The subject of standard medical treatment versus chiropractic care has been a volatile argument for the last several decades. In fact, as early as 1963, the American Medical Association had formed a Committee on Quackery to deal with what it considered to be a major problem with chiropractic care. In 1976, five chiropractors responded to the AMA's dictum by countersuing with an antitrust suit. In 1987, that suit was decided.
A federal district court judge, Susan Getzendanner, found that the AMA was guilty of conspiracy in 'restraint of trade' against the chiropractic profession, that it had unlawfully deprived chiropractors of association with medical doctors, and that by calling them 'unscientific cultists' it had eroded the credibility of the profession. [Further], the Committee on Quackery was disbanded in 1975, but the AMA continued its official anti-chiropractic efforts until 1980 (Shell, 1988, p. 78).
As one might expect, the AMA further pressed the case, which went to a court of appeals that handed down its verdict, once again against the AMA, in the early months of 1990 (Appeals court rules, 1990, p. A12).
This paper will compare and contrast the role of the doctor of chiropractic, the medical doctor, the doctor of osteopathy, and the physical therapist in order to analyze and determine if a dichotomy actually exists between the different approaches to health care. Underlying the central thesis of the paper is the supposition that chiropractic is a viable, effective, and usable treatment program for many injuries and health concerns.
One of the most interesting concerns about chiropractic medicine is the fact that it approaches the art of healing from a holistic, rather than a symptomological frame of reference. The underlying assumption in chiropractic medicine is that all the nerves of the body have a tangential point along the spine, and consequently all ailments and afflictions may be helped, albeit in a...