Is Chiropractic education equivalent to MD?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
If anyone cares to check out some Chiropractic research here is the link and even phone numbers so you can get info direct from the horses mouth.
http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=170

Members don't see this ad.
 
611 said:
If anyone cares to check out some Chiropractic research here is the link and even phone numbers so you can get info direct from the horses mouth.
http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=170

Or just look here http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=2691854&postcount=62 for a summary of research already concluded and published. In medicine we actually wait until a study is completed before using it to address practice change. I don't think anyone doubts that there are chiropractic colleges that spend gobs of money doing research. I think everyone knows that there is a brach of the NIH that is into chiropractic research. I just don't think that anyone besides those chiropractors here and a few chiro-defenders make much of that until the research is actually finished.
 
Spine. 2006 Mar 15;31(6):611-21; discussion 622.

A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study.

Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Kominski GF, Yu F, Chiang LM.

Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [email protected]

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for low back pain in managed care and to assess the effectiveness of physical therapy and modalities among patients receiving medical or chiropractic care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence comparing the long-term relative effectiveness of common treatment strategies offered to low back pain patients in managed care is lacking. METHODS: A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to a managed-care facility were randomized to chiropractic with or without physical modalities, or medical care with or without physical therapy, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome variables are low back pain intensity, disability, and complete remission. The secondary outcome is participants' perception of improvement in low back symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 681 patients, 610 (89.6%) were followed through 18 months. Among participants not assigned to receive physical therapy or modalities, the estimated improvements in pain and disability and 18-month risk of complete remission were a little greater in the chiropractic group than in the medical group (adjusted RR of remission = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.80-2.07). Among participants assigned to medical care, mean changes in pain and disability and risk of remission were larger in patients assigned to receive physical therapy (adjusted RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.08-2.66). Among those assigned to chiropractic care, however, assignment to methods was not associated with improvement or remission (adjusted RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.62-1.55). Compared with medical care only patients, chiropractic and physical therapy patients were much more likely to perceive improvement in their low back symptoms. However, less than 20% of all patients were pain-free at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in outcomes between medical and chiropractic care without physical therapy or modalities are not clinically meaningful, although chiropractic may result in a greater likelihood of perceived improvement, perhaps reflecting satisfaction or lack of blinding. Physical therapy may be more effective than medical care alone for some patients, while physical modalities appear to have no benefit in chiropractic care.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
PublicHealth said:
Spine. 2006 Mar 15;31(6):611-21; discussion 622.

A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study.

Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Kominski GF, Yu F, Chiang LM.

Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [email protected]

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for low back pain in managed care and to assess the effectiveness of physical therapy and modalities among patients receiving medical or chiropractic care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence comparing the long-term relative effectiveness of common treatment strategies offered to low back pain patients in managed care is lacking. METHODS: A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to a managed-care facility were randomized to chiropractic with or without physical modalities, or medical care with or without physical therapy, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome variables are low back pain intensity, disability, and complete remission. The secondary outcome is participants' perception of improvement in low back symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 681 patients, 610 (89.6%) were followed through 18 months. Among participants not assigned to receive physical therapy or modalities, the estimated improvements in pain and disability and 18-month risk of complete remission were a little greater in the chiropractic group than in the medical group (adjusted RR of remission = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.80-2.07). Among participants assigned to medical care, mean changes in pain and disability and risk of remission were larger in patients assigned to receive physical therapy (adjusted RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.08-2.66). Among those assigned to chiropractic care, however, assignment to methods was not associated with improvement or remission (adjusted RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.62-1.55). Compared with medical care only patients, chiropractic and physical therapy patients were much more likely to perceive improvement in their low back symptoms. However, less than 20% of all patients were pain-free at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in outcomes between medical and chiropractic care without physical therapy or modalities are not clinically meaningful, although chiropractic may result in a greater likelihood of perceived improvement, perhaps reflecting satisfaction or lack of blinding. Physical therapy may be more effective than medical care alone for some patients, while physical modalities appear to have no benefit in chiropractic care.

So, isn't this what everyone has been saying? People love going to the chiropractor, but there is no real clinical benefit over traditional therapy. O.k., no one here has argued those points. The questions seem to be (after reading lots of old discussions here) 1. should the public pay for a modality, through medicare/medicaid, that costs more but isn't more effective, 2. do the risks of chiropractic outweigh the benefit of "perceived improvement" that is not clinically measurable, and 3. do the chiropractors, including wayttk who states in another thread "I am legally able to draw blood, order labs, and diagnose any medical condition, within, OR outside my scope of practice." and "I also, regularly advise my patients on pharmcological treatment" who believe that they are capable of handling any medical complaint and/or serve as primary care physicians represent an unreasonable risk to the public good when balanced against minimal clinical benefits of chiropractic (even when practiced within reasonable limits)?
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was sent this link a tonight from a friend of mine who is desperately trying to get into medical school, however, in reality he doesn't have the marks to ever get in. Since i am currently attending a chiropractic college i thought it would be interesting to clearify a few points that have been brought up by the one side.

Obviously allopathic medical students are going to shoot down any claims that are posted in defence of chiropractic in general, but there's no harm in trying. I could send you thousands of articles that show a correlation between spinal manipulation therapies and alleviation of various types of musckuloskeletal ailments. But again most are from chiropractic journals and thus all of you dr's to be will say there biased.

As for the non-evidence based schooling that you all seem to believe that DC attend...yes there are some schools that would be lower on the evidence-based learning and bring a more philosophic approach to healing. I don't attent one of those, and a number of my lecturers are not only MD's but Ph.D's as well and you can't sit there and tell me that someone that has a PhD in neuroanatomy or in biomechanics or in epidemiology or in neurophysiology is coming from a lower IQ level then you guys. Did i mention all of these lectures happen to be DC's, weird i thought that there was a lower GPA in chiro colleges? Must be some sort of mistake?

On to the quakary that exists. I'll be the first to admit that chiropractic as a whole is flawed with biased studies and a lot of flaws within the studies that have been performed. but chiropractic has been formally around for only 100 years, allopathic medicine with hipporactes... thats a long time ago and i seem to remember blood letting and and other archaic forms of medice to last a little longer then just 11 years. You also have to admit that allopathic medicine is not perfect. Do me a favour when you actually get your MD title and your patient comes into your office with a musckuloskeletal complaint dont just perscribe a bunch of anti-inflammatories, becuase we both know you've done nothing to treat the underlying problem: is there ligament damage? muscular damage? hemarthrosis? osteoarthritis? dont go by the multiple cause = one cure approach, becuase thats just as bad the original chiro philosophy of "one cause, one cure". and i'll do you a favour and wont "crack" every patients back i see. I'll be doing everything a Phyio can do and then some.

I think one of the thing that really bugged me when i read the responces was that nothing concrete is learned in chiro colleges. I find that annoying as i take the time to write this responce as i take a break from studying for my cranial nerves exams. Alright, relax, i'm not trying to show off that i know ALL 12 nerve names, its more the fact that on my board exams i'm going to have to know what supplies the taste to the anterior 2/3 of the tongue what nerve does it hitch hike in and where does it synapse (for the doctors that dont know its the corda tympani, with lingual nerve and it synapses in the geniculate ganglion on the way to the brain). My point is...I'LL NEVER NEED TO KNOW THIS IN PRACTICE...yet i sit here and learn it because it shows chiro's actually do know their anatomy, maybe even better then MD's (though i believe MD's understand the pathology of the internal organs to a much greater degree)

Sorry for the long responce but this is what i'm going to be doing for a living and i i'd rather get along with the MD who practices down the street then have arguements about the problems with "back cracking" and the arguements about paralysis or causing a VBA (if you dont know what that is look it up) here are some stats...because you MD's love your "evidence". the literature shows that 165 VBA's have occured with spinal manipulation in the 100 years of chiropractic. In contrast 1998 US report reports 98,000 accidental deaths due to medical malpractice (surgical or drug related. And here's a funny one since august 2000 there have been 150 cases of patients having the opposite limb being operated on to the one that is suppose to be.

