Dear TAC: I am writing in response to the Palmcr/FCA dispute over establishing a chiropractic college in Florida. I am a 1986 graduate of Palmer College, and I am licensed to practice in the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Currently, I am practicing in Iowa about 40 miles north and west of Palmer College. For the record, while I know many of the staff and faculty at Palmer College, including Dr. Rickeman, and while 1 frequent the campus regularly, I have not become personally involved with the mission statements of Palmer College, nor do I wholly support the politics meted out through Palmer's administration. I have always had my suspicions that obtaining the almighty dollar was their prime motivating factor; but, on the other hand, it does take a great deal of money to expand and protect this great profession. And, as they do support the philosophy of chiropractic 100%, I do support their actions regarding this area of concern. The following contains my responses to the specific questions posed in the latest issue of The American Chiropractor. 1. I agree that the CCE accreditation requirements are broad based, being inclusive of all disciplines of chiropractic; yet, being so broad based, I do not feel that our profession's core beliefs are protected as much we are led to believe, simply be cause of the diluting process, which includes so many disci plines. The CCE is not as pure as some of us would like it to be.... As far as the new college "having to be affiliated with a preexisting college", I think perhaps affiliating with a college which holds onto the initial and founding principles of chiropractic is not a bad idea, as this will give some credence and significance to the received degree. However, some flexibility to include the nuances of public demand and professional growth must be seriously considered, and that college should not be the sole governing body, but it should serve as the primary guide and counseling body. To ensure and maintain the individuality and specificity of chiropractic, any governing panel, which makes decisions as to the educational requirements and content, must include all areas of philosophical doctrine, clinical application, research, and public information dissemination in regard to chiropractic. 2. I have no problem with chiropractic being taught any where at any time; however, I feel it may pose a threat to the individuality of a DC degree, and perhaps lessen the signifi cance of our profession, should it be taught at a major univer sity. This is why we have private institutions. Should it be taught at a major university, then, the potential is created whereby the profession of chiropractic could be absorbed and influenced by whatever money and ruling power is in control of that particular institution. It is this potential which must be thoroughly safeguarded against; and, so, I am in agreement with Palmer on this point. The ruling and governing body should be wholly versed in chiropractic, and the protection of the purity of chiropractic should be its primary concern. As allopathic medicine accounts for most of the healthcare monies allocated in this country, it would definitely have an impact on the future of our profession, and we would, most certainly, suffer from that influence. The sole reason we stay away from medical association is so that we do not become contaminated by its outside-in approach to healthcare. They are at one end of the scale, while we are at the other, and never the twain shall meet. It is a fact that "He who has the most money has the most long term influence", whether that influ ence is right or wrong.... Right now, allopathic medicine goes against our philosophical boundaries. I support certain actions of both [Palmer and the FCA], as well as oppose certain methodologies and motives of each. I think it would best serve chiropractic if both parties worked together as much as possible to "see the light" of both sides, while making sure that the core ethics, philosophy, and educa tional requirements to become a DC are not contaminated by allopathic methodologies. Too much of this has occurred al ready, and we are close to losing our professional distinction, as it is.... Comments: Overall, it is extremely unfortunate that the chiro practic profession always seems to be eating itself, as there are so many objections and opposing factions within our own ranks. Perhaps, we should change our caduceus to that of the snake, which eats its own tail I am but one small voice crying in the wilderness; yet, I feel that it is time we put aside our personal grievances and supported our great and noble profession for the one singular item which sets us apart from all other healthcare professions: That being, healthy is in direct proportion to the body's adaptive capabilities within its environment, and the vertebral sublux-ation impairs that adaptive capability." 'Nuffsaid.... Dr Edward P. Pratt Dear TAC: The idea that a pre-existing school is required to maintain a distinct philosophy assumes that all chiropractic schools are the same. Obviously, Dr. Riekeman feels that Palmer would maintain what he feels are the core chiropractic principles; but would he feel the same way, if National or Bridgeport were the associated schools? The core transmitters of any chiropractic education arc the teachers. The administrators pick those teachers. It is important to have faculty that understand chiropractic, not from a dogmatic perspective, yet not from an allopathic one cither. While this might seem like a point for a pre-existing school's involvement, some schools lean way too heavily in one direc- Continued on Page 30 ...from Page 24 tion. The faculty's academic freedom in an open institution, along with CCE requirements, would help keep a more open dialogue, yet retain the educational requirements needed. Pre-existing schools come with too much baggage. I relish the thought of chiropractic students sidc-by-side with medical and physical therapy students. The opportunity for cross education would be unparalleled, exposing future MD's and PT's to the scientific rationale behind chiropractic, and giving them (and all the other students) the immediate experience of being patients in a student chiropractic clinic. Imagine the long-term benefits of a host of people being exposed to the benefits of chiropractic, including future third-party-payer owners and employees, and future politicians and administrators. Imagine the interprofessional advancement. Imagine all the people, living for today.... Wait a minute, I got carried away. Chiropractic students would regularly be challenged to defend their beliefs (read: preconceptions); and, in order to do so, would have to understand not physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, etc., but their own philosophical constructs. The same would be true, of course, for the MD and PT students. If chiropractic has validity, it will not only survive, but thrive in such an environment. (I'm sure you've realized that [Question 3] didn't fit the yes/no format). Yes, to the first part. Of course, to the second; but that's a multi-factoral question. We would most assuredly have higher educational standards due to challenges mentioned earlier; and chiro students would be better educated because of it. Philosophically, if chiropractic has validity beyond musculoskelctal problems, it should be able to influence the other students. The respect I had for Dr. Riekeman was seriously challenged and diminished by his underhanded and self-serving dealings in this matter. His timing was destructive to the profession, as well. It was appalling. I've read his responses [to your interview questions] and found Continued on Page 33 ...from Page 30 only excuses, not rational explanations; and it has left me with little doubt that the prime motive was money, or a lack of belief in the intellectual strength of chiropractic. Richard Berman, D. C.
