Question:
Something strange about that though; sometimes art alone worked. Ormore accurately, the patient believed that it worked. Now Descartescomes before the horse (math and science before art) but faith in thedoctor and in the treatment is as important as ever.Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum, eh? Art alone obviously didn't workdependably enough to forestall the development of modern medicine. Even themost avid belief is incapable of overcoming the stark reality of physicallaws. Legions have gone to their graves with a "faith in the shaman (youseem to prefer this embodiment, although you use the term 'doctor'), when anantibiotic would have kept them alive. You invest much too "meta" inmetaphysical. Does the chiropractic faith require it?

Answer: This discussion really rests on the variable positions of twophilosophies; vitalism vs. mechanism. Ted Koren, DC (anothercharacter you'd like), wrote this paper on the subject:

Two Systems in Contrast

Medical historian Dr. Harris L. Coulter's, four-volume Divided Legacyis must reading for chiropractors. 1 He discusses the continuing2,500-year struggle between two internally logical, yet contrastingsystems of healing philosophy - vitalism (also known as empiricism)and mechanism (also known as rationalism). They differ markedly onconcepts such as "disease," "cause" and "symptom," the principles oftherapy, the relationship between theory and practice - in a word, allelements of a medical philosophy.

Throughout history, the pendulum of acceptance and power has swungbetween them. Mechanism's recent domination (in the form of allopathy)began at the turn of the 20th century, but its limitations andextremes have resulted in increasing numbers of individuals turning tothe vitalist approach found in alternative healing practices gainingwide acceptance today. We appear to be in a transition period now.Historically, the swing back to vitalism has helped spark neededreforms in mechanism.

In volume 4 of Divided Legacy, Coulter describes the major differencebetween the two doctrines as the espousal of vitalism by theempiricists vs. rationalism's mechanistic or chemical understanding ofthe living organism. For that reason, we must clarify what is meant byvitalism.

Although it is often believed that vitalism is about life energies(anima, elan vital, prana, pneuma, chi, ki, life force, etc.) it isreally about biological laws. Vitalism states that the laws governingliving organisms differ from those of lifeless matter. The organism isreactive, at all times coping with, and attempting to overcome, thestresses, which impinge upon it from outside. It behaves purposively,the nature and form of its reaction being determined by the specificenvironmental stress it encounters. It responds to challenge, which noaggregate or assembly of non-living substances can ever do.

This does not mean that organic matter possesses unique features thatdiffer from inorganic matter. After all, chemists are able to create"organic" molecules; urea was synthesized over 100 years ago.

Among chiropractic's vitalist assumptions are the following:

The body is intelligent and behaves in a purposive way. There issomething inside living creatures which causes them to respond andlearn - things a mere collection of chemicals can never do. Tomechanists, the body is a collection of chemicals obeying general lawsof chemistry, physics and mechanics. Illness is seen as a reactive,curative response and symptoms as beneficial phenomena, which shouldnot be suppressed or eliminated. To mechanists, the symptom isintrinsically harmful and must be removed or combated.

Vitalist therapeutics seeks to strengthen the patient's powers ofresistance and compensate for the predisposition to become ill.Mechanism is far less interested in the body's resistance orpredisposition; in general, mechanism is more concerned with the"disease" than with the host organism. 2

Traditional chiropractic, classical homeopathy, classical osteopathy,classical acupuncture and many other healing systems are vitalist intheir approach, while allopathy is mechanistic.

Chiropractic, as a vitalist healing philosophy, science and art, isnot limited to patients with certain conditions, but instead isapplicable to all individuals, no matter what their presentingsymptoms, who have vertebral subluxations, spinal distortionsinterfering with their nervous system interrupting their connection tothe innate (or inborn) intelligence that runs their body. Free ofspinal nerve interference, the individual must benefit.

As the pendulum now swings back to vitalism, the excesses of themedical (rationalist) model are increasingly revealed.