As i expect dozens of you will come back with articles of your own or various comments about how i'm crazy to say the things that i have or that chiropractic is just nonsence. With which i reply this, maybe the reason people are gravitating to chiropractic and chiropractors as health care providers is because their sick of the egotistical, almost God like personality of their MD. Which i am already seeing on thie message board (and your not even MDs yet) You sit there in your comfy leather chairs in your office and you judge your patients, you show a lack of empathy and there is a group of you that probably only care if your going to be late for your tee time at the country club...take that for what its worth.

quack2be...sorry couldnt resist the name since thats all you see me as anyways
 
Obviously allopathic medical students are going to shoot down any claims that are posted in defense of chiropractic in general, but there's no harm in trying. I could send you thousands of articles that show a correlation between spinal manipulation therapies and alleviation of various types of musculoskeletal ailments. But again most are from chiropractic journals and thus all of you dr's to be will say there biased.

I disagree. Most physicians are very open to "alternative medicine" when its benefits have been confirmed in the literature.

As for the non-evidence based schooling that you all seem to believe that DC attends...yes there are some schools that would be lower on the evidence-based learning and bring a more philosophic approach to healing. I don't attent one of those, and a number of my lecturers are not only MD's but Ph.D's as well and you can't sit there and tell me that someone that has a PhD in neuroanatomy or in biomechanics or in epidemiology or in neurophysiology is coming from a lower IQ level then you guys. Did I mention all of these lectures happen to be DC's, weird I thought that there was a lower GPA in chiro colleges? Must be some sort of mistake?

Remember, DC schools added PhD's and MD's to their faculty so that students interested in DC education would be eligible for federal aid. Also much of any education in healthcare exists in its practical application such as clinicals. The clinical education of a chiropractor is very limited to its favorite modality: manipulation. When a chiropractor participates in clinical rotations such as emergency medicine, Fam. Practice, Internal Med, Peds, OB/GYN, surgery ... and is educated as a generalist first. A chiropractor as I see it lacks this fundamental "generalist" base and thus exists this overwhelming void in practical knowledge and skill with respect to medicine, anatomy, pathology, pharmacology, physiology....ect..... You can argue that you take similar classroom courses to that of a medical student and so do a number of professional allied healthcare providers...Nothing special, but the real growth occurs when you have to use this material in it's practical application, expand on it indefinitely, and become competent at it's application in a system that is competitive and with mechanisms that protect the patient. It's very different learning on patients who are really sick and who have something very real at stake (and I'm not talking about somebody with something as simple as mechanical low back pain!)

On to the quackery that exists. I'll be the first to admit that chiropractic as a whole is flawed with biased studies and a lot of flaws within the studies that have been performed. but chiropractic has been formally around for only 100 years, allopathic medicine with Hippocrates... that’s a long time ago and I seem to remember blood letting and other archaic forms of medice to last a little longer then just 11 years. You also have to admit that allopathic medicine is not perfect. Do me a favor when you actually get your MD title and your patient comes into your office with a musculoskeletal complaint don’t just prescribe a bunch of anti-inflammatory, because we both know you've done nothing to treat the underlying problem: is there ligament damage? muscular damage? hemarthrosis? osteoarthritis? Don’t go by the multiple cause = one cure approach, because that’s just as bad the original chiro philosophy of "one cause, one cure". And I’ll do you a favor and wont "crack" every patients back I see. I'll be doing everything a Phyio can do and then some.

As a person interested in this type of research, I'm very interested in learning whether practitioners of NMS disorders have the impact that we all think. Currently, we have very little understanding of the appropriate utilization of their services. For instance, will 6 visits of physical therapy over 6 weeks yield similar results to 18 visits of physical therapy over 6 weeks for xyz condition? Further, as more and more research is done, we are discovering that for many conditions, time and a sugar pill will produce the same results as a physical therapist/athletic trainer/chiropractor in the treatment of mechanical disorders (such as low back pain). Just for the sake of argument, with many mechanical disorders, physicians have recognized that most often some anti-inflammatory and time (which is the biggest part of any equation in healing) will allow the condition to resolve on its own. They are simply taking advantage of what you would recognize as the bodies overwhelming and innate ability to heal itself.


I think one of the things that really bugged me when I read the responses was that nothing concrete is learned in chiro colleges. I find that annoying as I take the time to write this response as I take a break from studying for my cranial nerves exams. Alright, relax, I’m not trying to show off that I know ALL 12 nerve names, its more the fact that on my board exams I’m going to have to know what supplies the taste to the anterior 2/3 of the tongue what nerve does it hitch hike in and where does it synapse (for the doctors that don’t know its the coda tympani, with lingual nerve and it synapses in the geniculate ganglion on the way to the brain). My point is...I'LL NEVER NEED TO KNOW THIS IN PRACTICE...yet i sit here and learn it because it shows chiro's actually do know their anatomy, maybe even better then MD's (though i believe MD's understand the pathology of the internal organs to a much greater degree)

Cranial nerves: now that’s some really deep stuff. This is taught in the first semester to undergraduate athletic training students. For some reason, AT students don't need to be awarded a doctorate to learn similar/same material that physical therapists and chiropractors learn, but historically, they aren't competing for status or reimbursement either.


Sorry for the long response but this is what I’m going to be doing for a living and i i'd rather get along with the MD who practices down the street then have arguements about the problems with "back cracking" and the arguements about paralysis or causing a VBA (if you dont know what that is look it up) here are some stats...because you MD's love your "evidence". the literature shows that 165 VBA's have occured with spinal manipulation in the 100 years of chiropractic. In contrast 1998 US report reports 98,000 accidental deaths due to medical malpractice (surgical or drug related. And here's a funny one since august 2000 there have been 150 cases of patients having the opposite limb being operated on to the one that is suppose to be.

Come on, as a scientist, I'm sure you understand taht these numbers mean nothing.

As i expect dozens of you will come back with articles of your own or various comments about how i'm crazy to say the things that i have or that chiropractic is just nonsence. With which i reply this, maybe the reason people are gravitating to chiropractic and chiropractors as health care providers is because their sick of the egotistical, almost God like personality of their MD. Which i am already seeing on thie message board (and your not even MDs yet) You sit there in your comfy leather chairs in your office and you judge your patients, you show a lack of empathy and there is a group of you that probably only care if your going to be late for your tee time at the country club...take that for what its worth.

