with the history presented by Dr. Boothby and the extended

plight of her patient. I've had some similar situations where standard

care models did nothing to resolve the problem, ran the insurance down

to zero, then discharged them with powerful drugs and no hope.

And it was most beneficial to have on hand my own expanded chart notes

to review periodically. At times I've redacted names and asked another

DC for their suggestion. Having a standardized set of exam procedures

in a readable form was far more beneficial to the patient than I had

previously realized.

While we may bicker and argue amongst ourselves, even given differing

techniques, etc, I am impressed with the spirit of cooperation most DCs

have in the service of the patient. Recently I received a veritable

rain of suggestions from other DCs offering help on a particularly

troubling scenario. Thanks to the field.

The point I would like to raise regards 'endurance chiropractic'.

Within our own community, it sometimes is traumatic to even discuss

various clinical situations as some responses sound blunt and

antagonistic.

I intend this question only as 'devils advocate' inquiring how those

hostile to chiropractic might view this recent example.

To the unsympathetic ear, it sounds as if 'real' medicine had discharged

the patient from care, who then was treated for 3 1/2 years by a DC who

only achieved clinical success by finally telling the patient to

'breathe' and 'go to the library'....

While undoubtedly there are far more details involved, just how does

this (granted superficial view) make it appear to those critical of

conservative care? Rather than celebrate bringing another suffering

human back into harmony with their own body, we will be soundly

criticized.

DCs now will all be held to the example of the 'breathe and library for

3 1/2 years' for a patient the medical world saw fit to release from care!!

We all know the patient wouldn't have continued to pursue treatment were

it not helping. And the point of private pay vs. third party simply

inflames the issue.

Why should our full scope Oregon practice act be short circuited by the

unusual case scenario weakening the strong evidence strengthening what

benefits most of our generalized population needs? Why should the

difficulty of 'consensus building' be ignored by those who didn't join

in the process given the chance with the rest of us in the first place?

And if it is consensus, why can't we add 'just one more step' in the

process to make 'double extra special sure' those definitions really are

what the profession wants?

Chiropractic has long accommodated the needs of both the unusual patient

and the unusual practitioner....and we now need to insure there will

continue to be a choice in the coming generations. We need to insure

chiropractic itself 'endures'....

Jack Pedersen DC

Endurance Marathoner for Life Itself

[Guest guest]

Jack: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate them and agree.

Ann Goldeen

" endurance chiropractic"

Colleagues:I am quite fond of this term as it brings to mind another term "subsistence farmer"....one who in the midst of an otherwise plentiful bounty manages to only glean bare survival from this good earth....generally by holding to inefficient, improper or otherwise inadequate means of productive efforts....I empathize with the history presented by Dr. Boothby and the extended plight of her patient. I've had some similar situations where standard care models did nothing to resolve the problem, ran the insurance down to zero, then discharged them with powerful drugs and no hope.And it was most beneficial to have on hand my own expanded chart notes to review periodically. At times I've redacted names and asked another DC for their suggestion. Having a standardized set of exam procedures in a readable form was far more beneficial to the patient than I had previously realized. While we may bicker and argue amongst ourselves, even given differing techniques, etc, I am impressed with the spirit of cooperation most DCs have in the service of the patient. Recently I received a veritable rain of suggestions from other DCs offering help on a particularly troubling scenario. Thanks to the field.The point I would like to raise regards 'endurance chiropractic'. Within our own community, it sometimes is traumatic to even discuss various clinical situations as some responses sound blunt and antagonistic. I intend this question only as 'devils advocate' inquiring how those hostile to chiropractic might view this recent example.To the unsympathetic ear, it sounds as if 'real' medicine had discharged the patient from care, who then was treated for 3 1/2 years by a DC who only achieved clinical success by finally telling the patient to 'breathe' and 'go to the library'....While undoubtedly there are far more details involved, just how does this (granted superficial view) make it appear to those critical of conservative care? Rather than celebrate bringing another suffering human back into harmony with their own body, we will be soundly criticized. DCs now will all be held to the example of the 'breathe and library for 3 1/2 years' for a patient the medical world saw fit to release from care!!We all know the patient wouldn't have continued to pursue treatment were it not helping. And the point of private pay vs. third party simply inflames the issue.Why should our full scope Oregon practice act be short circuited by the unusual case scenario weakening the strong evidence strengthening what benefits most of our generalized population needs? Why should the difficulty of 'consensus building' be ignored by those who didn't join in the process given the chance with the rest of us in the first place?And if it is consensus, why can't we add 'just one more step' in the process to make 'double extra special sure' those definitions really are what the profession wants?Chiropractic has long accommodated the needs of both the unusual patient and the unusual practitioner....and we now need to insure there will continue to be a choice in the coming generations. We need to insure chiropractic itself 'endures'....Jack Pedersen DCEndurance Marathoner for Life Itself