chiropractors and med school - Page 3

shamanhlr · #21 (**permalink**) 09-22-2003, 12:24 AM

Azskeptic, I am not sure if your reply was meant for me but since nobody has replied concerning your last post I thought I would point out a few things. When did the subject of this thread become Chiro School vs. Med school? This thread started out with you wanting to know about “I am very interested in hearing from the DC's on this board how the transition is into medical school”. So I shared my experiences with you and the people that read this thread. The subject of the thread was Chiro School to Med school and not vs... I respect your skepticism and drive to seek the truth, and that is why I am up writing this reply.

1- You started off mentioning “education is an individual thing i.e. you learn many things yourself, not based on who is teaching you” very true. That is why some great docs come from some of the less stellar schools and some awful docs come from very reputable schools. And then you start comparing medical education to a chiropractic education. Don’t compare apples to oranges. I did not attend chiropractic school because I wanted to become an M.D. or D.O.; I attended Chiro School to become a chiropractor. From personal experience my anatomy teacher in Osteo School was a TA in an anatomy lab before becoming the head of the anatomy department; and the anatomy teacher in Chiro School used to teach at AUC in the Caribbean. All my basic science instructors in Chiro School were Ph.D.’s. Also my path teacher in Chiro School happened to be an M.D... But then why would you want to have an M.D. teach basic sciences or clinical sciences in a chiro school? For basic sciences you would preferably have a Ph.D. and if you are to become an M.D. or D.O. you would want an M.D. or D.O. to teach you the clinical sciences; and if you were to become a chiropractor you would want a D.C. to teach you the clinical sciences.

2- You mentioned “that say how many hours of 'equivalent to an MD' training you get in medical school. You will be dealing with science rather than trying to convince patients that their health problems are due to Subluxations”. First you assume that I subscribe to subluxation theory, don’t assume. Not all chiropractors believe in subluxation theory, please check out: http://www.chiromed.org and for great papers on chiropractic manipulation visit http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ and a great government sponsored site with info about chiropractic visit http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/chiropractic.html
Subluxation may have different meanings when used, each chiropractor may have their own definition, I also like to use the term “somatic dysfunction” (which is what some osteopaths use to describe the conditions that they treat with manipulation). For another great paper that was authored by an M.D., D.O., and D.C. in the JAOA (the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association) check out J Am Osteopath Assoc 2001 Aug;101(8):441-4 (ISSN: 0098-6151) titled “Manual medicine diversity: research pitfalls and the emerging medical paradigm”. The paper explains that there are differences in terminology between the professions that use manual therapies and that there is a need for a more coherent terminology when communicating on an academic level.
And yes when starting chiro school I saw those silly brochures that you mentioned in your post comparing a medical education to a chiropractic education in terms of hours spent in class, I chuckled; but then I have a unique background in that I attended Osteopathic school first before attending chiropractic school. Medical education and Chiropractic education have many similarities in their basic sciences, when it comes to clinical education except for a Physical diagnosis course it is different.

3- You then write “but when you are entering a scientific profession part of your education must be to deal with reality. I am not anti-chiropractic...chiropractic has its place in helping lower back pain” Manual manipulation is a science, it is also an art. Look at the journal that you reference; JMPT is a great journal that is peer reviewed, and which many M.D.’s, D.O.’s, and D.C.’s contribute too. Also the link that you provide is to a COMMENTARY look at the abstract. Yes many chiropractors do silly things, that are not based on science or evidence, but don’t throw the baby out with the dish water. Chiropractic manipulation treats more than back pain, here is an example: Patient presents with pain in the upper thoracic region that is interfering with sleep and activities of daily living; tight/overactive upper Traps, and Levator scapulae, and a weak/inhibited deep neck flexors. He/She also has a tight/overactive Pectoralis major, and a weak/inhibited Rhomboids, and Serratus anterior. This condition is called “upper cross syndrome”. His/Her shoulders are internally rotated, he/she has a kyphotic thoracic spine, and a protracted scapulae. Treatment protocol would include:
a- Stretching short, tight overactive muscles (heat and stretch), and in my case I would teach her specific yoga poses directed towards those muscles.
b- Strengthening and facilitating weak or inhibited muscles (exercise and rehab.), in my case specific yoga postures that include eccentric strengthening of those muscles.
c- Posture and activity changes
d- Chiropractic manipulative treatment to the thoracic spine to facilitate neuromuscular changes.

4- You also said” Most chiropractic schools don't have many MD's or PhD’s teaching in them”. Again there is no need for an M.D. to teach at a Chiropractic school, but the rest of your statement is untrue. All accredited Chiropractic schools have Ph.D.’s teaching their basic sciences. Visit the site http://www.cce-usa.org/2003%20January%20STANDARDS.pdf
On page 18 of the manual you will find the standards given by the CCE (Council on Chiropractic Education, the accrediting body of Chiropractic schools).