The next time you have to explain to a family that you did everything you new how as a trauma surgeon to save their sons life or tell a parent their baby girl has cancer or Mr XYZ, 30% of patients with the disease you've just been dianosed with live beyond 6 months, then you can talk about how comfy the leather chair is or the lack of empathy a physician exhibits.
 
quack2be said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think one of the thing that really bugged me when i read the responces was that nothing concrete is learned in chiro colleges. I find that annoying as i take the time to write this responce as i take a break from studying for my cranial nerves exams. Alright, relax, i'm not trying to show off that i know ALL 12 nerve names, its more the fact that on my board exams i'm going to have to know what supplies the taste to the anterior 2/3 of the tongue what nerve does it hitch hike in and where does it synapse (for the doctors that dont know its the corda tympani, with lingual nerve and it synapses in the geniculate ganglion on the way to the brain). My point is...I'LL NEVER NEED TO KNOW THIS IN PRACTICE...yet i sit here and learn it because it shows chiro's actually do know their anatomy, maybe even better then MD's (though i believe MD's understand the pathology of the internal organs to a much greater degree)

quack2be...sorry couldnt resist the name since thats all you see me as anyways

Most people know ALL 12 cranial nerves, and know the many branches of the trigeminal and facial nerve, as well as the branches of V1, V2, V3, the opthalmic, maxillary, and mandibular nerves. I learned about that in my first year of undergrad, it's very basic.
 
lawguil said:
Cranial nerves: now that’s some really deep stuff. This is taught in the first semester to undergraduate athletic training students. For some reason, AT students don't need to be awarded a doctorate to learn similar/same material that physical therapists and chiropractors learn, but historically, they aren't competing for status or reimbursement either.

...Come on, as a scientist, I'm sure you understand taht these numbers mean nothing.


I'm sorry, did you hint that a DC degree is a doctorate? And did you call a chiropractor a scientist? And to think, I was actually agreeing with the things you said. A DC is not a doctorate (well, semantically, it is, but in reality, we know the truth), and a chiropractor is NOT a scientist.

Wow.
Sad
 
ProZackMI said:
I'm sorry, did you hint that a DC degree is a doctorate? And did you call a chiropractor a scientist? And to think, I was actually agreeing with the things you said. A DC is not a doctorate (well, semantically, it is, but in reality, we know the truth), and a chiropractor is NOT a scientist.

Wow.
Sad


I was being sarcastic. I believe that every professional degree should be awarded a certificate of completion so that the fluff could be eliminated!
 
ProZackMI said:
I just took the bar exam last week (and my brain is still dead), so I'm not an attorney yet and haven't been to court as an advocate yet. If I pass the bar exam (I'll know in May), then I plan to move over from medicine into law. Most lawyers do not use their doctoral title despite having a professional doctorate just like MDs, DCs, ODs, PharmDs, etc. It's part of the legal convention/custom. Although, many lawyers are called "doctor" in academia (not law school) and you do see more and more lawyers append the J.D. after their names. In fact, in Michigan, I am seeing more younger attorneys use the J.D. after their names than ever before. I think it's a good thing!

In court, however, an attorney, even one with an MD or PhD or DDS, is always referred to as Mr./Ms or Counselor. It's just part of the legal tradition and custom. I suspect, however, with time, lawyers will start using their doctoral title. In Europe, mostly in the Germanic and Slavic countries, most attorneys are called "Doctor".

A complete aside to the Quackopracty debate - I saw an article on lawyers today that made me think of this discussion (from: http://biz.yahoo.com/law/060410/a3856fd94e5052445cb89997b9182457.html?.v=1)

"In addition, the board struggled with a vexing advertising question involving cultural diversity. One lawyer was facing reprimand for advertising in Spanish that he is a "doctor of laws." During a spirited discussion among the governors, it was noted that such a designation is common in Latin American countries. Indeed, some governors acknowledged that they are often called "doctor" by Hispanic immigrant clients.

But other governors argued that lawyers calling themselves doctors of law might lead consumers to think that they are more qualified than other lawyers. Many lawyers in the United States have a juris doctor degree, which simply means they have a law degree."

So, I guess the Florida bar isn't sure what to do with the "doctorate" part of the JD.
 
Squad51 said:
A complete aside to the Quackopracty debate - I saw an article on lawyers today that made me think of this discussion (from: http://biz.yahoo.com/law/060410/a3856fd94e5052445cb89997b9182457.html?.v=1)

"In addition, the board struggled with a vexing advertising question involving cultural diversity. One lawyer was facing reprimand for advertising in Spanish that he is a "doctor of laws." During a spirited discussion among the governors, it was noted that such a designation is common in Latin American countries. Indeed, some governors acknowledged that they are often called "doctor" by Hispanic immigrant clients.

But other governors argued that lawyers calling themselves doctors of law might lead consumers to think that they are more qualified than other lawyers. Many lawyers in the United States have a juris doctor degree, which simply means they have a law degree."

So, I guess the Florida bar isn't sure what to do with the "doctorate" part of the JD.

It used to be illegal for an attorney to call himself "Doctor" even though he/she had a JD degree. This was because it tended to confuse and mislead the client into thinking the lawyer had a medical degree. The ABA, and most state bar associations, now allow attorneys to call themselves "doctor" or use JD after their name, but they are often looked upon as being self-laudatory and arrogant. It's just not custom and practice.

If you want to see puffery and self-laudatory behaviour, however, chiros and optometrists take the cake. I still remember being at Belle Tire two years ago, getting my tire repaired, and the clerk calls out "Mr. Smith?" and this pompous ass yells back, "That's DOCTOR Smith." I was called next ("Mr. S?), and went up to pay. As I was giving the clerk my credit card, I saw the ***** (DOCTOR Smith) next to me write a check; it said "Dr. John R. Smith, D.C." I laughed out loud and said, "Figures; he's a chiropractor."

Last year, as I was at the optometrist, getting my yearly vision exam, the receptionist said to me, "Mr. S, the DOCTOR will see you now!" Mind you, I'm an MD and JD, but I never corrected her. However, I did say, "You mean, the optometrist will me, right?" She said, "Dr. McCreery is an optometrist." I had to laugh. The DOCTOR will see me. Talk about insecurity and puffery.
 
ProZackMI said:
It used to be illegal for an attorney to call himself "Doctor" even though he/she had a JD degree. This was because it tended to confuse and mislead the client into thinking the lawyer had a medical degree. The ABA, and most state bar associations, now allow attorneys to call themselves "doctor" or use JD after their name, but they are often looked upon as being self-laudatory and arrogant. It's just not custom and practice.

If you want to see puffery and self-laudatory behaviour, however, chiros and optometrists take the cake. I still remember being at Belle Tire two years ago, getting my tire repaired, and the clerk calls out "Mr. Smith?" and this pompous ass yells back, "That's DOCTOR Smith." I was called next ("Mr. S?), and went up to pay. As I was giving the clerk my credit card, I saw the ***** (DOCTOR Smith) next to me write a check; it said "Dr. John R. Smith, D.C." I laughed out loud and said, "Figures; he's a chiropractor."

Last year, as I was at the optometrist, getting my yearly vision exam, the receptionist said to me, "Mr. S, the DOCTOR will see you now!" Mind you, I'm an MD and JD, but I never corrected her. However, I did say, "You mean, the optometrist will me, right?" She said, "Dr. McCreery is an optometrist." I had to laugh. The DOCTOR will see me. Talk about insecurity and puffery.


I don't agree that people should refrain from calling an OD "doctor" soley on the basis that they may confuse him with a medical doctor. People need to get their head out of their ass and figure out what's what. Their first clue that they are not in a medical doctor's office might be all of the eyeglass frames on the wall. A little information might go a long way, you know?

Bear in mind that you don't get an OD out of a cereal box, Optometrists have to be experts at what they do. They earn a terminal degree called Doctor of Optometry, there is no higher clinical optometrist degree beyond the OD, so I don't think it's too much to ask to refer to them as doctor. Besides its respectful and an acknowledgement that services they are providing are indeed expert and professional services gained through rigorous study and education.

And before you even start.....no, I don't think that NPs or PAs who hold a Ph.D. should be called doctor in the clinical setting. Since the NP or PAs do not represent the highest level of medical care, calling them doctor may actually cause a resonable degree of confusion among patients seeking medical services. Calling an Optometrist "doctor" has been a long standing convention in my neck of the woods for as long as I can recall, and I doubt it will change any time soon.

