Chiropractors are doctors too

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I think people appropriately make the VAD argument because there is no solid evidence that neck manipulation helps anyone in any way. What it DOES do bring them considerable and highly unnecessary risk. That is exactly what we try to avoid in conventional medicine. It's not just about the numbers. How would you feel if your wife was paralyzed and you knew that the treatment she got had zero evidence of benefit (even though it was pitched by her "doctor" as such)?? That would never fly in conventional medicine (not talking about fringe providers here, just standard of practice). Yes, it's an emotional argument but I feel it's prudent especially because the grand majority of lay people who don't know any better do certainly believe that chiropractors are "real doctors" and are regulated as such by the government.
What part of 1 in 40,000 incidence is high risk? And yes, it is about numbers when trying to discredit a profession. Chiro is wrong at many levels but does have a small evidence based niche in acute back pain, etc. The use of the VAD argument as the golden argument against chiro is easily discredited and the wrong way to go.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What part of 1 in 40,000 incidence is high risk? And yes, it is about numbers when trying to discredit a profession. Chiro is wrong at many levels but does have a small evidence based niche in acute back pain, etc. The use of the VAD argument as the golden argument against chiro is easily discredited and the wrong way to go.

All medical procedures should always be considered on the basis of a risk/benefit ratio. If there is no evidence of real benefit, especially if it comes with significant evidence of very real harm, it should not be done, as it would go against the Hippocratic Oath. I am not trying to get in the way of your right to get your neck cracked - be my guest ;) I just feel that chiropractic as a whole should be held to the same standard of medicine. Anything less is unfair to patients, many of whom genuinely believe that chiropractic is a legitimate field of medicine.
 
Flashnews #1: anyone who holds a doctoral degree is a doctor.
Flashnews #2: academics were called "doctors" well before the medical profession was established.

Yeah, except in our vernacular, in the way the question was framed in the OP, the inquirer meant medical doctors by saying doctors.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
While I agree chiro is essentially pseudoscience, arguing the incidence of VAD as a reason to not get chiro manipulations isn't looking at our own profession. Highest reported incidence of 1 in 40,000 in literature is tremendously low and is so blown out of proportion.

If we're arguing to follow evidence, don't make exceptions. Chiro has a small niche that it has exceeded and needs to be addressed, but stop with the VAD argument.

My reason for deciding that chiropractic is dangerous bunk involved working on a stroke floor for 2 years and seeing about a dozen people present with strokes within hours to days of chiropractic neck manipulations. Highest reported incidence of complications in literature may still underestimate actual incidence, and the worst case scenario of VAD isn't the only terrible thing that can go wrong. Several of the cases I saw were embolic rather than hemorrhagic CVAs. Did excessively vigorous manipulation serve to partially dislodge a plaque or otherwise cause injury that lead to clot formation and eventual migration?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My reason for deciding that chiropractic is dangerous bunk involved working on a stroke floor for 2 years and seeing about a dozen people present with strokes within hours to days of chiropractic neck manipulations. Highest reported incidence of complications in literature may still underestimate actual incidence, and the worst case scenario of VAD isn't the only terrible thing that can go wrong. Several of the cases I saw were embolic rather than hemorrhagic CVAs. Did excessively vigorous manipulation serve to partially dislodge a plaque or otherwise cause injury that lead to clot formation and eventual migration?
Protip: I don't disagree that chiro is borderline pseudoscience. The VAD argument prevalence is the worst argument in discrediting chiro. In sight: I used it against a chiro debating it's legitimacy using your same line of thinking. Highest reported rate of VAD is 1/40,000 with others saying 1/1.1mil. If you're seeing such a high incidence of complications following chiro in otherwise not at risk patients, you should really publish.
 
Protip: I don't disagree that chiro is borderline pseudoscience. The VAD argument prevalence is the worst argument in discrediting chiro. In sight: I used it against a chiro debating it's legitimacy using your same line of thinking. Highest reported rate of VAD is 1/40,000 with others saying 1/1.1mil. If you're seeing such a high incidence of complications following chiro in otherwise not at risk patients, you should really publish.

