Your help is needed IMMEDIATELY!
The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) has
posted three proposals involving:
1. Adoption of the ACC diagnosis policy, which the
Chiropractic Coalition opposes;
2. Mandatory physiotherapy instruction at all
chiropractic colleges; and
3. A provision that would permit a waiver of the
two-year requirement if an institution loses accreditation, but impose a
minimum wait of a full year for reapplication (few schools could survive a
whole year without accreditation).
These proposals are compelling evidence that the CCE
is proceeding with its “physician” agenda and must be vehemently
opposed! We must FLOOD the CCE with our comments.
Please submit your comments to the CCE
as soon as possible. The following “talking points” and
the sample letter can help, but it’s best if you put the comments in your own words,
and be sure to include your name and contact information. Send your
comments to:
The Council on Chiropractic Education
8049 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4321
Telephone: 480-443-8877
Fax: 480-483-7333
e-Mail:
cce@cce-usa.org
Also, send a copy of your letter to: Mr. Rod Paige,
U.S. Secretary of Education, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20202 … and to the World Chiropractic Alliance.
You must contact them before
January 5, 2004
in order to have your voice heard on these important issues!
=======
TALKING POINTS
Proposal 1 -- Definition of Diagnosis
Background: This proposal adopts the
definition of diagnosis developed by the ACC, which states that “a
diagnosis by a doctor of chiropractic includes obtaining pertinent patient
history; conducting physical, neurological, orthopedic, and other
appropriate examination procedures; ordering and interpreting specialized
diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests as indicated by symptoms and/or
clinical findings; and performing postural and functional biomechanical
analysis to determine the presence of articular dysfunction and/or
subluxation.”
Reasons for objecting to this proposal:
This definition:
a) could be interpreted to mean that chiropractors
MUST incorporate all the listed tests or procedures into their practice.
This could be corrected by changing “includes” to “may include” or by
specifying that “D.C.s are not required to use all of the diagnostic and
treatment modalities set forth in this section” (as in the California
chiropractic licensing statute).
b) could make doctors who limit their practices to
the detection and correction of vertebral subluxation vulnerable to
accusations of malpractice, board complaints, and exclusion from managed
health care programs.
c) does not include or mention spinal analysis or
palpation of the spine.
d) does not provide latitude for the unique needs of
each patient and replaces the judgment of the attending doctor with a
checklist of orthopedic and neurological tests that may be irrelevant to
the determination of neurological function in the context of subluxation.
e) characterizes subluxation as nothing more than a
postural or biomechanical problem. Eliminating the neurological element
not only jeopardizes the doctor who uses instrumentation to assess
neurological function, it contradicts the ACC statement concerning organ
system function and general health. This could be corrected by changing
the wording to: “performing appropriate postural and functional
biomechanical analysis, and/or using specialized procedures to determine
the presence of articular dysfunction and/or subluxation and its resultant
neurological dysfunction.”
Proposal 2 -- Physiological Therapeutics language
Background: This proposal would mandate
that “physiological therapeutics” instruction be included in all
accredited Doctor of Chiropractic programs.
Reasons for objecting to this proposal:
a) The use of adjunctive procedures is regulated by
state law. The use of procedures outside the state scope of practice may
result in charges of engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine,
and tort liability.
b) Although permitted in some states, the inclusion
of physiotherapy as a requirement in chiropractic education could cause
confusion about scope of practice.
c) A growing body of scientific literature reports
that passive physical modalities are of little or no value in addressing
musculoskeletal pain, and may actually prolong disability. Evidence for
this conclusion was provided in the Clinical Guidelines for the Management
of Acute Low Back Pain, produced by the Royal College of General
Practitioners in Great Britain and The AHCPR Guideline for Acute Low Back
Problems in Adults. The proposal gives an implied endorsement of the
procedures by the CCE, which contradicts this evidence and would therefore
not be in the best interests of the profession or the patients it serves.
Proposal 3 -- CCE Policy; Exceptions and Waivers
to the Standards
Background: The provision that would
permit a waiver of the two-year requirement if an institution loses
accreditation. However, it goes on to state that: “under no circumstances
will the reapplication waiting period be less than one (1) year from the
date of the COA’s denial of reaffirmation of accreditation, nor does the
granting of the exception or waiver of this procedural process assure that
the DCP is in compliance with the Standards.” This eliminates the ability
to grant waivers for reapplication of less than one year.
Reason for objecting to this proposal:
Few colleges could survive the loss of accreditation
for a full year. Even if the reasons for the loss of accreditation were
later found to be unfair, biased or otherwise improper, the school would
be severely damaged. There is no compelling reason to deny a college the
right to seek a waiver in less than a year.