Just curious, Do you call your dentist "doctor"?
 
ProZackMI said:
Last year, as I was at the optometrist, getting my yearly vision exam, the receptionist said to me, "Mr. S, the DOCTOR will see you now!" Mind you, I'm an MD and JD, but I never corrected her.

How generous of you.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
niko327 said:
I don't agree that people should refrain from calling an OD "doctor" soley on the basis that they may confuse him with a medical doctor. People need to get their head out of their ass and figure out what's what. Their first clue that they are not in a medical doctor's office might be all of the eyeglass frames on the wall. A little information might go a long way, you know?

Bear in mind that you don't get an OD out of a cereal box, Optometrists have to be experts at what they do. They earn a terminal degree called Doctor of Optometry, there is no higher clinical optometrist degree beyond the OD, so I don't think it's too much to ask to refer to them as doctor. Besides its respectful and an acknowledgement that services they are providing are indeed expert and professional services gained through rigorous study and education.

And before you even start.....no, I don't think that NPs or PAs who hold a Ph.D. should be called doctor in the clinical setting. Since the NP or PAs do not represent the highest level of medical care, calling them doctor may actually cause a resonable degree of confusion among patients seeking medical services. Calling an Optometrist "doctor" has been a long standing convention in my neck of the woods for as long as I can recall, and I doubt it will change any time soon.

Just curious, Do you call your dentist "doctor"?

No, I call my dentist Dave and he calls me Zack. My dentist never has his staff say "THE DOCTOR will see you now!" I'm an MD and I use my title sparingly. I agree with your points, however, and I never meant to imply that an OD, or any other doctorally prepared professional, including lawyers, should not be referred to as doctor. Read my post over again.

My point about titles was that those who hold such degrees don't need to be pompous asses and puff themselves up in front of others, like the tire store incident. The optometrist's office was similar in that instead of "Dr McCreery will see you now," the receptionist made a big deal of saying "THE DOCTOR" this and "THE DOCTOR" that. That really sounds very arrogant and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, if it had been an MDs office, it wouldn't have affected me so much because I'm used to hearing that talk from physicians and their staff, but in an OD's office, it almost felt as though the receptionist was trying to convince me that the optometrist was someone to be respected. It was not necessary and very pompous...frankly, it was something I would expect from a chiro, not a professional person or a professional person's staff.

Should the OD be called "Dr" by his/her patients? Yes, I believe so. I believe pharmacists, psychologists, lawyers (yes, even them), podiatrists, dentists, and others who have earned advanced degrees of similar status should be respected for their work. Where do we draw the line, however? Should the dentist be called "Dr" by people outside of his office? What about the OD? Should the chiropractor's PERSONAL checks have DC appended after his name? Should my credit card have MD, JD after my name? Do you see my point?

As a medical doctor, I always introduce myself with my full name sans title. I refer to my patients by their last name (e.g., Ms. Smith or Mr. Jones) unless told otherwise. If I'm called Zack, I don't wet myself or blow a gasket. If I'm called "Dr S", or "doc" or "doctor", I'm happy too. It's not a big deal to me. I expect that this would be the case if I was a surgeon, neurologist, cardiologist, etc. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DC who does not insist on being called doctor.
 
No, I call my dentist Dave and he calls me Zack. My dentist never has his staff say "THE DOCTOR will see you now!" I'm an MD and I use my title sparingly. I agree with your points, however, and I never meant to imply that an OD, or any other doctorally prepared professional, including lawyers, should not be referred to as doctor. Read my post over again.

My dentist if big into the doctor thing

My point about titles was that those who hold such degrees don't need to be pompous asses and puff themselves up in front of others, like the tire store incident. The optometrist's office was similar in that instead of "Dr McCreery will see you now," the receptionist made a big deal of saying "THE DOCTOR" this and "THE DOCTOR" that. That really sounds very arrogant and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, if it had been an MDs office, it wouldn't have affected me so much because I'm used to hearing that talk from physicians and their staff, but in an OD's office, it almost felt as though the receptionist was trying to convince me that the optometrist was someone to be respected. It was not necessary and very pompous...frankly, it was something I would expect from a chiro, not a professional person or a professional person's staff.

Here you say that when in the optometrist's office you think it is arrogant when the receptionist refers to them as a "doctor".

Should the OD be called "Dr" by his/her patients? Yes, I believe so. I believe pharmacists, psychologists, lawyers (yes, even them), podiatrists, dentists, and others who have earned advanced degrees of similar status should be respected for their work. Where do we draw the line, however? Should the dentist be called "Dr" by people outside of his office? What about the OD? Should the chiropractor's PERSONAL checks have DC appended after his name? Should my credit card have MD, JD after my name? Do you see my point?

But here you claim the OD should be called Dr. (as well as everyone else in the world) WTF! Which is it?

As a medical doctor, I always introduce myself with my full name sans title. I refer to my patients by their last name (e.g., Ms. Smith or Mr. Jones) unless told otherwise. If I'm called Zack, I don't wet myself or blow a gasket. If I'm called "Dr S", or "doc" or "doctor", I'm happy too. It's not a big deal to me. I expect that this would be the case if I was a surgeon, neurologist, cardiologist, etc. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DC who does not insist on being called doctor.

Now you elegantly and discreetly tell us that you’re a medical doctor (and by the way a JD too... yeah, I’m really smart....but I let my patients call me Zach because I really don't give a crap)

You're a psychiatrist right! Let's see how good you are at self-diagnosing - I bet many other practitioners here could accurately dx your problem! LOL
 
ProZackMI said:
No, I call my dentist Dave and he calls me Zack. My dentist never has his staff say "THE DOCTOR will see you now!" I'm an MD and I use my title sparingly. I agree with your points, however, and I never meant to imply that an OD, or any other doctorally prepared professional, including lawyers, should not be referred to as doctor. Read my post over again.

My point about titles was that those who hold such degrees don't need to be pompous asses and puff themselves up in front of others, like the tire store incident. The optometrist's office was similar in that instead of "Dr McCreery will see you now," the receptionist made a big deal of saying "THE DOCTOR" this and "THE DOCTOR" that. That really sounds very arrogant and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, if it had been an MDs office, it wouldn't have affected me so much because I'm used to hearing that talk from physicians and their staff, but in an OD's office, it almost felt as though the receptionist was trying to convince me that the optometrist was someone to be respected. It was not necessary and very pompous...frankly, it was something I would expect from a chiro, not a professional person or a professional person's staff.

Should the OD be called "Dr" by his/her patients? Yes, I believe so. I believe pharmacists, psychologists, lawyers (yes, even them), podiatrists, dentists, and others who have earned advanced degrees of similar status should be respected for their work. Where do we draw the line, however? Should the dentist be called "Dr" by people outside of his office? What about the OD? Should the chiropractor's PERSONAL checks have DC appended after his name? Should my credit card have MD, JD after my name? Do you see my point?

As a medical doctor, I always introduce myself with my full name sans title. I refer to my patients by their last name (e.g., Ms. Smith or Mr. Jones) unless told otherwise. If I'm called Zack, I don't wet myself or blow a gasket. If I'm called "Dr S", or "doc" or "doctor", I'm happy too. It's not a big deal to me. I expect that this would be the case if I was a surgeon, neurologist, cardiologist, etc. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DC who does not insist on being called doctor.


