Critical views of chiropractic

From Citizendium
Revision as of 05:16, 18 December 2006 by imported>Gareth Leng (→‎External criticism)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Critical views of Chiropractic

In its 100-year history chiropractic has been under frequent attack from osteopathy, from conventional medicine, from scientists critical of its scientific foundations, and recently from web-based critics of its advertising tactics and of the extravagent claims and dubious practices of some DCs. Although the profession has survived, and indeed thrived, the profession itself has voiced many of these criticisms in a move to reform chiropractic from within. Examples include:

Samuel Homola DC, an outspoken dissident within the profession, expresses his opinion that evidence-based chiropractic is the only way forward.
This book, published in 1964, contains trenchant criticism of the profession, and the following year Homola's application to renew his membership of the ACA was rejected. In 1991, David Redding, chairman of the ACA board of governors, welcomed Homola back to the ACA. In 1994, 30 years after its publication, the book was reviewed for the first time by a chiropractic journal. [1]
JC Smith DC writes in 1999 that ethical issues are "in dire need of debate" because of "years of intense medical misinformation/slander" and because of well-publicised examples of tacky advertising, outlandish claims, sensationalism and insurance fraud.
Christopher Kent, president of the Council on Chiropractic Practice, advises his colleagues of the importance of high standards of evidence, noting that in the past DCs were too ready to accept anecdotal evidence
A 1992 letter from ACA attorney George McAndrews warns the chiropractic profession that 'scare tactic' advertising damages the newly won respect within the AMA.
A 2000 commentary by Ronald Carter, Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association discussing his opinion that the subluxation story, regardless of how it is packaged, is not the answer. He suggests it is time for the 'silent majority' to present a rational model of chiropractic so that it can become an essential member of the health care team.
  • Joseph Keating, professor at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and a prominent historian of chiropractic has written extensively criticising both weaknesses in the arguments used by chiropractors, and to denounce disreputable practices within the profession. In 1997, Keating said that, despite evidence of the efficacy of manipulation for lower back pain, "the doubting, skeptical attitudes of science do not predominate in chiropractic education or among practitioners". He argued that "a combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant over-interpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques". However, in 1998, he wrote "substantial increases in scholarly activities within the chiropractic profession are suggested by the growth in scholarly products published in the discipline's most distinguished periodical (JMPT)."
Keating J et al (1998). "A descriptive analysis of the JMPT, 1989-1996". JMPT 21: 539-52. PMID 9798183.
Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side
Quackery in Chiropractic - A 1991 editorial from Dynamic Chiropractic where Keating discusses his concerns for advertising products before they are scientifically evaluated.
Faulty Logic and Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic _ Keating critically distinguishes between sound and unsound arguments in support of chiropractic


External criticism