5- You mention “I can understand you wanting to defend your previous profession …But there are way too many 'weirdo's in the profession and I can understand you wanting to distance yourself from people who are going to seminars to try and get patients to be patients for life,etc”
I am a Chiropractic physician, and I will always be one; I might further my education by attending med school after practicing for a year or two (to pay off all the loans I have accrued). You are right there are some “weirdos” in my profession (but then aren’t there weirdos in any profession?) I have distanced myself from them, by adhering to procedures that are based on science and evidence. But also know that there are many other chiropractors out there like me, I am not a minority. Also don’t family docs keep their patients for life, isn’t that the premise of family medicine, to treat the whole family?

If you find the field of manual medicine intriguing and you find it difficult to gain access to a domestic medical school (M.D. or D.O.), test yourself and attend a good science based Chiropractic school. You will find yourself struggling less than your future class mates (that only have an under-graduate education) in your first year and some courses in your second year of medical school.

While I’m at it, when acquiring another professional degree you choose which license you would like to practice with. The way I understand it you can not practice and hold two professional licenses simultaneously.

My motivation to attend medical school is to practice integrative medicine: using orthodox medicine (for lack of a better term), nutrition, yoga, acupuncture, and yes manual medicine. To heal the body, mind, and soul.

Let me close with one of my favorite quotes by B.K.S. Iyengar the man that wrote the “bible” of yoga and introduced the west to yoga.

The end of analysis is the beginning of discrimination. The end of discrimination is the beginning of knowledge.

dsfx · #22 (**permalink**) 09-22-2003, 09:41 AM

Shamanhir, just wanted to say thanks for letting azskeptic get some facts about chiro education. He appears to be a man, who voices his views about a profession he is not familiar with except for what he reads. Apparently not a Doctor of ant type or form, from what he has said in the past. He's not looking for our opinions on anything, just looking to bash a profession. If what we do is so unscientific why is there an an article on the current AMA web site about treatment of Otitis Media with OMT, he will just say that OMT's and CMT are different because one's done by a chiro and the other done by a Osteopath who is medically trained, and had his basic sciences taught by and MD or DO

jaysun0373 · #23 (**permalink**) 09-22-2003, 04:22 PM

Now, as both a Chiropractic physician and a friend of azskeptic, I feel I need to respond to this discussion to put it into its proper context. Azskeptic's replies are meant to spark discussion and debate, not to insult anyone personally. We, as Chiropractors, tend to be suspicious of others inquiries, and usually respond to any sort of question, as an attack on our credibility and training. I agree that basic sciences should only be taught be professors with degrees in those fields, usually a MS or PhD. For the clinical sciences, you would want a DC, because only a Chiropractor will be able to put the subject into it's proper context within our profession. For physical diagnosis, I believe that we are as good, if not better in just about every area. For example, I teach NMS exam procedures to IM and FP residents at several local hospitals, because I have had 3 years of training, not the 2 to 6 weeks they get. I am better at reading x-rays than most medical doctors, because I do it everyday. Azskeptic's inquiries are directed more at the terrible lack of conformity in our training, and the lack of exposure we get to conditions other than what we see everyday.
There are over 200 different technique systems in our profession, most of which do not stand up to the light of scientific scrutiny. There is little real policing of what we do, and even worse, what we say to the public. I truly believe that azskeptic's remarks and comments are only meant to get some of us to look at ourselves and our profession in the same light that the profession we are entering into is. Now, this not meant to spark a debate about who kills more people each year, or any kind of bashing of either profession. It's about acknowledging that the medical community does not allow the kind of freedom of practice that our owm currently does, and we will have to change fairly dramatically in the way we do things. Please do not look at his replies as an attack, just as a dialogue between intelligent and educated people. You cannot expect an outsider to understand the turmoil and difficulties we experience so often.
Sorry about the rant, just kind of came out........Jaysun

azskeptic · #24 (**permalink**) 09-22-2003, 04:34 PM

You are right..am not a doctor..don't profess to be one..just a consumer asking questions. That I question online med schools and those who attend them appears to bother some but it is my opinion and many other people's also,from talking to medical boards.

Have many friends who are chiropractors as well as MD's and DO's also and everyone has a place in this world.

Not bashing chiropractors..only bashing those who attempt to do half measures in getting educated as MD's. I applaud anyone who seeks education in new fields,such as medical training .

If you want to fight,you've come to the wrong person. Discussion is what I do.

Az Skeptic