I think it all depends on the person. I, too, am a bit put off when any my doctor (of whatever flavor you want) is really touchy about being called doctor. Most of my doctors introduce themselves by their full name (I came to see them, I obviously know that Dan Smith is the same guy as Dr. D. Smith on all the forms I filled out). BUT, you were only interacting with the receptionist. She might have learned the "the doctor will see you now" from old sitcoms. For all we know, the OD in question might not care in the least how patients are brought from the waiting area. Had the doctor done what you described above, that'd be different.... don't judge a profession's tendancy for insecurity based on ONE receptionist.
Good posts otherwise.
 
ProZackMI said:
No, I call my dentist Dave and he calls me Zack. My dentist never has his staff say "THE DOCTOR will see you now!" I'm an MD and I use my title sparingly. I agree with your points, however, and I never meant to imply that an OD, or any other doctorally prepared professional, including lawyers, should not be referred to as doctor. Read my post over again.

Am I mistaken to think that your calling your dentist by his first name is specific to the relationship you have with your dentist? Presumably a more informal relationship possibly due to mutual acknowledgement of professional status? Or would you advocate everyone calling their dentist by their first name? As far as the dentist's office staff not using the phrase "the doctor will see you now" is purely up to that office, I would not imagine such informality as being a widespread convention though. Oh, and I read your post carefully the first time.
ProZackMI said:
My point about titles was that those who hold such degrees don't need to be pompous asses and puff themselves up in front of others, like the tire store incident. The optometrist's office was similar in that instead of "Dr McCreery will see you now," the receptionist made a big deal of saying "THE DOCTOR" this and "THE DOCTOR" that. That really sounds very arrogant and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, if it had been an MDs office, it wouldn't have affected me so much because I'm used to hearing that talk from physicians and their staff, but in an OD's office, it almost felt as though the receptionist was trying to convince me that the optometrist was someone to be respected. It was not necessary and very pompous...frankly, it was something I would expect from a chiro, not a professional person or a professional person's staff.
I agree with you, nobody should present themselves as a pompus ass. But referring to the OD as doctor in his own office is not pompous at all. If you think its pompus and arrogant to call a doctor terminal degreed medical professional Dr, then why don't you raise the same objections in an MDs office, is it because you're used to hearing this? It would seem that since you're unaccustomed to hearing an OD called doctor then it must be somehow inappropriate.
ProZackMI said:
Should the OD be called "Dr" by his/her patients? Yes, I believe so. I believe pharmacists, psychologists, lawyers (yes, even them), podiatrists, dentists, and others who have earned advanced degrees of similar status should be respected for their work. Where do we draw the line, however? Should the dentist be called "Dr" by people outside of his office? What about the OD? Should the chiropractor's PERSONAL checks have DC appended after his name? Should my credit card have MD, JD after my name? Do you see my point?
Interesting......The above statement would seem to be inconsistent with your assertion that Optometrists take the cake for arrogance by expecting their patients to call them doctor.
Where to draw the line? Here's a good rule for drawing the line: be respectful at all times and use common sense. If invited to be informal with the professional, then carefully consider it. If your Optometrist is 75 years old, and you are 35 years old, I'd err on the side of greatest respect. So should you call an OD "doctor" outside of the office, in the public? Well, I respect the professional services from my OD, so if I saw him in a shopping mall, I'd greet him as Dr. so-and-so, same goes for my PMD, and my DDS, these people don't change my engine oil, they take care of my health. I would encourage you to show them same respect in addressing such individuals if you do not have an established informal relationship.
ProZackMI said:
Do you see my point?
Honestly....no.
ProZackMI said:
As a medical doctor, I always introduce myself with my full name sans title. I refer to my patients by their last name (e.g., Ms. Smith or Mr. Jones) unless told otherwise. If I'm called Zack, I don't wet myself or blow a gasket. If I'm called "Dr S", or "doc" or "doctor", I'm happy too. It's not a big deal to me. I expect that this would be the case if I was a surgeon, neurologist, cardiologist, etc. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DC who does not insist on being called doctor.

That's all very nice. But just beacuse you're a doctor twice over does not relieve you of the burden to show respect to your health professional. When you're in his office, you are patient prozackmi.
Whatever your feelings are about DCs is another matter entirely. If you believe that what they are doing is valuable, then call them doctor. If not, then don't solicit their services and you will in most cases avoid this little conundrum.
 
What the hell is going on with society? If you are stopped by the police you say yes Officer and no Officer. If you are addressed by a judge you should refer to them as your honor. If your dentist, optometrist or medical physician is talking to you, you should address them as doctor.

Nobody wants to show respect to anyone anymore, what a pile of crap. This lack of common courtesy indicates the greatest arrogance of all. "Everybody is special nowadays and nobody is more special than me", nonsense.
 
niko327 said:
What the hell is going on with society? If you are stopped by the police you say yes Officer and no Officer. If you are addressed by a judge you should refer to them as your honor. If your dentist, optometrist or medical physician is talking to you, you should address them as doctor.

Nobody wants to show respect to anyone anymore, what a pile of crap. This lack of common courtesy indicates the greatest arrogance of all. "Everybody is special nowadays and nobody is more special than me", nonsense.


Excellent post! :thumbup: I think it is so true that if you’re the patient you need to show respect. For some reason, Zack has great animosity towards OD’s
 
niko327 said:
What the hell is going on with society? If you are stopped by the police you say yes Officer and no Officer. If you are addressed by a judge you should refer to them as your honor. If your dentist, optometrist or medical physician is talking to you, you should address them as doctor.

Nobody wants to show respect to anyone anymore, what a pile of crap. This lack of common courtesy indicates the greatest arrogance of all. "Everybody is special nowadays and nobody is more special than me", nonsense.

Rock on! People in doctoral programs bust their asses to complete their degrees and get licensed. They should be referred to as "doctor" in their respective places of employment. State law says that they may use this title, so long as it's followed by their official title.

Optometrist in CT: "Sec. 20-137. Exemption. Use of title "Doctor". The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to physicians and surgeons authorized to practice under the laws of this state, nor to any person who sells spectacles or eyeglasses on prescription from any such physician or certified optometrist; provided such person shall not attempt to measure the vision of the eye. No person granted a certificate under the terms of this chapter shall display or use the title "Doctor" or its synonym, either by way of prefix or otherwise, unless, at the same time, he appends to his name words indicating that he is an optometrist. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 20-138a."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap380.htm#Sec20-137.htm

Chiropractor in CT: http://www.fclb.org/directory/connecticut.pdf
 
niko327 said:
Am I mistaken to think that your calling your dentist by his first name is specific to the relationship you have with your dentist? Presumably a more informal relationship possibly due to mutual acknowledgement of professional status? Or would you advocate everyone calling their dentist by their first name? As far as the dentist's office staff not using the phrase "the doctor will see you now" is purely up to that office, I would not imagine such informality as being a widespread convention though. Oh, and I read your post carefully the first time.

I agree with you, nobody should present themselves as a pompus ass. But referring to the OD as doctor in his own office is not pompous at all. If you think its pompus and arrogant to call a doctor terminal degreed medical professional Dr, then why don't you raise the same objections in an MDs office, is it because you're used to hearing this? It would seem that since you're unaccustomed to hearing an OD called doctor then it must be somehow inappropriate.

Interesting......The above statement would seem to be inconsistent with your assertion that Optometrists take the cake for arrogance by expecting their patients to call them doctor.
Where to draw the line? Here's a good rule for drawing the line: be respectful at all times and use common sense. If invited to be informal with the professional, then carefully consider it. If your Optometrist is 75 years old, and you are 35 years old, I'd err on the side of greatest respect. So should you call an OD "doctor" outside of the office, in the public? Well, I respect the professional services from my OD, so if I saw him in a shopping mall, I'd greet him as Dr. so-and-so, same goes for my PMD, and my DDS, these people don't change my engine oil, they take care of my health. I would encourage you to show them same respect in addressing such individuals if you do not have an established informal relationship.