Well, I'd have been publishing as a floor nurse. Impact ratio of nursing publications? You got a magnifying glass to see that number with? Also, if a nurse points out a trend to certain attendings, that is all the more reason NOT to notice it. Can't be taking direction from the help, after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wait, the dog could have a STROKE from the chiropractor??

Must tell mom

Well, I'm not sure if they do the same things to dogs as humans. In humans, what I believe to be dangerous is rapid twisting and wrenching of the neck. Do they do that to dogs?

Actually, maybe I should change career paths and claim to be a caninopractor myself. I can invent a whole new discipline. It will involve me getting to gently pet adorable hounds for $500/hr. Since I will be creating the profession from scratch, of course no formal licensure will be available until I get my correspondence courses up and running. As founder, I will grant myself an honorary degree and be good to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I was hesitant to click on this thread, but I have been surprisingly well entertained. Good job sdn!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
I'm sure there are better ways to discuss the quackery of Chiropractic. For MSK complaints, joint manipulations do feel good though.
 
If nurses (NP) are physicians or doctors, I'll accept chiro any time of the day... At least they won't be competing with me for jobs.
 
If nurses (NP) are physicians or doctors, I'll accept chiro any time of the day... At least they won't be competing with me for jobs.
I'm a big fan of when DNPs/NPs introduce themselves as "Dr. so and so" to patients......

.......how that is legal I have no idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Oh.. I see. Do these patients know they are not 'real' doctors i.e physicians?
No. They do not, sadly. This is part of the reason I'm all aboard changingthecoatcolor train. Everyone and their mother wears a white coat at hospitals nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
:eek:

Light blue and gray are the most common variation around here (albeit still rare). UofI in Chicago has Brown coats in the ED, not sure if anywhere else?

The community hospital here basically has a special white coat for nurses, it's tailored differently and has short sleeves!
 
We should wear a black coat.

Black coat...Something like this?
waiter%20coat-194x291.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I don't have a problem with anyone who has earned a doctorate identifying themselves as Dr. That is a right that they have earned. I think we need to accept that doctor was never only a reference to medical doctors, and begin discussing ourselves as physicians. We aren't going to win the battle to protect a title which was never our exclusive domain, so we should focus our efforts differently to protect our professional identities.

Rather than telling NPs or PAs who have doctorate degrees not to call themselves doctor, it should be a requirement for them to identify themselves as "nurse practitioner" or "physician assistant." Letting it be normal to use an abbreviation or to just say "practitioner" is obfuscation. The public is assaulted with acronyms all the time and don't really think about what they mean. There are PAs in these forums who have recently described avoiding ever saying physician assistant because they feel that the word assistant is demeaning, that it undermines their professional standing because it highlights their dependant practice. When an uneducated public hears PA, they just recognize that as yet another healthcare provider, without unpacking its meaning.

We should insist that, for patient safety and clarity in the clinical environment, all providers, whether called Dr. or not, be stating their profession. And we should really reclaim "physician" to express who we are and what we do for patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
"No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people." - HL Mencken


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Speaking of HL Mencken, here is an article he wrote nearly 90 years ago on chiropractic.


Chiropractic (1924), by H.L. Mencken

This preposterous quackery flourishes lushIy in the back reaches of the Republic, and begins to conquer the less civilized folk of the big cities. As the old-time family doctor dies out in the country towns, with no competent successor willing to take over his dismal business, he is followed by some hearty blacksmith or ice-wagon driver, turned into a chiropractor in six months, often by correspondence. In Los Angeles the Damned, there are probably more chiropractors than actual physicians, and they are far more generally esteemed. Proceeding from the Ambassador Hotel to the heart of the town, along Wilshire boulevard, one passes scores of their gaudy signs; there are even chiropractic "hospitals." The Mormons who pour in from the prairies and deserts, most of them ailing, patronize these "hospitals" copiously, and give to the chiropractic pathology the same high respect that they accord to the theology of the town sorcerers. That pathology is grounded upon the doctrine that all human ills are caused by pressure of misplaced vertebrae upon the nerves which come out of the spinal cord -- in other words, that every disease is the result of a pinch. This, plainly enough, is buncombe. The chiropractic therapeutics rest upon the doctrine that the way to get rid of such pinches is to climb upon a table and submit to a heroic pummeling by a retired piano-mover. This, obviously, is buncombe doubly damned.

