Should we move on from the past and disavow our philosophical roots, as some schools and professional organizations already have?
Should we phase out teaching chiropractic philosophies to historical artifacts of the profession?
Chiropractors originally believed in 4 foundational principles that formed its early philosophy:
The body can heal itself.
It achieves self-healing through the central nervous system.
Vertebral subluxations impede the CNS and repair process.
Subluxations cause all known diseases and illnesses.
Today, #1 and #2 remain true, #3 might be true, and #4 was never true, and no sane chiropractor says that anyway.
Dr. DD Palmer started as a magnetic healer in Davenport, Iowa before stumbling upon chiropractic.
Chiropractic philosophy grew from vitalistic traditions and was influenced by other healing arts.
In 1895, magnetic healers didn't have the same stigma they do today, though much of their practices would later be proven useless.
In the absence of scientific research, the late 19th century was like the wild west for health care.
Chiropractors, osteopaths, medical doctors, homeopaths, and magnetic healers were vying to become the leading healthsystems of the time.
Medical interventions were mostly surgical with the occasional aspirin or heroin for pain.
Medical research at the time was primarily in the form of case studies and observations. Basically, if it worked a hundred times then that became the standard.
Chiropractic wasn't different. After DD Palmer gave the first specific chiropractic adjustment to Harvey Lillard, allegedly restoring his hearing a few days later, he began to experiment and test his new theory. The hypothesis and system of adjustment, tested hundreds of times, became chiropractic techniques and philosophy.
Palmer later experimented with other adjustment methods, including rubber mallets, special tables, and other devices to reposition vertebrae and relieve nerve pressure.
His son Dr. BJ Palmer incorporated x-ray analysis and instrumentation to systematize and refine his adjusting methods. He documented outcomes in thick textbooks spanning the course of almost 60 years.
Early chiropractors were doing research through trial and error.
What does this have to do with philosophy?
Every healthcare profession has a philosophy, whether clearly defined (chiropractic) or implied (medicine). It's the starting point for all treatment methods.
Medicine’s philosophy is reductionist, which is appropriate when saving a life. If you have a life-threatening stomach problem, you'd want the best stomach doctor to provide the best drugs or surgery.
Chiropractic philosophy is different. It takes a holistic view of the human body and understands that a person is not simply the sum of their parts. Humans are physical, chemical, and electrical beings controlled by the central nervous system.
This is the same system that heals and repairs a sick and damaged body.
Chiropractic skeptics claim there's no research supporting early chiropractic theories and philosophies. They believe chiropractic should be limited to treating low back and some headaches.
Critics fail to understand that chiropractic practice and philosophy have always been research and evidence-based.
A philosophy is rarely static. Personal and professional philosophies should be dynamic, changing with new information.
They're not dogmas. They're living opinions and beliefs subject to scrutiny and testing.
Chiropractic philosophy should continue to evolve and grow with the profession, while retaining its core principles and tenets.
Imagine if BJ Palmer was so dogmatic that he never let Clay Thompson develop the drop table, X-ray the full spine, or teach exercise and nutrition at his school.
Chiropractic philosophy isn't about your team or clinic therapies, it's about the practical application of chiropractic science to help people get better.
While flawed, chiropractic philosophies and methods still have value in modern care. We need to bridge the gap between research and real-life results.