Honestly....no.


That's all very nice. But just beacuse you're a doctor twice over does not relieve you of the burden to show respect to your health professional. When you're in his office, you are patient prozackmi.
Whatever your feelings are about DCs is another matter entirely. If you believe that what they are doing is valuable, then call them doctor. If not, then don't solicit their services and you will in most cases avoid this little conundrum.

I think you missed the point of my post. I agree with most of what you said and my ONLY point is that professionals, whether MD or OD or whatever need not act so pompous toward their patients or people in general. I don't go around in a self laudatory fashion shoving my MD or JD around insisting on being called "doctor" by everyone. I could, however, since I'm a physician. Once I completed my residency, the urge to stroke my ego dissipated and I stopped introducing myself as "doctor" to everyone; it got too pretentious.

I have no animosity toward ODs. I was surprised that my optometrist referred to herself (or better yet, had her 20 year-old clerk refer to her) as "THE DOCTOR" when a simple "Dr. X will see you now" would have sufficed.

Respect is earned, but not by the amount of schooling you have; it is earned by your character, position, and reputation. Ted Kennedy has been a US Senator from Mass for 30+ years, but would you respect him solely on his position? NO, I hope not. Would you respect him because he's an attorney and has been in school 8 years? NO! His character (drunken hypocrite who killed MaryJane whats-her-name?)? NO! His reputation? NO! The big picture is important.

The same thing is true in the professions. I go to my optometrist because she was referred to me, close to my condo, reasonably priced, and takes my insurance. I respect her because she's competent, professional, kind, and quick. I personally wouldn't care if she's an OD or BOpt; she's still a good optometrist. She doesn't have to have her staff call her THE DOCTOR in order to gain my respect.

I never said that I don't call my optometrist doctor. I do. Likewise, even though I'm her patient/client, she calls me "doctor" even though I asked her to call me Zack. I am very respectful to my patients and I am equally respectful to my medical providers when I'm the patient. In my practice, I have two patients who have doctorates; one is a PhD in entomology and biology and I refer to her as Dr., the other is a DVM and he is called Dr. by myself and my staff.

I agree with you, however, in the US, we have devolved socially in that we no longer find it necessary to bestow common respect upon our fellow citizens. I'm 35, so I'm not ancient, but I remember as a kid calling my elders Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. or Dr. or Prof. or whatever. Now kids call their friends' parents by their first names. Things are becoming too informal.
 
TofuBalls said:
My family and I use a chiropractor for our primary care doctor.

I remember when my wife went into premature labor, our chiro made the diagnosis immediately just by the malposition of her spine. From the information he got from her x-rays and manipulations, he knew to start her on antibiotics to prevent chorioamnionitis.

But his medical expertise did not stop there, since my son was born at 35 weeks, our family chiro had the presence of mind to notice the retractions and grunting of his breathing and proceded to intubate him there on the spot. After a few manipulations he was able to diagnose my little boy with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He immediately treated him with surfactant and was weened off the vent in a matter of days. In addition to this, he was very adept at placing umbilical arterial and venous lines.

I also have a friend who developed a symptomatic basilar artery aneurysm. He was hell bent on going to a neurosurgeon but changed his mind after I told him about my chiro. Since then, he has had percutaneous coiling done at the chiro's office on an outpatient basis.

Of late, while I was performing anethesia for a right lung transplant, I had to do a quick phone consult with my chiro since I don't trust the medical training either I or my attending had. Since I had floated a Swan-Ganz catheter in my patient, I wanted my friendly family chiro to explain the determinants of mixed venous oxygenation and the elements of the Fick equation. He had a little trouble dumbing it down for someone like me to understand. He really saved the day when I had to clamp off the right lung and rely on one lung ventilation. He explained the basics of one lung ventilation under anesthesia to me as well as why my Pulmonary Artery pressures were so high. Although the patient thanked me for a perfect anesthetic, I know my family chiro was the real hero. If I only knew manipulations instead of all this worthless damn clinical medicine...

I won't even go into my Aunt's vaginitis, he cured that too!

I hope this helps! :D

I know my "Chiro" is amazing as well. After coming over for a quick back rubb he leaves me with my favorite meal "Spaghetti and MeatBALLS"

LOL......

Puhlease....
 
lawguil said:
On to the quackery that exists. I'll be the first to admit that chiropractic as a whole is flawed with biased studies and a lot of flaws within the studies that have been performed. but chiropractic has been formally around for only 100 years, allopathic medicine with Hippocrates... that’s a long time ago and I seem to remember blood letting and other archaic forms of medice to last a little longer then just 11 years. You also have to admit that allopathic medicine is not perfect. Do me a favor when you actually get your MD title and your patient comes into your office with a musculoskeletal complaint don’t just prescribe a bunch of anti-inflammatory, because we both know you've done nothing to treat the underlying problem: is there ligament damage? muscular damage? hemarthrosis? osteoarthritis? Don’t go by the multiple cause = one cure approach, because that’s just as bad the original chiro philosophy of "one cause, one cure". And I’ll do you a favor and wont "crack" every patients back I see. I'll be doing everything a Phyio can do and then some.


That's kind of funny you say that, because according to Hippocrates himself, in one of his writings he declares: "Get knowledge of the spine, for this is the requisite for many diseases". :D
 
unfortunately many people in the medical profession have been brainwashed over the years due to the AMA's anti-competitive clauses. it's going to be a long time until that silly stigma has been erased.
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/237.cfm
this case DID go to the US supreme court and the ruling was AGAINST the AMA. go ahead, look it up. you'll probably be very surprised.
chiropractic care has been found to be VERY effective in low back pain and it is also VERY safe. compare the malpractice insurance rates for a chiropractor versus an MD. they are GREATLY different and indicates the relative safety between professions.
people seek out chiropractors as an alternative means rather than polluting their body with unnecessary medications with side effects.
chiropractic promotes a healthy, drug free approach with an emphasis on nutrition.
i had severe neck pain after a jetski accident, and saw at least 3 different doctors. they all did nothing more than prescribe me NSAIDS, and muscle relaxers.
i was in such severe pain, that it was extremely difficult for me to even go to work. it wasn't until i went to a chiropractor a year and a half later that i found any relief. there are a number of my fellow students with similar stories. allopathic medicine had failed us, but chiropractic had cured us.

regarding the difference in "quality of education", i challenge any of you to go to a chiropractic college and attempt to match wits with the professors there. i guarantee you that they'll win. they are EXTREMELY well educated.
ironically enough, there are also three medical colleges in new york state looking for graduates from our DC program to teach in their anatomy department. that's how well we are educated.
we are also accorded the title of "doctor" not ONLY because we have achieved a doctorate degree, but because we are considered to be physicians by medicare as well as in most states.

if you want evidence... search pubmed. you'll find an overwhelming amount of it. or you can ask people that have actually GONE to chiropractors rather than jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than hearsay.
 
lotus921v said:
unfortunately many people in the medical profession have been brainwashed over the years due to the AMA's anti-competitive clauses. it's going to be a long time until that silly stigma has been erased.
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/237.cfm
this case DID go to the US supreme court and the ruling was AGAINST the AMA. go ahead, look it up. you'll probably be very surprised.
chiropractic care has been found to be VERY effective in low back pain and it is also VERY safe. compare the malpractice insurance rates for a chiropractor versus an MD. they are GREATLY different and indicates the relative safety between professions.
people seek out chiropractors as an alternative means rather than polluting their body with unnecessary medications with side effects.
chiropractic promotes a healthy, drug free approach with an emphasis on nutrition.
i had severe neck pain after a jetski accident, and saw at least 3 different doctors. they all did nothing more than prescribe me NSAIDS, and muscle relaxers.
i was in such severe pain, that it was extremely difficult for me to even go to work. it wasn't until i went to a chiropractor a year and a half later that i found any relief. there are a number of my fellow students with similar stories. allopathic medicine had failed us, but chiropractic had cured us.

regarding the difference in "quality of education", i challenge any of you to go to a chiropractic college and attempt to match wits with the professors there. i guarantee you that they'll win. they are EXTREMELY well educated.
ironically enough, there are also three medical colleges in new york state looking for graduates from our DC program to teach in their anatomy department. that's how well we are educated.
we are also accorded the title of "doctor" not ONLY because we have achieved a doctorate degree, but because we are considered to be physicians by medicare as well as in most states.

if you want evidence... search pubmed. you'll find an overwhelming amount of it. or you can ask people that have actually GONE to chiropractors rather than jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than hearsay.