Both doctrines were launched upon the world by an old quack named Andrew T. Still, the father of osteopathy. For years the osteopaths merchanted them, and made money at the trade. But as they grew opulent they grew ambitious, i.e., they began to study anatomy and physiology. The result was a gradual abandonment of Papa Still's ideas. The high-toned osteopath of today is a sort of eclectic. He tries anything that promises to work, from tonsillectomy to the x-rays. With four years' training behind him, he probably knows more anatomy than the average graduate of the Johns Hopkins Medical School, or at all events, more osteology. Thus enlightened, he seldom has much to say about pinched nerves in the back. But as he abandoned the Still revelation it was seized by the chiropractors, led by another quack, one Palmer. This Palmer grabbed the pinched nerve nonsense and began teaching it to ambitious farm-hands and out-at-elbow Baptist preachers in a few easy lessons. Today the backwoods swarm with chiropractors, and in most States they have been able to exert enough pressure on the rural politicians to get themselves licensed. [It is not altogether a matter of pressure. Large numbers of rustic legislators are themselves believers in chiropractic. So are many members of Congress.] Any lout with strong hands and arms is perfectly equipped to become a chiropractor. No education beyond the elements is necessary. The takings are often high, and so the profession has attracted thousands of recruits -- retired baseball players, work-weary plumbers, truck-drivers, longshoremen, bogus dentists, dubious preachers, cashiered school superintendents. Now and then a quack of some other school -- say homeopathy -- plunges into it. Hundreds of promising students come from the intellectual ranks of hospital orderlies.

Such quackeries suck in the botched, and help them on to bliss eternal. When these botched fall into the hands of competent medical men they are very likely to be patched up and turned loose upon the world, to beget their kind. But massaged along the backbone to cure their lues [syphylis], they quickly pass into the last stages, and so their pathogenic heritage perishes with them. What is too often forgotten is that nature obviously intends the botched to die, and that every interference with that benign process is full of dangers. That the labors of quacks tend to propagate epidemics and so menace the lives of all of us, as is alleged by their medical opponents -- this I doubt. The fact is that most infectious diseases of any seriousness throw out such alarming symptoms and so quickly that no sane chiropractor is likely to monkey with them. Seeing his patient breaking out in pustules, or choking, or falling into a stupor, he takes to the woods at once, and leaves the business to the nearest medical man. His trade is mainly with ambulant patients; they must come to his studio for treatment. Most of them have lingering diseases; they tour all the neighborhood doctors before they reach him. His treatment, being nonsensical, is in accord with the divine plan. It is seldom, perhaps, that he actually kills a patient, but at all events he keeps any a worthy soul from getting well.

The osteopaths, I fear, are finding this new competition serious and unpleasant. As I have said, it was their Hippocrates, the late Dr. Still, who invented all of the thrusts, lunges, yanks, hooks and bounces that the lowly chiropractors now employ with such vast effect, and for years the osteopaths had a monopoly of them. But when they began to grow scientific and ambitious their course of training was lengthened until it took in all sorts of tricks and dodges borrowed from the regular doctors, or resurrection men, including the plucking of tonsils, adenoids and appendices, the use of the stomach-pump, and even some of the legerdemain of psychiatry. They now harry their students furiously, and turn them out ready for anything from growing hair on a bald head to frying a patient with the x-rays. All this new striving, of course, quickly brought its inevitable penalties. The osteopathic graduate, having sweated so long, was no longer willing to take a case of delirium tremens for $2, and in consequence he lost patients. Worse, very few aspirants could make the long grade. The essence of osteopathy itself could be grasped by any lively farmhand or night watchman in a few weeks, but the borrowed magic baffled him. Confronted by the phenomenon of gastrulation, or by the curious behavior of heart muscle, or by any of the current theories of immunity, he commonly took refuge, like his brother of the orthodox faculty, in a gulp of laboratory alcohol, or fled the premises altogether. Thus he was lost to osteopathic science, and the chiropractors took him in; nay, they welcomed him. He was their meat. Borrowing that primitive part of osteopathy which was comprehensible to the meanest understanding, they threw the rest overboard, at the same time denouncing it as a sorcery invented by the Medical Trust. Thus they gathered in the garage mechanics, ash-men and decayed welterweights, and the land began to fill with their graduates. Now there is a chiropractor at every crossroads.