Limitations of the Medical Approach

Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, quotes Dr. DavidEddy whose landmark work revealed that up to 85 percent of medicalinterventions are not supported by scientific evidence and only 1percent of papers in medical journals are scientifically sound. 2Similarly, 85 to 90 percent of all surgical procedures performed maybe experimental. 3

That is one reason why allopathic medicine is now considered the thirdor fourth leading cause of death in the United States. 4 Recently itwas revealed that, in 1994 in the U.S., 106,000 persons died inhospitals from adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to properly prescribedmedications. This figure accounts for nearly 5 percent of all causesof recorded death in that year. However, only 156 death certificateslisted ADRs as the cause of death. 5 Further, it is unknown what thefigure would be if those in nursing homes, hospices and the generalpopulation were included.

Additionally, more than 100,000 people die from infections theyacquired while in the hospital (one of 10 people who enter thehospital get an infection). About 180,000 die from medicalmalpractice, including missed diagnoses, medication mishaps and otherpreventable errors. Medical errors account for up to a quarter of thedeaths from heart attack, stroke and pneumonia. The list goes on andon.

Childhood vaccinations are now being questioned as a possible factorbehind the explosive increases in dyslexia, attention deficitdisorder, hyperactivity, allergies, asthma, autism, arthritis,leukemia, brain cancers and other conditions that were quite rarebefore mass immunization. Have we traded acute infectious diseases ofchildhood for chronic disease? The cost benefits of childhoodvaccination programs are now being questioned more seriously.

These are just some examples of the limitations, and in many cases,the failures of the medical (rationalist) approach to health care. Isit any wonder that the public is turning to chiropractors and othervitalist healers in record numbers?6 Is it any wonder that medicaldoctors are increasingly learning complementary and alternativemedicine to win back the patients who are searching for the far moregentle, natural, holistic care that chiropractors offer? 7

However, there are those chiropractors who, during this tumultuoustransition period, appear willing to renounce the philosophy, scienceand art that our chiropractic forefathers fought and struggled for inorder to create a separate and distinct profession. Instead, they rushto embrace the failed and failing mechanistic approach to health anddisease. They wish to go as far as to create guidelines based onmedical standards to define chiropractic practice. Surely that is badtiming, at its worst.

In our desire to create chiropractic guidelines, we must firstdetermine the most effective instrument by which to judge thisempirical or vitalist healing art. Chiropractors have long noticedthat adjustments affect the patient on many levels. How may we bestevaluate a health-care intervention that has benefited individualswith conditions as diverse as bed-wetting, allergies, musculoskeletalpain, sciatica, bronchial asthma, headaches and migraines, learningdisorders, chronic pain, dysmenorrhea, infertility, psychiatricdisorders, colic, vision problems, deafness, digestive disorders andmany, many others?

Since the purpose of the spinal adjustment is the correction of theVSC, not the treatment of conditions, chiropractic, along with othervitalist healing arts may not be amenable to the testing procedures ofthe (medical/pharmaceutical) randomized controlled clinical trial.Indeed, there is presently much debate as to the proper standards andprotocols to evaluate alternative health care.

Outcome studies hold promise because they highlight the holisticapproach of vitalist health care in caring for the person who may ormay not have a named disease, rather than the "disease entity," whichis a mechanistic approach.

Improved Quality of Life And Wellness

For example, one study of a self-reported retrospectivecharacterization of 2,818 patients under Network Chiropractic SpinalAnalysis (a technique that employs gentle touches to the spine atcritical points of stress to assist the body to dissipate andeliminate stored mechanical tension/energy in the neurological systemto enhances self regulation) revealed that chiropractic recipientsreported significant improvement in overall quality of life. 8

The reported outcomes reflected a positive clinical effect in everyhealth-related domain investigated: physical state, mental/emotionalstate, stress and life enjoyment. Moreover, patients who had beenunder care the longest time reported greatest perceived improvement inwellness.