Good post. Thank you for sharing. :thumbup:
 
niko327 said:
Their first clue that they are not in a medical doctor's office might be all of the eyeglass frames on the wall. A little information might go a long way, you know?


LOLOL! This may not have been meant to be funny, but it was.
 
ProZackMI said:
I'm sorry, did you hint that a DC degree is a doctorate? And did you call a chiropractor a scientist? And to think, I was actually agreeing with the things you said. A DC is not a doctorate (well, semantically, it is, but in reality, we know the truth), and a chiropractor is NOT a scientist.

Wow.
Sad

LOL
of COURSE it's a doctorate, and if you're claiming otherwise, then you're admitting complete and total ignorance of chiropractic curriculum. we have a few courses in philosophy, sure, but the rest of what we do is based in hard fact. using the same research that the medical community does.

oddly enough, i've noticed that it's general practitioners and students that tend to get more pissy about chiropractors. it's as if you spent your entire life wanting to be a doctor and considering MD's to be know-it-alls, and can't handle being confronted that doctors aren't the only profession that can help people. i know two neurologists personally that REFER patients to chiropractors. if ANYBODY should be concerned with the "flawed practice" of chiropractic, it should be them! somehow though, the experts in the medical field aren't denouncing us like the less educated are....
 
lotus921v said:
the rest of what we do is based in hard fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..............HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA.

Ok...ok...I'm done.
 
lotus921v said:
chiropractic care has been found to be VERY effective in low back pain and it is also VERY safe. compare the malpractice insurance rates for a chiropractor versus an MD. they are GREATLY different and indicates the relative safety between professions.

MD malpractice is much higher because they do more with more possibly VERY bad consequences. This is why surgeons have higher malpractice than pediatricians. Same thing with DCs vs. MDs.

lotus921v said:
people seek out chiropractors as an alternative means rather than polluting their body with unnecessary medications with side effects.
chiropractic promotes a healthy, drug free approach with an emphasis on nutrition.
i had severe neck pain after a jetski accident, and saw at least 3 different doctors. they all did nothing more than prescribe me NSAIDS, and muscle relaxers.
i was in such severe pain, that it was extremely difficult for me to even go to work. it wasn't until i went to a chiropractor a year and a half later that i found any relief. there are a number of my fellow students with similar stories. allopathic medicine had failed us, but chiropractic had cured us.

See, you've hit upon the big thing that many take issue with. In your case, you saw your doctor FIRST about your neck pain. You were not satisfied and so you went to a DC. This is how it should be. Go to the MD/DO first to make sure its not any pathology, then go to the DC. If things worked this way, I doubt that many MD/DOs would take issue with chiropractors.
As for the less drugs/eating better thing: most of the time this is great. If you can get americans to eat healthy, well you're ok in my book. The less meds part is trickier. Do you know enough pharmacology and physiology to accurately determine benefit/risks of all the drugs out there? Obviously, if you can get your patients feeling better without, say, their muscle relaxants and narcotic pain meds, well that's great. But the stories of chiropractors telling their patients that vaccines are worthless or that cancer/diabetes can be cure with spinal manipulation make MD/DOs very wary (I know, anecdotal evidence mainly... but its still there).
 
......................
 
TofuBalls said:
My family and I use a chiropractor for our primary care doctor.

I remember when my wife went into premature labor, our chiro made the diagnosis immediately just by the malposition of her spine. From the information he got from her x-rays and manipulations, he knew to start her on antibiotics to prevent chorioamnionitis.

But his medical expertise did not stop there, since my son was born at 35 weeks, our family chiro had the presence of mind to notice the retractions and grunting of his breathing and proceded to intubate him there on the spot. After a few manipulations he was able to diagnose my little boy with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He immediately treated him with surfactant and was weened off the vent in a matter of days. In addition to this, he was very adept at placing umbilical arterial and venous lines.

I also have a friend who developed a symptomatic basilar artery aneurysm. He was hell bent on going to a neurosurgeon but changed his mind after I told him about my chiro. Since then, he has had percutaneous coiling done at the chiro's office on an outpatient basis.

Of late, while I was performing anethesia for a right lung transplant, I had to do a quick phone consult with my chiro since I don't trust the medical training either I or my attending had. Since I had floated a Swan-Ganz catheter in my patient, I wanted my friendly family chiro to explain the determinants of mixed venous oxygenation and the elements of the Fick equation. He had a little trouble dumbing it down for someone like me to understand. He really saved the day when I had to clamp off the right lung and rely on one lung ventilation. He explained the basics of one lung ventilation under anesthesia to me as well as why my Pulmonary Artery pressures were so high. Although the patient thanked me for a perfect anesthetic, I know my family chiro was the real hero. If I only knew manipulations instead of all this worthless damn clinical medicine...

I won't even go into my Aunt's vaginitis, he cured that too!

I hope this helps! :D

Your chiro RX'd antibiotics?? Explain what you meant by percutaneous coiling by your chiro...where did this take place?

Mike
 
surgpa said:
Your chiro RX'd antibiotics?? Explain what you meant by percutaneous coiling by your chiro...where did this take place?

Mike

He was being facetious.
 
I was just wondering if chiropractic education was equivalent to that of a medical doctor. Many chiros claim that their education is equivalent, but somehow I find it hard to believe.

Can anyone elaborate with statistics and their thoughts?

Thanks.

Coming from a family of doctors, I have seen both medical and chiropractic educations and their clinical approaches to health and healing. My brother is a Board Certified Internist, while I practiced neurology and chiropractic (now retired). I also have a sister who first became a DC, then went on to also get her MD degree. Conversely, I had MDs in class with me in chiropractic school, who also returned for the greater neuro-musculo-skeletal education to gain their DC degree as well. Medicine by definition is "the diagnosis and treatment of diseases." Chiropractic is philosophically different, in that they attempt to normalize physiologic functioning in all body system, while particularly concentrating on the spine and nervous system. One treats diseases, while the other attempts to restore health naturally. A subtle difference. The medical doctor utilizes pharmaceuticals and surgical techniques as their primary modalities, while chiropractic doctors use more 'hands-on' methods, including spinal and extremity manipulations (referred to as 'adjustments), along with physiotherapy modalities and advice in lifestyle changes and nutrition. Each has their place and varying degrees of effectiveness. A DC might be the best doctor to consult for cancer, and would have limited effectiveness in treating that illness, while medical doctors are commonly consulted by patients for disorders related to the spine and musculoskeletal system, such as low back pain, whiplash, sprains/strains, radiculopathies (brachial, or sciatic), or common types of cephalgia, for which they are ill-prepared and might not be as effective in treating those conditions solely with the standard analgesics and anti-inflammatories. For these condition. For these common conditions chiropractic has proven itself in numerous studies and decades of empirical results, to be significantly more effective at alleviating symptoms and restoring full function. For a more direct answer to the question of whether DCs are 'doctors' and whether they are equivalent in their education, the short answer is yes, they are recognized by federal accrediting agencies as 'doctors' (like MDs and DOs) and are treated as "different but equivalent" by most state licensing boards and insurance equality laws. For greater details as to education, see the following appropriate links:
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/drgrisanti/mddc.htm and http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Chiropractic_vs_Medical_Training.shtml
 
I am soooo tired of hearing nurse practitioners, chiropractors, Zen masters, and other witch doctors say things like "we practice holistically" thus inferring that (real) doctors dont care about the "whole" patient.