I repeat that it eases and soothes me to see them so prosperous, for they counteract the evil work of the so-called science of public hygiene, which now seeks to make imbeciles immortal. If a man, being ill of a pus appendix, resorts to a shaved and fumigated longshoreman to have it disposed of, and submits willingly to a treatment involving balancing him on McBurney's spot and playing on his vertebra as on a concertina, then I am willing, for one, to believe that he is badly wanted in Heaven. And if that same man, having achieved lawfully a lovely babe, hires a blacksmith to cure its diphtheria by pulling its neck, then I do not resist the divine will that there shall be one less radio fan later on. In such matters, I am convinced, the laws of nature are far better guides than the fiats and machinations of medical busybodies. If the latter gentlemen had their way, death, save at the hands of hangmen, policemen and other such legalized assassins, would be abolished altogether, and the present differential in favor of the enlightened would disappear. I can't convince myself that would work any good to the world. On the contrary, it seems to me that the current coddling of the half-witted should be stopped before it goes too far if, indeed, it has not gone too far already. To that end nothing operates more cheaply and effectively than the prosperity of quacks. Every time a bottle of cancer oil goes through the mails Homo americanus is improved to that extent. And every time a chiropractor spits on his hands and proceeds to treat a gastric ulcer by stretching the backbone the same high end is achieved.

But chiropractic, of course, is not perfect. It has superb potentialities, but only too often they are not converted into concrete cadavers. The hygienists rescue many of its foreordained customers, and, turning them over to agents of the Medical Trust, maintained at the public expense, get them cured. Moreover, chiropractic itself is not certainly fatal: even an Iowan with diabetes may survive its embraces. Yet worse, I have a suspicion that it sometimes actually cures. For all I know (or any orthodox pathologist seems to know) it may be true that certain malaises are caused by the pressure of vagrant vertebra upon the spinal nerves. And it may be true that a hearty ex-boilermaker, by a vigorous yanking and kneading, may be able to relieve that pressure. What is needed is a scientific inquiry into the matter, under rigid test conditions, by a committee of men learned in the architecture and plumbing of the body, and of a high and incorruptible sagacity. Let a thousand patients be selected, let a gang of selected chiropractors examine their backbones and determine what is the matter with them, and then let these diagnoses be checked up by the exact methods of scientific medicine. Then let the same chiropractors essay to cure the patients whose maladies have been determined. My guess is that the chiropractors' errors in diagnosis will run to at least 95% and that their failures in treatment will push 99%. But I am willing to be convinced.

Where is there is such a committee to be found? I undertake to nominate it at ten minutes' notice. The land swarms with men competent in anatomy and pathology, and yet not engaged as doctors. There are thousands of hospitals, with endless clinical material. I offer to supply the committee with cigars and music during the test. I offer, further, to supply both the committee and the chiropractors with sound wet goods. I offer, finally, to give a bawdy banquet to the whole Medical Trust at the conclusion of the proceedings.

_______________________




Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The man could turn a phrase, couldn't he? But don't turn off your powers of critical thought to simply admire all that he had to say because he said it well. His valid criticisms came packaged in gifted ad hominem and flourished with a tinge of eugenics. When he speaks of "the botched" going to beget more of their kind, and says that they should be permitted to die off as nature intended, he isn't just saying that we should let those susceptible to infectious disease die. He was referencing a vile but prevalent sentiment that was used a few decades after to justify the Tuskegee Experiment, where allowing black men to suffer and die of untreated syphilis, and to convey it to their families was seen as no more unethical than animal experimentation is today. After all, the subjects of the study were among the "botched," and could hardly be considered worthy of human rights.

Be so careful who you choose to speak for you, no matter how fine their words. Be sure you want to take credit for all the ideas they put forward.
 
Well, I'm not sure if they do the same things to dogs as humans. In humans, what I believe to be dangerous is rapid twisting and wrenching of the neck. Do they do that to dogs?

Actually, maybe I should change career paths and claim to be a caninopractor myself. I can invent a whole new discipline. It will involve me getting to gently pet adorable hounds for $500/hr. Since I will be creating the profession from scratch, of course no formal licensure will be available until I get my correspondence courses up and running. As founder, I will grant myself an honorary degree and be good to go.
I would definitely bring a mean- ass pitbull to a caninopractor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Chiro was started from a few dudes who failed out of DO school and took the basics of OMM, tweaked it a little, and called it chiro. Lol
 
Yeah, but most of us, even the ones who are typically CALLED doctor by..I dunno..mainstream society..dont douche-ily remind people of this over and over and over
tumblr_mrwkgvLdAJ1rzw37jo1_500.gif

Any time someone corrects someone and insists on being called Doctor this is all I can think...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Chiro was started from a few dudes who failed out of DO school and took the basics of OMM, tweaked it a little, and called it chiro. Lol
DD Palmer actually claimed to have learned Chiropractic during a sèance. A spirit by the name of Dr. Jim Atkinson taught him.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone who has earned a doctorate identifying themselves as Dr. That is a right that they have earned. I think we need to accept that doctor was never only a reference to medical doctors, and begin discussing ourselves as physicians. We aren't going to win the battle to protect a title which was never our exclusive domain, so we should focus our efforts differently to protect our professional identities.

Rather than telling NPs or PAs who have doctorate degrees not to call themselves doctor, it should be a requirement for them to identify themselves as "nurse practitioner" or "physician assistant." Letting it be normal to use an abbreviation or to just say "practitioner" is obfuscation. The public is assaulted with acronyms all the time and don't really think about what they mean. There are PAs in these forums who have recently described avoiding ever saying physician assistant because they feel that the word assistant is demeaning, that it undermines their professional standing because it highlights their dependant practice. When an uneducated public hears PA, they just recognize that as yet another healthcare provider, without unpacking its meaning.

We should insist that, for patient safety and clarity in the clinical environment, all providers, whether called Dr. or not, be stating their profession. And we should really reclaim "physician" to express who we are and what we do for patients.
I agree with your descriptive note re: saying we are the physician; however, my point was that, in a medical setting, it is completely immoral and unethical to walk into a patient's room and introduce yourself as "Dr. XYZ" when you are in fact NOT a physician. 100% of patients then immediately think that person is the physician since, you know, they introduced themselves as one. I'm not advocating for a monopoly on the word in general. I could care less what people introduces themselves as outside of a medical setting. But, inside one, when first meeting a patient? C'mon now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hospital I've worked at had an OR scrub nurse with a PhD in a humanities field introduce himself as Dr. C to all patients. He stole the surgeon's and anesthesiologist's job in pre-op by explaining the surgery, anesthesiology, risks and benefits. They let him get away with it, and just waited 10 minutes until he was done and then preceeded to go over the same topics with the patient officially. The nurse acts like he's an attending. It felt weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Hospital I've worked at had an OR scrub nurse with a PhD in a humanities field introduce himself as Dr. C to all patients. He stole the surgeon's and anesthesiologist's job in pre-op by explaining the surgery, anesthesiology, risks and benefits. They let him get away with it, and just waited 10 minutes until he was done and then preceeded to go over the same topics with the patient officially. The nurse acts like he's an attending. It felt weird.
So much to look forward to as a MS1!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree with your descriptive note re: saying we are the physician; however, my point was that, in a medical setting, it is completely immoral and unethical to walk into a patient's room and introduce yourself as "Dr. XYZ" when you are in fact NOT a physician. 100% of patients then immediately think that person is the physician since, you know, they introduced themselves as one. I'm not advocating for a monopoly on the word in general. I could care less what people introduces themselves as outside of a medical setting. But, inside one, when first meeting a patient? C'mon now...