By the way, drcl, your resurrection skills are amazing. This thread has been dead for almost a DECADE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My family and I use a chiropractor for our primary care doctor.

I remember when my wife went into premature labor, our chiro made the diagnosis immediately just by the malposition of her spine. From the information he got from her x-rays and manipulations, he knew to start her on antibiotics to prevent chorioamnionitis.

But his medical expertise did not stop there, since my son was born at 35 weeks, our family chiro had the presence of mind to notice the retractions and grunting of his breathing and proceded to intubate him there on the spot. After a few manipulations he was able to diagnose my little boy with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He immediately treated him with surfactant and was weened off the vent in a matter of days. In addition to this, he was very adept at placing umbilical arterial and venous lines.

I also have a friend who developed a symptomatic basilar artery aneurysm. He was hell bent on going to a neurosurgeon but changed his mind after I told him about my chiro. Since then, he has had percutaneous coiling done at the chiro's office on an outpatient basis.

Of late, while I was performing anethesia for a right lung transplant, I had to do a quick phone consult with my chiro since I don't trust the medical training either I or my attending had. Since I had floated a Swan-Ganz catheter in my patient, I wanted my friendly family chiro to explain the determinants of mixed venous oxygenation and the elements of the Fick equation. He had a little trouble dumbing it down for someone like me to understand. He really saved the day when I had to clamp off the right lung and rely on one lung ventilation. He explained the basics of one lung ventilation under anesthesia to me as well as why my Pulmonary Artery pressures were so high. Although the patient thanked me for a perfect anesthetic, I know my family chiro was the real hero. If I only knew manipulations instead of all this worthless damn clinical medicine...

I won't even go into my Aunt's vaginitis, he cured that too!

I hope this helps! :D
I'm very concerned that you are practicing medicine, yet "don't trust the medical training" you and the attending have received. I'm hoping I incorrectly read that. Yikes!
 
Holy double necropost!

First a 9 year ressurection, then a 1 year ressurection.
 
Some things, like shamanism, just won't die no matter how much science disproves it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That is a topic of debate the question asked in this forum is to vague. It should be worded is a DC education equivalent to a MDs in the human body, or treatment of the human body, or pharmaceuticals. Being so is they would all have different answers. I am not a person who uses opinion is answering a topic of scientific nature so I turn to facts unlike most of the people in these types of forums you find nothing but useless squabbling based of emotions and misunderstanding.
If you do a little research and exclude biased websites you will find that the two professions have very similar hours in curriculum. MDs having more hours in pharmaceutics and DCs having more time in nutrition and anatomy.
https://iacp.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/Education Info/Comparative Study of DC and MD Education.pdf
A study done by both a DC and MD shows that DC's actually have more classroom time then MDS(DCs averaging 4826 and MDs averaging 4667) This does not necessarily mean that DC's education is superior.
It should also be noted that DC's requirements to get into school are much easier then MDs this is because Chiropractic is one of the few health fields that is not incorporated by the AMA meaning the profession must find funding on its own. Hints why a lowered GPA is allowed to attract more people. This being said students that are DC still must pass all 4 parts of the national boards to get licensed which has a extremely low passing rate (weeding out any slackers that may have got in with a low GPA but chiro schools still get the money).

There is still some animosity on the internet towards chiropractors because of confusion and bad representatives on each side of the coin ( MD and DC) A common tool used by biased allopathic followers will bringing up chiropractic philosophy from over 100 years ago. When chiropractors claimed that adjustment could cure anything, and based of of unscientific methods. That's right 100 years ago back when allopathic was using maggots for treatment, or lobectomies to cure learning disorders. Both professions have advanced drastically sense these dark ages. Any physician that follows recent research knows these truths which is why it is so common to see MDs and DCs working side by side to treat ailments getting the best of both scope.

So the factual answer is yes the education its self is equivalent in the areas appropriate to each profession.
.
 
Last edited:
That is a topic of debate the question asked in this forum is to vague. It should be worded is a DC education equivalent to a MDs in the human body, or treatment of the human body, or pharmaceuticals. Being so is they would all have different answers. I am not a person who uses opinion is answering a topic of scientific nature so I turn to facts unlike most of the people in these types of forums you find nothing but useless squabbling based of emotions and misunderstanding.
If you do a little research and exclude biased websites you will find that the two professions have very similar hours in curriculum. MDs having more hours in pharmaceutics and DCs having more time in nutrition and anatomy.
https://iacp.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/Education Info/Comparative Study of DC and MD Education.pdf
A study done by both a DC and MD shows that DC's actually have more classroom time then MDS(DCs averaging 4826 and MDs averaging 4667) This does not necessarily mean that DC's education is superior.
It should also be noted that DC's requirements to get into school are much easier then MDs this is because Chiropractic is one of the few health fields that is not incorporated by the AMA meaning the profession must find funding on its own. Hints why a lowered GPA is allowed to attract more people. This being said students that are DC still must pass all 4 parts of the national boards to get licensed which has a extremely low passing rate (weeding out any slackers that may have got in with a low GPA but chiro schools still get the money).

There is still some animosity on the internet towards chiropractors because of confusion and bad representatives on each side of the coin ( MD and DC) A common tool used by biased allopathic followers will bringing up chiropractic philosophy from over 100 years ago. When chiropractors claimed that adjustment could cure anything, and based of of unscientific methods. That's right 100 years ago back when allopathic was using maggots for treatment, or lobectomies to cure learning disorders. Both professions have advanced drastically sense these dark ages. Any physician that follows recent research knows these truths which is why it is so common to see MDs and DCs working side by side to treat ailments getting the best of both scope.

So the factual answer is yes the education its self is equivalent in the areas appropriate to each profession.
.
Actually there is pretty good data behind maggot therapy and it's still used when appropriate.

Conversely there is little good data behind chiropractic.

I still refer benign back pain to them at times because it's better than narcotics, but I also admit there's a large placebo effect there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Activators look dangerous.
 
So, after scanning all the years of chatter in this thread, and regardless of your planned niche of practice and review of statistical analysis, answer me these two questions(and no, not the airspeed of a barn swallow):How is it, that in spite of all courses of study, the worst chiropractic drs, physicians, etc, get positive results in something in the 80% region of all patients treated, mainly NMS complaints? And, secondly, why are DC malpractice rates dropping by 50-75% over the past 15-20 years?
 
Actually there is pretty good data behind maggot therapy and it's still used when appropriate.

Conversely there is little good data behind chiropractic.

I still refer benign back pain to them at times because it's better than narcotics, but I also admit there's a large placebo effect there.

I'm sure you'll concur that there's a significant placebo effect in all aspects of care, thus the double blind standard.
 
Top