Many hospitals have policies against allowing any one but a physician from introducing themselves as "Doctor".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Many hospitals have policies against allowing any one but a physician from introducing themselves as "Doctor".
I was unaware of that. I wish all hospitals would adhere to that policy.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone who has earned a doctorate identifying themselves as Dr. That is a right that they have earned. I think we need to accept that doctor was never only a reference to medical doctors, and begin discussing ourselves as physicians. We aren't going to win the battle to protect a title which was never our exclusive domain, so we should focus our efforts differently to protect our professional identities.

Rather than telling NPs or PAs who have doctorate degrees not to call themselves doctor, it should be a requirement for them to identify themselves as "nurse practitioner" or "physician assistant." Letting it be normal to use an abbreviation or to just say "practitioner" is obfuscation. The public is assaulted with acronyms all the time and don't really think about what they mean. There are PAs in these forums who have recently described avoiding ever saying physician assistant because they feel that the word assistant is demeaning, that it undermines their professional standing because it highlights their dependant practice. When an uneducated public hears PA, they just recognize that as yet another healthcare provider, without unpacking its meaning.

We should insist that, for patient safety and clarity in the clinical environment, all providers, whether called Dr. or not, be stating their profession. And we should really reclaim "physician" to express who we are and what we do for patients.


You should learn the difference between an academic and clinical degree. Once you do, you will understand why only MD/DOs should use the title of 'Dr.' in a clinical setting.

A DNP/PhD is not a clinical doctorate. They can be called 'Dr' all they want in academia, not in a hospital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Yes, in a hospital setting only a MD or DO should be called a "doctor." However, technically anyone with any doctoral degree can be called "doctors". This means PhDs too.

Even the title "physician" doesn't necessarily mean MD or DO. Some chiropractors advertise themselves as "chiropractic physicians" and podiatrists advertise themselves as "podiatric physicians".

There's a podiatrist down the street from me who has a door with a big sign: "Podiatric Sports Medicine Physician." I always shake my head at that.

At the end of the day, I think it's a disservice to confuse patients about all of this. But, until universal laws are passed about this, it's just the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, in a hospital setting only a MD or DO should be called a "doctor." However, technically anyone with any doctoral degree can be called "doctors". This means PhDs too.

Even the title "physician" doesn't necessarily mean MD or DO. Some chiropractors advertise themselves as "chiropractic physicians" and podiatrists advertise themselves as "podiatric physicians".

There's a podiatrist down the street from me who has a door with a big sign: "Podiatric Sports Medicine Physician." I always shake my head at that.

At the end of the day, I think it's a disservice to confuse patients about all of this. But, until universal laws are passed about this, it's just the way it is.
You forgot DDS/DMD and DPM.... They did call them doctors where I used to work... Not NP/PA even if they had a DNP and/or PhD.
 
You forgot DDS/DMD and DPM.... They did call them doctors where I used to work... Not NP/PA even if they had a DNP and/or PhD.
DDS/DMD and DPM are doctors and in the appropriate clinical setting should be referred to as such. I don't think anyone's arguing that. We're talking about in the hospital where nurses are referring to themselves as doctors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
If nurses (NP) are physicians or doctors, I'll accept chiro any time of the day... At least they won't be competing with me for jobs.


I really don't think you want to mix the NP argument with the Chiropractor argument.

Physicians, (D)NPs, PAs, RNs, LVNs, CNAs, Podiatrists, EMTs, and Optometrists have all been arguing about their respective scopes of practice since the degrees were invented. These are real and reasonable arguments, and anyone not financially involved in it can generally see both sides. Is a non-physician ever 'good enough' for patient care? What about a non-RN? Is there such a thing as overtraining? Does cost containment matter when it comes to training? Is the physician training pathway, which exposes us to almost every field of medicine, a necessary base of knowledge or just an expensive holdover from another age of medicine? When should medical training be licensed and regulated, and when should it be left up to the free market?

These are real, important questions that drive conflicts between physicians and other medical professions. I don't want to minimize them. At the end of the day, though, I think you should recognize that all of these people are medical professionals. They have the same basic goals that you do when they go to work, and most of them work much harder than most Americans. They provide patient care. They help people. Maybe you think they should do their job differently, or have more limitations to their scope of practice, or structure their training differently, but they are part of this profession and need to be respected for that.

On the other hand a chiropractor (or accupuncturest/natropath/homeopath) provides nothing. They are not part of your profession, they do not help anyone. These people are leeches. The entire profession is a pit into which Americans throw time, money, and hope. It robs its practitioners of the chance to provide something of value to the world with their working hours. It robs desperate or deluded patients of money they often do not have. It is a constant, low level assault on the scientific method and the scientific professions, who must necessarily be degraded by anyone who wants to make money off of backwoods charlatanism. it does not work, not for anything (yes, including back pain) and it leaves everyone who comes into contact with it financially, mentally, and spiritually poorer. While some of your non-physician colleagues may annoy you, please do not put them in the same category as the quacks. They really don't deserve that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
You forgot DDS/DMD and DPM.... They did call them doctors where I used to work... Not NP/PA even if they had a DNP and/or PhD.

As I mentioned, all people with a doctoral degree of any sort (even a doctoral degree in ministry) can technically be called a doctor in the world of academia. I don't like it either, but it's just a fact.
 
DDS/DMD and DPM are doctors and in the appropriate clinical setting should be referred to as such. I don't think anyone's arguing that. We're talking about in the hospital where nurses are referring to themselves as doctors.
I just wanted to make the correction because I was not sure if the poster who wrote about MD/DO was aware of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I really don't think you want to mix the NP argument with the Chiropractor argument.

Physicians, (D)NPs, PAs, RNs, LVNs, CNAs, Podiatrists, EMTs, and Optometrists have all been arguing about their respective scopes of practice since the degrees were invented. These are real and reasonable arguments, and anyone not financially involved in it can generally see both sides. Is a non-physician ever 'good enough' for patient care? What about a non-RN? Is there such a thing as overtraining? Does cost containment matter when it comes to training? Is the physician training pathway, which exposes us to almost every field of medicine, a necessary base of knowledge or just an expensive holdover from another age of medicine? When should medical training be licensed and regulated, and when should it be left up to the free market?

These are real, important questions that drive conflicts between physicians and other medical professions. I don't want to minimize them. At the end of the day, though, I think you should recognize that all of these people are medical professionals. They have the same basic goals that you do when they go to work, and most of them work much harder than most Americans. They provide patient care. They help people. Maybe you think they should do their job differently, or have more limitations to their scope of practice, or structure their training differently, but they are part of this profession and need to be respected for that.

On the other hand a chiropractor (or accupuncturest/natropath/homeopath) provides nothing. They are not part of your profession, they do not help anyone. These people are leeches. The entire profession is a pit into which Americans throw time, money, and hope. It robs its practitioners of the chance to provide something of value to the world with their working hours. It robs desperate or deluded patients of money they often do not have. It is a constant, low level assault on the scientific method and the scientific professions, who must necessarily be degraded by anyone who wants to make money off of backwoods charlatanism. it does not work, not for anything (yes, including back pain) and it leaves everyone who comes into contact with it financially, mentally, and spiritually poorer. While some of your non-physician colleagues may annoy you, please do not put them in the same category as the quacks. They really don't deserve that.
Great post.
 
Top